EPA Can't Achieve Children's Health Goals With A Voluntary Program

Jul 21: U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report entitled, EPA's Voluntary Chemical Evaluation Program Did Not Achieve Children's Health Protection Goals (No. 11-P-0379, July 21, 2011). OIG indicates that it conducted the review to determine the outcomes of EPA's Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) toward meeting its original goal and the goals outlined under the Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative (ChemRTK).

 

    Executive Order (EO) 13045 directed Federal agencies to place a high priority on protecting children from environmental and safety risks. The goal of the 1998 ChemRTK was to give citizens information on the effects of chemicals to enable them to make informed choices in the home and marketplace. ChemRTK satisfied EO 13045 by directing EPA to undertake testing on chemicals to which children are disproportionately exposed. EPA accordingly established the VCCEP pilot.

 

    OIG found that the VCCEP pilot did not achieve its goals to design a process to assess and report on the safety of chemicals to children. The pilot's design did not allow for desired outcomes to be produced. Specifically, the pilot had a flawed chemical selection process and lacked an effective communication strategy. Programmatic effectiveness was hampered by industry partners who chose not to voluntarily collect and submit information, and EPA's decision not to exercise its regulatory authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)  to compel data collection. EPA has not demonstrated that it can achieve children's health goals with a voluntary program. The VCCEP is no longer operational, and the Agency has no plans to revive, replace, or terminate the program. As a result, the Agency is not meeting the intent of EO 13045, ChemRTK, or the VCCEP pilot, and there remains no readily understandable source of chemical exposure information that the general public can access to determine potential risks to children.

 

    OIG recommends that EPA design and implement a new process to assess the safety of chemicals to children that: (1) identifies the chemicals with highest potential risk to children; (2) applies TSCA regulatory authorities as appropriate for data collection; (3) interprets results and disseminates information to the public; and (4) includes outcome measures that assure valid and timely results.

 

    OIG reported that the Agency concurred with the findings, indicating that work ongoing by the existing chemicals program addresses many of OIG's concerns. EPA agreed with OIG recommendations related to improving its chemical selection process and developing performance measures for children's health protection. EPA did not explicitly agree to develop a workable data collection strategy for applying TSCA regulatory authorities or a communications strategy for public information dissemination, but provided information on the program's current activities. Also, no target dates were provided by which to assess the completion of EPA's actions taken to address the OIG recommendations.

 

    Access the complete 30-page report (click here). [#Toxics]

Michigan Delegation Warns President On CAFE Standards

Jul 22: The entire Michigan delegation, with the exception of Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D), sent a letter to President Obama saying the Administration's current proposals for new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) are overly aggressive and may exceed what is technologically achievable for U.S. automakers. The said the proposal would put U.S automakers at a disadvantage and may prevent them from selling larger vehicles that U.S. consumers want to buy. The Administration is on schedule to complete a CAFE proposal this September and plans to make a final decision by July 2012. The complete letter follows:

 

    "We write to you today on the issue of a single national program for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for model years 2017-2025. This issue, if handled in the wrong way, would have a negative effect on our economy, stalling our economic recovery, and would result in critical American job losses with no benefit to the environment. The Center for Automotive Research recently published a report, based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, which suggested that overly stringent standards would cost approximately 260,000 jobs and add $10,000 to the cost of a new vehicle. An unsound program would both negatively impact U.S. jobs and drive consumers to used car lots for vehicles that are less fuel efficient, which would be a loss to environmental progress.

 

    "We are deeply concerned that the Administration's 'starting' proposal of a five percent annual increase for cars and light trucks -- to reach a goal of 56.2 miles per gallon in 2025 -- is overly aggressive and not reasonably feasible. Such a proposal would push beyond the limits of reasonably feasible technology development and would have significant negative ramifications for U.S. jobs and competitiveness. Technology and economics must reasonably support the targets and goals for fuel economy improvement and greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and we are concerned that the Administration's current approach is not leading in that direction. With that in mind, as members of the Michigan delegation, we want to bring to your attention several issues of concern in the ongoing discussions and suggest an approach to help bring the parties to an agreement.

 

    "We understand that the Administration is now considering a 3.5 percent annual increase for light duty trucks for 2017-2021 and is working with the auto manufacturers to determine what flexibilities would be required to achieve that target. We also understand that the Administration is considering the possibility of a different approach for certain work trucks. While we appreciate the Administration's efforts to understand the auto manufacturers' future product plans, to understand the constraints the companies would face in meeting aggressive targets, and to offer credits and flexibilities to help with compliance, we believe that the overall targets currently proposed may exceed what is technologically achievable for the U.S. automakers that produce and sell the majority of the larger pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles that U.S. families and businesses -- and tens of thousands of autoworkers -- depend upon.

 

    "More significantly, we are concerned that the Administration's current approach for light duty trucks may have a discriminatory impact on these U.S. manufacturers. An approach to higher fuel economy that relies on the generation of credits from other than truck classes to reach compliance is not sustainable over the long-term and could have detrimental effects on U.S. automakers by expanding the gap between the regulatory requirements and what is technologically and economically achievable. This approach will put an increasingly heavy burden on U.S. auto manufacturers, who already must rely on credits earned for high fuel economy passenger cars to reach the aggressive fuel economy targets for light duty trucks in the regulatory requirements for model years 2012-2016, and may prevent them from selling these larger vehicles that U.S. consumers want to buy. Meanwhile, manufacturers that produce primarily smaller vehicles will have an unfair competitive advantage and will still be able to sell these larger vehicles that are no more fuel efficient. In other words, this has the potential to negate the significant reforms achieved by the Congress in 2007 that eliminated the discriminatory features of the old corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) system.

 

    "We are also deeply concerned about the Administration's plans for model years 2022-2025. As you know, the proposed standards cover a time horizon that is unprecedented in the history of fuel economy rulemaking. The initial year of the new standards is five model years away, and the endpoint stretches nearly fifteen years into the future. No previous fuel economy rulemaking has exceeded five model years or had a starting point so far into the future. That is why Congress has limited the authority of NHTSA to set fuel economy standards to no more than five model years at a time -- in this case, 2017-2021. The purpose of the five-year limitation was to prevent standards being set too far out into the future, based on speculation or unreliable market and technology projections including the cost of technology, the cost of fuel, and consumer acceptance. Some of the undersigned question EPA's authority to regulate motor vehicle fuel economy, directly or indirectly. However, if that authority is accepted, we believe that the same limitation of five years is appropriate for EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

    "At a minimum, if the White House insists upon setting standards for 2022-2025, those standards should only go into effect if a mid-term review confirmed that the underlying assumptions were met and should specify that, in the absence of that confirmation, both agencies would commence a new rulemaking for that period. The burden of proof should be on the longer period -- not the shorter one. Furthermore, there must be a clear mechanism for ensuring that any EPA regulations that go into effect are coordinated with the NHTSA rulemaking process and harmonized to continue a single national program for 2022-2025. Similarly, allowing California to be able to wield undue influence is simply not acceptable. Finally, we believe that the mid-term review should include a comprehensive joint agency assessment of the auto manufacturers' experience with the 2012-2016 and 2017+ rules to date at the time of the review to determine whether there have been any problems or concerns that would suggest a need for mid-course adjustments.

 

    "We need a balanced approach to fuel economy regulation with reasonable and achievable targets that will reduce our consumption of oil and greenhouse gas emissions while preserving U.S. jobs and promoting U.S. manufacturing. We do not believe the Administration's current proposal will achieve that balanced approach and believe instead it could have a detrimental effect on the U.S. economy. We urge you to consider further the Administration's thinking in these areas -- with special focus on the two issues we have raised -- and consider carefully the potential impact on U.S. jobs and U.S. manufacturing.

 

    "As a delegation, we bring to the table a range of views on this issue. However, with the Michigan unemployment rate standing at 10.5 percent, we are unanimous in our concern about the consequences of an excessive proposal, and we urge you to continue to work closely with U.S. manufacturers who have the most at stake. In that regard, we urge the Administration to sit down promptly and at one time with all three domestic auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers to work through an acceptable solution to these issues."

 

    The letter was signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D) and Debbie Stabenow (D), as well as Reps. Fred Upton (R), John Dingell (D), Dale Kildee (D), Dave Camp (R), Mike Rogers (R), Sandy Levin (D), Candice Miller (R), Gary Peters (D), Thaddeus McCotter (R), Justin Amash (R), Tim Walberg (R), Bill Huizenga (R), Hansen Clarke (D) and Dan Benishek (R). Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D) did not sign the letter.

   

    On May 10, 2011, NHTSA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement [76 FR 26996-27000] to consider the potential environmental impacts of new fuel economy standards for model years (MY) 2017–2025 passenger cars and light trucks that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The action will be part of a joint rulemaking with EPA, in which EPA plans to issue greenhouse gas standards for the same model year vehicles. This is the second phase of a National Program under which the two agencies establish harmonized requirements to improve the fuel economy and reduce the GHG emissions of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.

   

    In a related matter, Ceres, a national coalition of leading institutional investors and environmental groups, launched an ad campaign today (July 22) promoting the economic benefits of higher fuel efficiency standards, citing recent expert research and polling. The ad campaign, which begins with radio spots in Washington DC and Michigan, is in response to news that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) had launched a radio ad campaign claiming adverse economic impacts from strong CAFE standards. Ceres President Mindy Lubber said, "The facts are clear, a 60 mpg standard will restore American automakers to a place of global leadership. Higher standards will create new jobs by encouraging automakers to build more of the fuel efficient cars and trucks that drivers want to buy."

    The Ceres radio spots are part of a multiplatform campaign that includes radio, print and online social media advertising in heartland states and the nation's capital. John DeCicco, a faculty fellow at the University of Michigan's Energy Institute said, "American's overwhelming support for higher fuel efficiency standards matches what is technologically feasible. His report, "A Fuel Efficiency Horizon for US Automobiles," shows how optimal use of available and affordable technologies can push new fleet efficiency as high as 74 mpg assuming adequate lead time.

    Recent polling commissioned by Ceres of likely Michigan and Ohio voters shows: 80% of likely Ohio voters and 76% of likely Michigan voters believe a national 60 mpg standard will encourage American car makers to innovate, boosting sales and protecting American auto jobs. Ceres said in Michigan and Ohio -- the heart of the American auto industry -- likely voters overwhelmingly support the 60 mpg fuel efficiency standard. They cite: 78% of likely Michigan voters and 79% of likely Ohio voters say they support 60 mpg; 68% of likely voters in Michigan auto industry households and 72% of likely voters in Michigan manufacturing households support 60 mpg; and 84% of likely voters in Ohio auto industry households and 74% of likely voters in Ohio manufacturing households support 60 mpg.   

    Access the letter (click here). Access a CAFE overview from the NHTSA website (click here). Access EPA's Fuel Economy website (click here). Access the May 10 FR announcement (click here). Access the NHTSA docket for this action (click here). Access a release from CERES with multiple links to related information (click here). [*Energy/Efficiency, *Transportation/CAFE, *Climate] 

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Extend Time On "Boiler MACT" Rules

Jul 20: U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced bipartisan legislation (S.1392) which they say would allow the U.S. EPA the time it has said it needs to adequately consider new "Boiler MACT" rules [See WIMS 6/24/11]. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

    In April 2010, pursuant to court orders, EPA first announced new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations on many fossil fuel and biomass-fired boilers in the United States. Recognizing that it needed more data and time to write the rule, in December 2010, EPA requested a 15-month extension to rework and finalize the rule, and to receive further public comment, which was rejected by a court. When EPA issued the rule in February of 2011, it immediately proposed that it be open to comment and revision. The bill introduced by the Senators would establish a clear timetable and conditions for reissuance of the regulations.

    Specifically, the bipartisan legislation would:

• Give EPA 15 months from the bill's date of enactment to re-propose and finalize the Boiler MACT regulations.
• Extend compliance deadlines from three years to at least five years which would allow facilities adequate time to comply with the new standards and install necessary equipment.
• Clarify that renewable and carbon-neutral materials remain classified as fuel and not solid waste.
• Direct EPA to ensure that the new rules are achievable by real-world boilers, process heaters, and incinerators, and impose the least burdensome regulator alternatives consistent with the President's Executive Order.

    Senator Collins said, "The EPA performs vital functions in helping to protect the public health by ensuring that the air we breathe is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to make sure that as the EPA issues new regulations, it does not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it discourages private investment, which is the key to maintaining and creating jobs. At a time when manufacturers are struggling to retain jobs, it is essential that this rule not jeopardize thousands of jobs in manufacturing, particularly in the forest products industry, by imposing billions of dollars of new costs. Our legislation provides common sense solutions to the challenges the EPA is facing in attempting to implement these complicated rules, which if written without proper data, analysis, and consideration, would cost the industry billions of dollars and potentially thousands of jobs."

    Senator Wyden said, "EPA itself has admitted that its boiler rules need to be fixed. As they are written now, the rules will stymie the burgeoning biomass energy industry and make it very difficult for existing lumber and wood products mills to operate. This legislation directs the EPA to go back to the drawing board and craft boiler rules that are more in line with what is realistic for mills and factories and does not restrict future use of biomass energy."

    The legislation is supported by the American Forest and Paper Association, National Association of Manufacturing, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, Business Roundtable, Biomass Power Association, and approximately 25 other national associations.

 

    On June 24, as part of a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, U.S. EPA has set a schedule for issuing updated air toxics standards for boilers and certain solid waste incinerators (i.e. "Boiler MACT" rules). EPA said that to ensure that the standards are based on the best available data and the public is given ample opportunity to provide additional input and information, it would propose standards to be reconsidered by the end of October 2011 and issue final standards by the end of April 2012. EPA said that "this is the best approach to put in place technically and legally sound standards that will bring significant health benefits to the American public." [See WIMS 6/24/11].

 

    On June 22, responding to what they say are "urgent calls from job creators across a range of industries, bipartisan members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce have introduced H.R.2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. The proposal would direct EPA to develop achievable standards affecting non-utility boilers and incinerators and grants additional time for development of and compliance with the rules. The legislation would stay the boiler and incinerator rules and calls for EPA to repropose the rules within 15 months and extend compliance times from 3 to 5 years [See WIMS 6/22/11].

 

    Access a release from Senator Collins including a link to the industry support letter (click here). Access legislative details for S.1392 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2250 (click here). Access complete information and background on the Boiler MACT rule from EPA (click here). [*Air]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Administration's National Strategy For Electronics Stewardship

Jul 20: At an event in Austin, Texas, at a certified electronics recycling center, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, General Services (GSA) Administrator Martha Johnson, and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley were joined by the CEOs of Dell Inc. and Sprint, and senior executives from Sony Electronics to release the Obama Administration's "National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship" -- a strategy for the responsible electronic design, purchasing, management and recycling which the Administration says "will promote the burgeoning electronics recycling market and jobs of the future here at home."

 

    The announcement includes the first voluntary commitments made by Dell, Sprint and Sony to EPA's industry partnership aimed at promoting environmentally sound management of used electronics. The Administration's strategy also commits the Federal government to take specific actions that will encourage more environmentally-friendly design of electronic products; promote recycling of used or discarded electronics; and advance a domestic market for electronics recycling that will protect public health and create jobs.

    According to a release from EPA, every year, Americans generate almost 2.5 million tons of used electronics, which are made from valuable resources such as precious metals and rare earth materials, as well as plastic and glass. From computers and cell phones, to portable communication and music devices -- United States is, and will continue to be, a global leader in designing and developing new and improved electronic technologies. The responsible management of electronics provides an opportunity to create economic development and jobs by developing a strong domestic electronics recycling market while preventing pollution at home and abroad.

    As outlined in the strategy report, the Federal government will: promote the development of more efficient and sustainable electronic products; direct federal agencies to buy, use, reuse and recycle their electronics responsibly; support recycling options and systems for American consumers; and strengthen America's role in the international electronics stewardship arena.

    Under the strategy, GSA will remove products that do not comply with comprehensive and robust energy efficiency or environmental performance standards -- from its information technology purchase contracts used by Federal agencies, and will ensure that all electronics used by the Federal government are reused or recycled properly. In addition, EPA and GSA will promote development of new environmental performance standards for categories of electronic products not covered by current standards. Several Federal agencies will work together to identify methods for tracking used electronics in Federal agencies to move toward reuse and recycling.

    A key component of this strategy includes the use of certified recyclers and increasing safe and effective management and handling of used electronics in the United States and working with industry in a collaborative manner to achieve that goal. As a first step in this effort, Administrator Jackson signed a voluntary commitment with Dell Inc. CEO Michael Dell and Sprint CEO Dan Hesse to promote a U.S. based electronics recycling market. Sony Electronics Inc. representatives were also present and also committed to improving the safe management of used electronics.

    The collaboration with industry aims to encourage businesses and consumers to recycle their electronics with certified recyclers, and for electronic recyclers to become certified. There are two existing domestic third-party certification recycling entities, R2 (independent nonprofit affiliated with Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and E-Stewards (operated by the Basel Action Network). The electronics recycling industry is increasingly embracing these certification programs. Certified recyclers are regularly audited by these certification entities to ensure that electronics are recycled in a manner that is safe for human health and the environment. As the next steps in this collaborative effort, EPA will continue to work with industry to encourage other companies to voluntarily commit to help grow the domestic recycling market, create the green jobs of the future in the United States and educate consumers. 

    Administrator Jackson said, "A robust electronics recycling industry in America would create new opportunities to efficiently and profitably address a growing pollution threat. The participation of industry leaders like Dell, Sprint and Sony is absolutely essential to this effort, and will help ensure that the work of the federal government -- the largest electronics consumer around -- is protecting our people from pollution at the same time we support savings and job creation through e-cycling and re-use of valuable materials."

    Nancy Sutley, CEQ Chair said, "Through a strong federal partnership, and coordination with manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, State and local governments, and other stakeholders, the actions outlined here will help address the potential health and environmental problems caused by the mismanagement of discarded electronics. This strategy will encourage the recycling of these valuable resources and allow the U.S. to take advantage of the economic opportunities of remanufacturing and create jobs of the future here in America." GSA Administrator Martha Johnson said, "The Nation's largest single consumer of electronics, the Federal Government, will now be the Nation's most responsible user of electronics. The steps outlined in the report will ensure that government leads by example and that the billions of dollars in IT equipment the government cycles through annually will be either reused or recycled properly."

   

    According to the Strategy report, it provides four overarching goals. Action items under each goal are identified and the projects that will implement each action item are listed. These recommendations are summarized described in more detail in the main body of the report. The four major goals are:

• Build Incentives for Design of Greener Electronics, and Enhance Science, Research and Technology Development in the United States
• Ensure that the Federal Government Leads By Example
• Increase Safe and Effective Management and Handling of Used Electronics in the United States

• Reduce Harm from US Exports of E-Waste and Improve Safe Handling of Used Electronics in Developing Countries

    An on-line annex of benchmarks of projects under each of the goals is posted on Internet and lists each of the projects, the primary agency responsible for the project and any agencies supporting the primary agency in that effort, and the target date for completion of the project. As the National Strategy is developed in further detail by the departments and agencies, and as the Strategy is implemented, the annex will be updated. As appropriate, action items and projects under them may be realigned as efficiencies and opportunities for further improvement are identified.

    The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) issued a release applauding the Obama Administration "for taking concrete, practical steps to address how the U.S. Government will manage its used and end-of-life electronics while refuting an effort to ban such legitimate international trade, a move that would deliver a serious blow to the vibrant U.S. scrap recycling industry." ISRI President Robin Wiener said, "the Administration's announcement closely mirrored ISRI's position for stepped up enforcement of the federal CRT [Cathode Ray Tubes] rule to stop illegal exports, increased third-party certifications of responsible recyclers and continued exchange of U.S. technology and best practices to help strengthen the environmentally responsible processing of electronics globally."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the 34-page National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship (click here). Access the  Agency Benchmarks to the Federal National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship (click here). Access the Federal Government Electronics Stewardship website for extensive information (click here). Access EPA's Electronics Stewardship website for additional information (click here). Access the GSA's electronic stewardship goals and promoting Federal agencies' purchasing Environmentally Preferable Products (click here). Access the e-Stewards website (click here). Access the R2 website (click here). Access various WIMS articles regarding electronic waste, e-Stewards and R2 (click here). Access the release from ISRI (click here). [*Haz, *Toxics, *P2]

Senate Hearing On "The Future of Natural Gas"

Jul 19: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) held a hearing entitled, "The Future of Natural Gas." Witnesses included: Dr. Howard Gruenspecht, Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration (EIA); Dr. Ernest Moniz, Co-Director, MIT Coal Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and George J. Biltz, Vice President, Energy and Climate Change, The Dow Chemical Company. Among other things the hearing explored a new MIT study on U.S. natural gas supplies.

 

    In an opening statement, Chairman Bingaman outlined five major factors that have combined to raise the prominence of natural gas as a resource.

(1) First, the new application of technologies such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has led to an increase in domestic natural gas production and a reassessment of the size of the U.S. technically recoverable resource base.

(2) Second, the international focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change has favored the lower carbon intensity of natural gas for power generation. 

(3) The third factor is the recent tragedy in Japan at the Fukushima nuclear plant has led both Japanese and German officials to speak strongly about fuel switching to natural gas to replace, or at least supplement, their remaining nuclear fleet.

(4) The fourth factor is concerns about our dependence on foreign oil, which have led some to propose switching our cars and trucks from imported gasoline and diesel fuel to domestic natural gas. 

(5) Fifth, proponents of domestic manufacturing have argued that a larger, more stable gas supply at competitive prices will lead to a resurgence of investment in manufacturing and job creation, which is very much desired.

    Bingaman said, "So, in the past several years, there has been an increase in the estimates of natural gas resources available at relatively low prices, leading many experts to suggest that we may now be entering 'a golden age of gas.' I'll leave those specific projections to our witnesses. But, I believe there is agreement that there is a greatly expanded unconventional gas resource available domestically, with potentially 100 years or more gas available if current rates of usage are maintained. This change in the resource base has already had significant impacts on investment decisions in the power sector, in manufacturing and in transportation, and many expect it to continue doing so far into the future. There are many reasons to be optimistic about the natural gas resource that recently have been discussed, but recent history suggests we should be cautious as well. . . 

 

    "The promise of expanded domestic gas resources comes with the responsibility to address environmental concerns about their exploration and production. Recently, the public has expressed concerns that relate to the wastewater management of flowback fluids from natural gas wells, as well as potential for groundwater contamination. The issue of induced seismicity from oil and gas extraction-related activities has been raised. And the National Academy of Sciences study is now being undertaken both at Secretary Chu's and my request. I expect that the environmental concerns related to developing unconventional gas resources can be managed, but only if they are addressed through a transparent and diligent and safe approach to wellsite management throughout each stage of the gas extraction process. . ."

 

    Senator Murkowski said in an opening statement, ". . .Natural gas is clean-burning and abundant; it's well understood and scalable; and it's clearly in our best interest to ensure that we maintain a stable and affordable supply going forward. One of the easiest observations to make is that we're now in the midst of a truly exciting time for the natural gas industry. Just in the past several years, we've witnessed game-changing technological innovations that have unlocked tremendous volumes of previously inaccessible natural gas. . . If this was 2005, our opening statements would probably have expressed at least some concern about our ability to ensure that supply kept pace with demand.  Prices were trending higher, and many forecasts suggested that we'd become increasingly dependent on foreign LNG. . .

 

    "Natural gas was once thought of as "too precious to burn" but that's changed, and for the better.  When I look at the deeply troubling situation in North Africa and the Middle East, I don't see a future where we can afford to play politics with energy at the national level.  The rest of the world has already figured that out, and I'm hopeful we're beginning to see this reality, as well. I'd like to add that developing all of our resources in a responsible way is of paramount importance, and natural gas is no exception. We cannot realize the many benefits of our tremendous natural gas resource unless we commit to safe, environmentally acceptable production and delivery, within a framework of appropriate regulation and access. Contrary to some reports, the industry actually has a very exemplary record in this regard.  I welcome its efforts to proactively seek ways to increase transparency and improve the efficiency of the extraction process. . ."

 

    EIA testified that after a decade of stagnation, U. S. natural gas production increased by almost 17 percent between 2006 and 2010, reaching 21.6 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2010, the highest level since 1973. Production has continued to increase despite a significant and sustained decline in natural gas prices since mid-2008. The growth in U.S. supplies over the past few years is largely the result of increases in production from shale gas formations. Shale gas production grew from less than 3 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d), representing 5 percent of overall production in 2006, to 13 bcf/d, accounting for 23 percent of overall production in 2010.

 

    Natural gas provides about 25 percent of the primary energy used in the United States, heating about half of U.S. homes, generating almost one-fourth of U.S. electricity, and providing an important fuel and feedstock for industry. About 31 percent of the natural gas consumed in 2010 was used for electric power generation, 33 percent for industrial purposes, and 34 percent in residential and commercial buildings. Only a small portion is used in the transportation sector, predominately at pipeline compressor stations, although some is used for vehicles. EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2011 uses a total resource estimate for U.S. natural gas (onshore and offshore, including Alaska) of 2,543 Tcf, including 862 Tcf of shale gas, (35 Tcf of proved reserves plus 827 Tcf of technically recoverable unproved resources.)

   

    On the MIT Future of Natural Gas study, which is the fourth in a series that presents the results of an integrated technically-grounded analysis, MIT testified, "we find that, given the large amounts of natural gas available in the U.S. at moderate cost (enabled to a large degree by the shale gas resource), natural gas can indeed play an important role over the next couple of decades (together with demand management) in economically advancing a clean energy system. However, with increasingly stringent carbon dioxide emissions reductions, natural gas would eventually become too carbon intensive, which highlights the importance of a robust innovation program for zero-carbon options. We all recognize that today there is controversy about natural gas and its availability and affordability and about environmental impacts from its production and distribution."

 

    The MIT study concludes in part that, "In a carbon-constrained economy, the relative importance of natural gas is likely to increase even further, as it is one of the most cost-effective means by which to maintain energy supplies while reducing CO2 emissions. This is particularly true in the electric power sector, where, in the U.S., natural gas sets the cost benchmark against which other clean power sources must compete to remove the marginal ton of CO2. In the U.S., a combination of demand reduction and displacement of coal-fired power by gas-fired generation is the lowest cost way to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 50%. For more stringent CO2 emissions reductions, further de-carbonization of the energy sector will be required; but natural gas provides a cost-effective bridge to such a low-carbon future."

 

    Dow Chemical Company submitted 42-pages of testimony including an American Chemical Council (ACC) study on shale gas, describing the company's "views on natural gas supply and demand, and the value-add created by U.S. manufacturers who use natural gas. Dow believes that natural gas will play a critical role in US energy policy. Because US manufacturing jobs are dependent on the US natural gas market, policies that impact natural gas will have a direct impact on jobs in the US manufacturing sector. We recommend that any natural gas policies carefully consider the need to preserve and enhance the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers."

 

    Dow indicated that, "US manufacturers provide the highest value-add of any sector. Using natural gas to make petrochemicals results in eight times the value over simply combusting it. This productivity stems from the fact that the chemical industry uses natural gas not just for fuel and power, but also as a raw material or 'feedstock.' When natural gas prices are low relative to oil, US chemical manufacturers have a competitive advantage."

 

    Dow said it is in "general agreement" with the MIT report, but said it "has concerns, however, with two of the report's recommendations. While the study does not openly call for government subsidies for natural gas vehicles, it does call for the government to revise its policies related to CNG vehicles in order to lower up-front costs of such vehicles and the necessary infrastructure. The study also does not recognize another fact: Electric vehicles are three times more efficient than natural gas vehicles. In addition, the infrastructure for an overnight, low-voltage charging infrastructure already exists -- our power grid -- and it is cheaper to scale up.

 

    "The second disagreement relates to the development of an efficient and integrated global gas market. It [the report] states, 'Greater international market liquidity would be beneficial to U.S. interests. U.S. prices for natural gas would be lower than under current regional markets, leading to more gas use in the U.S." It is hard to understand how this can be. The U.S. has very competitive natural gas prices and exposing it to the rest of the world, where prices are linked to oil price, will not lower domestic prices. In our view, a global market will raise US prices which will be bad for competitiveness of all US energy intensive industries including chemicals. If the US were to begin exporting natural gas, the world market would equilibrate to one world price (with transportation cost differences) which would bring lower prices outside the US and higher prices for US consumers. . ."

 

    Access Sen. Bingaman's opening statement (click here). Access Sen. Murkowski's opening statement (click here). Access the hearing website for links to testimony and a webcast (click here). Access a link to the complete and extensive MIT report (click here). [*Energy/NatGas]

Final LRRP Rule Says Lead-Dust Clearance Testing Unnecessary

Jul 15: As part of a settlement of litigation over certain post-renovation cleaning requirements of the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (LRRP) rule, U.S. EPA agreed to propose a number of revisions to the 2008 LRRP rule that established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities and to subsequently take final action on the proposed rule by July 15, 2011. The action is EPA's final action on all aspects of the May 6, 2010 proposal and will become effective 60-days after publication in the Federal Register which is currently expected to occur in the week of July 24, 2011. EPA said, "The Agency is not imposing additional "clearance" requirements because existing LRRP work practices and cleaning protocols effectively reduce lead hazards."

 

    EPA indicated it has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testing and clearance requirements as proposed. However, EPA is promulgating several other revisions to the LRRP rule, including a provision allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu of using a lead test kit, minor changes to the training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation projects, the prohibited or restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums.

 

    In further explanation EPA said, "After carefully weighing the issues at stake and considering the concerns raised by commenters, and as explained in greater detail below, EPA has concluded that, on balance, the information before the Agency does not support imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement on renovations. In particular, EPA is convinced that the work practices established in the 2008 LRRP rule are reliable, effective, and safe, and that imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted."

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) issued a release welcoming the announcement which he said recognizes "that current lead-safe work practices and clean up requirements will protect people from lead dust hazards and it is not necessary to impose lead-dust clearance testing requirements in the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP)." He said the decision addresses the concerns voiced in an April 15 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in which Senator Inhofe, along with eleven other senators, expressed deep concerns about the Agency's proposed amendments to LRRP, which would have required "clearance testing" to prove the presence or absence of lead following a project's completion. He said, "These additional requirements would have created confusion and complications for renovators who have already completed their lead-based paint training and imposed significant additional costs."

 

    In the release Senator Inhofe indicated he supports the intent of the rule, which is to protect pregnant women and children from lead dust hazards, he has been a staunch critic of EPA's implementation. On April 22, 2010, LRRP went into effect even though EPA only had 204 training providers nationwide. This meant that contractors did not have enough access to the training programs required to achieve compliance with the rule. In response, Senator Inhofe and Senator Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, which blocks funds from being used to "levy against any person any fine, or to hold any person liable for construction or renovation work performed by the person."  He said the amendment, which passed by a vote of 60 to 37, sent a clear bipartisan message to EPA that it must alleviate the widespread confusion over the rule's implementation. By May 2010, EPA announced a memorandum extending the LRRP deadline for renovators to enroll in training classes to September 30, 2010; it also extended the deadline for contractors to complete training to December 31, 2010. Most importantly, the Agency agreed to work to provide additional trainers in areas of need.

 

    Senator Inhofe said, "I am pleased that common-sense has once again prevailed at the EPA regarding the lead-based paint rule. The intent of the rule, public health protection especially for children and pregnant women, is something everyone supports, but it needs to happen in a way that does not place costly or confusing burdens on those trying to implement it. I applaud the Agency for responding to our concerns and making the right decision, which will provide maximum benefits for all. " 

 

    Senator Snowe (R-ME) said, "Today's ruling is a major victory for small business owners nationwide saddled with needlessly onerous regulations that are stifling their ability to grow and prosper during these difficult economic times. As we learned during its initial implementation back in 2009, this well-intentioned effort to protect pregnant women and children from lead exposure presented significant unintended consequences and undue burdens for renovators and homeowners alike. It is essential that agencies account for the impact new federal regulations will have on the economy, families and small businesses before rules are promulgated. I am pleased that, in this instance, EPA has withdrawn a proposed regulation deemed unnecessary and urge the agency to continue its stringent evaluations to mitigate the effects of rules that impose government costs and burdens where they are not necessary."

 

    Access the prepublication copy of the EPA final rule (click here). Access EPA's LRRP website for extensive background and documents (click here). Access a lengthy release from Senator Inhofe with links to related information (click here). [*Toxics]

House Approves Major Cuts & Changes In Energy & Water Programs

Jul 15: The U.S. House approved H.R. 2354, the fiscal year 2012 Energy, Water, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill by a vote of 219-196. The voting included 209 Republicans and 10 Democrats voting for the measure; and, 175 Democrats and 21 Republicans voting against. The legislation provides the annual funding for the various agencies and programs under the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and various regional water and power authorities.

    The legislation totals $30.6 billion -- a cut of $5.9 billion below the President's request and $1 billion below last year -- which brings the total cost of the bill to nearly the 2006 funding level. In addition, the bill provides over $1 billion dollars in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers to address recent Mississippi River and Missouri River flood disasters. The funding will be used for flood fighting activities and restoration of flood prevention and navigation systems.

    House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) applauded the House for passing the bill saying, "This bill is proof that we can make common-sense spending reductions without damaging or impairing the programs that help keep our country safe and our citizens at work. While providing vital funding for programs that preserve our public safety, quality of life, economic competitiveness, energy independence and national defense, this bill abides by the promise that we would cut spending where we can to get our budgets back into balance and keep us on track toward economic recovery."

    Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) also welcomed the approval and said, "The House should be proud of this bill, which protects our national security and American competitiveness and innovation and sharpens oversight of the Department of Energy and the agencies under our jurisdiction. And recognizing the fiscal crisis facing our country, the bill restores funding to levels not seen since 2006, making it a model of restraint. I also commend the House Leadership for returning to regular order. This week's open and free-wheeling debate reflects well on this House."    

    Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Energy & Water Subcommittee Ranking Member (Pete Visclosky (R-IN) said in part, prior to final passage, "The Subcommittee's allocation is $30,600,000,000, a decrease of $5,901,082,000 from the Administration's budget request and $1,043,303,000 below the 2011 level. This allocation has necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While we truly appreciate the Chairman's considerable efforts and recognize that difficult choices must be made to address the nation's serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and to guarantee our national security. The cut-at-any-cost ideology has severely hindered our Committee's ability to produce bills that adhere to principles of good governance. This bill contains inadequate funding levels for energy efficiency initiatives, the Army Corps and environmental cleanup, to name a few. These decisions sacrifice long-term investment needs for short-term gain. . ."  

    Some of the major provisions related to energy matters included in the bill are: 

• Department of Energy (DOE) - The funding for DOE within the legislation totals $24.7 billion – $850 million below last year's level and $5.9 billion below the President's request.
• Nuclear Security – The bill provides a total of $10.6 billion for DOE's nuclear security programs, including Weapons Activities, Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors. Counting additional funds reallocated to this account from unused prior year funds, funding for nuclear security will increase by $147 million over last year.
• Yucca Mountain – The bill rejects the Administration's wasteful, partisan attempts to shutter the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program and provides $35 million to support Yucca Mountain activities, including $10 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue their review of the license application. The bill also includes provisions to forbid the use of funds to close down the program.
• Science Research – The bill includes $4.8 billion for science research, a slight reduction of $43 million below last year's level.
• Energy Programs – The bill provides funding to help create U.S. jobs and promote the nation's energy independence, including $1.3 billion – $491 million below last year's level – for programs to help lower the cost of renewable energy technologies and to develop new technology. The bill also includes $734 million for nuclear energy research, development, and demonstration activities to further the next generation of safe, secure, and economically beneficial nuclear power options while ensuring the safety and resiliency of our nuclear power plants. In addition, the legislation provides $477 million – $32 million above last year's level – for research and development to advanced coal, natural gas, and other fossil energy power generation technologies that produce more than 70% of the nation's current electricity. Finally, the bill includes $100 million to support the activities of the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy, and $160 million to support loan guarantees for innovative projects.
• Environmental Management – Included in the legislation is $5.6 billion for environmental management activities – a reduction of $101 million below last year. This includes $4.9 billion for Defense Environmental Cleanup to remediate safely sites contaminated by previous nuclear weapons production.

    Some of the amendments approved on the House Floor included:

• An amendment cuts $4.9 million from the Army Corps Operation and Maintenance for response to climate change at Corps projects, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account.
• An amendment cuts $6 million from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account.
• An amendment cuts $200,000 from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account.
• An amendment provides $2.2 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development for State oil and gas commissions.
• An amendment cuts Departmental Administration by $21 million and Office of the Administrator by $20 million, and adds the funds to Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup.
• An amendment cuts $79.6 million from Departmental Administration, and adds the funds to the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E).
• An amendment cuts $2.5 million from Departmental Administration, and transfers the funds to the Spending Reduction Account.
• An amendment cuts $35 million from Departmental Administration, and transfers the funds to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
• An amendment cuts $10 million from Departmental Administration to increase funding for the Yucca Mountain license application.
• An amendment prohibits funds to implement rules, regulations, or an executive order that would require federal contractors to disclose political contributions.
• An amendment cuts $10 million from Departmental Administration, and adds the funding to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
• An amendment prohibits funding to pay the salaries of Energy Department employees to carry out the weatherization assistance increases created by the economic stimulus law.
• An amendment prohibits funding for the International Program within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account while preserving funding for U.S-Israel energy cooperation.
• An amendment prohibits the implementation or enforcement of higher efficiency light bulb standards. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.
• An amendment prohibits funding for DoE International Programs in China. The amendment was adopted on a voice vote.

    Access a Republican release and summary of amendments (click here). Access the Democratic Ranking Member views (click here). Access links to bill summaries, releases and amendments (click here). Access the Democrats website on the bill (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2354 (click here). Access the roll call vote (click here). [*Energy, *Water]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

House Approves "Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act" (H.R.2018)

Jul 13: U.S. House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation by a vote of  239 to 184, introduced by Representative John Mica (R-FL), Chairman of the House Transportation &  Infrastructure Committee and cosponsored by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV), the Ranking Member on the Committee. Rep. Rahall was among only 16 Democrats that voted for the measure along with 223 Republicans. According to a release from Rep. Rahall, the bill -- H.R.2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act -- is "aimed at reining in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) overreach in the Clean Water Act permitting process that is threatening the future of coal mining jobs and communities throughout Appalachia." The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a policy statement saying it "strongly opposes" the bill and will recommend that the President veto the bill if it is presented to him [See WIMS 7/13/11].

    Rep. Rahall said, "Under the guise of ensuring clean water, the EPA's regulatory pendulum has swung wildly to one side, knocking aside the long-standing cooperative relationships with the states and leaving affected coal miners teetering on the brink of unemployment. This bill would bring the federal water quality permitting process back to center and help to ensure a more stable, clear, and equitable national clean water program."

    Rahall indicated in the release that the bill would provide common sense protections for states' EPA-approved water quality standards and permitting authority under the Clean Water Act. Under practices by the current EPA, the permits for surface mines throughout the Appalachian States have been bottled up for months. The bill would help to speed up the permitting process and rein in EPA, which has imposed new criteria for permits that have stymied the process. The bill would place limits on EPA's ability to veto dredge and fill permits previously issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, as EPA did with the Spruce Mine permit in Logan County in January. 

    Rahall said, "Not only is the EPA reaching into the Clean Water Act authorities under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, it is also reaching into the States and attempting to control their water protection programs. Certainly, it would be preferable that agencies work with each other, with the States, and within the confines of their statutory authority so we did not have to craft this kind of legislation. But when they abuse their powers, the Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on them.  This is clearly such a time."

    According to a summary of the bill release by Rep. Rahall, the bill would:

• State Water Quality Standards: Restricts EPA's ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted – and EPA has already approved – a standard, unless the state concurs.
• State Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Prohibits EPA from superseding a water quality certification (that a discharge will comply with applicable water quality requirements) granted by a state under CWA section 401.
• Approval of State NPDES Permit Program Authority: Prohibits EPA from withdrawing approval of a state water quality permitting program under CWA section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES), or from limiting federal financial assistance for the state program, on the basis that EPA disagrees with the state regarding a (i) water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's approved water quality standards.
• EPA Veto Authority over State NPDES Permitting Decisions: Prohibits EPA from objecting to a state's issuance of an NPDES permit on the basis of (i) EPA's differing interpretation of an approved state water quality standard, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's approved water quality standards.
• EPA Veto Authority over Corps Section 404 (Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material) Permitting Decisions: Restricts EPA's ability to veto a Corps 404 permitting decision unless the state concurs with the veto. In an unprecedented action, EPA recently revoked a section 404 permit it had previously approved, even though the permittee had not violated any permit conditions.
• State Permit Program for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material: Allows a state to assume and administer only parts of the 404 permit program; under current law, states are required to assume the entire program or none of it.
• Deadlines for Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on Proposed Section 404 Permits: The deadline for the Fish and Wildlife Service to submit comments to the Corps on a proposed section 404 permit is shortened from 90 days to 30 days – or 60 days if additional time is requested.
• Deadlines for EPA Comments on Proposed Section 404 Permits: The deadline for the EPA to submit comments to the Corps on a proposed section 404 permit shall be 30 days – or 60 days if additional time is requested. (This is consistent with an existing Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies).

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement on the passage of the bill saying, "Americans have been clear that their top priority is creating jobs; this week in Congress, Republicans are ignoring job creation and instead rolling back clean water protections that ensure the safety of the water Americans drink and in which they swim and fish. Nearly 40 years ago, the bipartisan Clean Water Act revolutionized the safety of American water; it gave a measure a confidence to families that they can protect their children from toxins and pollutants. Now Republicans want to take our nation backwards. This week, Republicans are turning back the clock on progress for the environment and our clean energy future: in addition to today's misnamed 'Clean Water' legislation, they attempted to make light bulbs less energy efficient, at a cost to American consumers of nearly $12.5 billion per year, and voted repeatedly to slash investments in clean energy jobs. Republicans should abandon their ideological assault on the environment and get to work creating jobs and strengthening our economy."

 

    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune issued a statement saying, "Today's unprecedented attack on clean water protections is an assault on Americans' health, environment and economy -- and further exposes a House of Representatives that no longer represents the interests or the values of the American people. . . The federal safety net that Congress created when it passed the Clean Water Act has stopped billions of pounds of pollution from entering our waters and doubled the number of waterways that meet clean water standards. . . Now is not the time to roll back essential clean water protections or prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting Americans' drinking water."

 

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Senior Vice President for Policy and Government Relations Aric Newhouse issued a statement saying, "Manufacturers are pleased that the House of Representatives recognized the harmful impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent activity to revoke state Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permits. If left unchecked, the EPA's actions would cost jobs and hinder infrastructure investment, creating uncertainty for manufacturers and discouraging economic growth. Manufacturers support the House's bipartisan efforts in addressing this important issue and ending the EPA's regulatory overreach on state CWA discharge permits. The EPA's interference in overturning water permits that were previously approved would cost up to $220 billion in annual economic activity directly tied to manufacturing. The bipartisan measure passed yesterday is a step in the right direction to protect thousands of jobs and manufacturing, construction and infrastructure projects, allowing for future investment and economic growth. Manufacturers urge the Senate to pass this legislation swiftly."

 

    Access a release from Rep. Rahall with a summary of the bill (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2018 (click here). Access the roll call vote on the bill (click here). Access the OMB Policy Statement (click here). [*Water]

House Committee Approves Major FY12 Cuts & Riders For EPA, DOI

Jul 12: The full House Appropriations Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. The legislation includes annual funding for the Department of the Interior, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Service, and various independent and related agencies. The Interior, Environment & Related Agencies Subcommittee approved the bill on July 7 [See WIMS 7/7/11]. The bill includes major cuts to U.S. EPA, the Department of Interior and other agencies, as well as a large number of special-interest riders. More riders were added to the final bill.

    In total, the bill includes $27.5 billion in spending -- a reduction of $2.1 billion below last year's level and $3.8 billion below the President's budget request. The legislation cuts climate change programs by a total of $83 million, or 22% from last year, and decreases land acquisition funding by $239 million, or 79%. In addition, the legislation also includes several provisions (i.e. riders) aimed at reining in, what Republicans are calling "out-of-control federal bureaucracies and overly burdensome regulations that harm American businesses and hinder economic recovery."

    House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-TX) said. "This legislation is a great example of the hard but necessary work the Appropriations Committee is doing to get our fiscal house in order by cutting extraneous, duplicative and unnecessary spending. The cuts in this bill were not easy and they were not taken lightly, but they are responsible and necessary to move our country in the right direction. In addition, the bill reins in out-of-control regulation at the EPA -- the poster child for the Administration's widespread regulatory overreach that is hurting nearly every sector of our recovering economy." Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "We are living at a time of record deficits and debt. If there's one thing we should have learned from the last Congress, it's that we can't spend our way to economic recovery. At the end of the day, what this Committee is attempting to do in this bill is reduce spending, create more certainty in the marketplace, and promote an economic environment conducive to job growth." 

    Appropriations Committee Ranking Democratic Member Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA) said, "It is my unfortunate duty to have to -- once again -- point out that the Republican leadership has proposed an exceedingly low subcommittee allocation. And there is no surprise that the resulting bill will devastate the environment and our ongoing efforts to preserve America's natural heritage. Two key examples of this potential damage are that the bill includes the lowest level of spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund in more than 40 years and funding levels for EPA not seen in more than a decade. . . This bill would substantially diminish the capacity of EPA to carry out its responsibilities – which may actually be the goal of some of my colleagues on the other side. But the repercussions will be felt across the nation, including an ever-growing backlog of water treatment infrastructure projects and a decline in air and water quality. . . In addition to the clearly insufficient levels of funding across the board in this legislation, we were surprised that the Majority also included a wish list of special-interest riders to the bill that will handcuff the EPA and the Department of the Interior. These types of riders are largely ideological, have no impact on deficit reduction and most will be rejected by the Senate and the President. It seems that special-interest riders have become the new earmarks."

 

    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee Jim Moran (D-VA) said, "Mr. Chairman, the list of legislative riders and funding limitations in the bill is long: NEPA waivers, limitations on judicial review, the blocking of pollution controls and yes, even exposing that American icon, the Grand Canyon, and the millions of Americans who depend on the Colorado River for their drinking water, to the long and well known hazards of uranium mining. These riders have nothing to do with budget cuts or deficit reduction and everything to do about carrying out an ideological agenda. . ."

 

    Some of the additional riders that were added to the bill include:

• An amendment that prevents the EPA from being forced to implement a biological opinion related to pesticides and the Endangered Species Act. This will allow time for an independent scientific review on the issue to be completed.
• Language to direct the EPA to conduct a study on the economic impact of a rule requiring installation of catalytic converters on certain engines.
• Language requiring the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the status of permits, as well as reasons permits were denied.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to implement regulations on Portland cement.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to implement the "lead contractor" rule until the agency approves a commercially available lead paint test kit.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to implement or enforce numeric Florida Water Quality Standards.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to finalize a new greenhouse gas standard for automobiles after model year 2017.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to develop additional financial assurance requirements for hard rock mining operations.
• An amendment to prohibit states from receiving EPA Great Lakes funding if they have adopted ballast water requirements that are more stringent than federal requirements.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to implement a regulation to restrict information provided on pesticide labels.
• An amendment to prohibit funding for the EPA to implement regulations related to ammonia emissions such as those created by agricultural operations.
• An amendment inserts report language to direct the EPA to do a cumulative assessment of the impacts of EPA regulations, and prohibits funding for the "Utility MACT" and "Transport" rules.

    Access a Republican Committee release on the approval with a listing of all approved amendments (click here). Access the full text of the bill (click here). Access the Committee report for the bill (click here). Access a release from Rep. Dicks (click here). Access a release from Rep. Moran (click here); and another (click here). [*All]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Sen. Hearing On Unregulated Drinking Water Contaminants Program

Jul 12: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) , with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) held a hearing entitled, "Oversight Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Unregulated Drinking Water Contaminants Program." Witnesses testifying at the hearing included the: Government Accountability Office; U.S. EPA; American Public Health Association; West Valley Water District; Joseph Cotruvo & Associates, LLC; George Washington University Cancer Institute; and Department of Public Health and Community Medicine Tufts University.

 

    Chairman Boxer indicated in an opening statement, "In order to ensure that enough is being done to protect our nation from emerging contaminants, I, along with Representatives Waxman and Markey, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the unregulated contaminant program. This report is being released today. . . the GAO report shows the development of new standards for unregulated drinking water contaminants, such as perchlorate, were derailed in a process that failed to use the best available science and was driven by factors other than the protection of public health. Scientific information has shown that certain emerging contaminants in our drinking water, such as perchlorate and chromium-6, could be harmful to children and families across the nation. . . EPA needs to have a process that vigorously addresses these contaminants to help ensure the safety of the nation's drinking water. . ."

 

    Ranking Member Inhofe said, "At the cornerstone of the Safe Drinking Water Act is the idea that we should be controlling those substances that pose risks to public health. Unfortunately, the system that EPA uses to determine health risks, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), has a decade's long issues in crafting risk assessments. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recently pointed out that IRIS assessments have suffered from a lack of transparency, inconsistency, and problems with evaluating studies and the weight of evidence. . . As analytical techniques continue to improve, we are able to detect constituents at increasingly lower levels. This ever increasing ability to detect will allow the numbers of chemicals in our water to increase infinitely. However, it is important that we do not associate any detection with risk. In nearly every case, the extremely low levels we are detecting are well below the dosage that would affect public health. To be perfectly clear, exposure does not mean there is risk. . ."

 

    GAO submitted 26-pages of testimony and a 146-page report entitled, Safe Drinking Water Act: EPA Should Improve Implementation of Requirements on Whether to Regulate Additional Contaminants (GAO-11-254, May 27, 2011). GAO was asked to: (1) evaluate the extent to which EPA's implementation of the 1996 amendments has helped assure the public of safe drinking water; and, (2) review the process and scientific analyses used to develop the 2008 preliminary regulatory determination on perchlorate. GAO analyzed relevant statutory provisions and regulatory determination documents and interviewed EPA officials.

 

    GAO found that, "Systemic limitations in EPA's implementation of requirements for determining whether additional drinking water contaminants warrant regulation have impeded the agency's progress in assuring the public of safe drinking water. EPA's selection of contaminants for regulatory determination in 2003 and 2008 was driven by data availability -- not consideration of public health concern. EPA does not have criteria for identifying contaminants of greatest public health concern and based most of its final determinations to not regulate 20 contaminants on the rationale of little or no occurrence of the contaminants in public water systems. Moreover, EPA's testing program for unregulated contaminants--which can provide key data to inform regulatory determinations--has fallen short in both the number of contaminants tested and the utility of the data provided because of management decisions and program delays. . ."

 

    GAO's 17 recommendations include that the EPA Administrator require: (1) development of criteria to identify contaminants that pose the greatest health risk; (2) improvements in its unregulated contaminants testing program; and, (3) development of policies or guidance to interpret the broad statutory criteria. According to GAO, EPA agreed with 2 recommendations but took the position that developing guidance and taking the other recommended actions are not needed. GAO believes EPA needs to adopt all of the recommendations to better assure the public of safe drinking water.

 

    EPA testified that, "Strong science and the law are the foundation of our decision-making at EPA. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA identifies priority contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and then evaluates whether new drinking water standards are warranted for these contaminants. . . GAO's report expresses concern that EPA's past decisions have been driven not by considering the greatest health concern but by considering available data. EPA agrees that we can improve our process to better focus on contaminants that may be of public health concern. The improved approach in the most recent CCL [Contaminant Candidate List] was a substantial step forward in achieving this by using a rigorous scientific process to better ensure that the contaminants on the list are the ones that should be of highest priority for public health protection. . .

 

    "In response to the GAO recommendations, EPA will also consult with an independent panel of scientists on the regulatory determinations, specifically on the evaluation of the contaminants against the first and second criteria defined by SDWA, the use of best available science to develop the determination, and whether the determination focuses on the greatest public health risk. We will post the regulatory determination process publicly and review the process every five years as we conduct the regulatory determination cycle. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website with links to all testimony, a webcast and Chairman Boxer's statement (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the complete GAO report (click here). [*Drink]