ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

WBJ Weekly News Bulletin: Sep. 20-26, 2011 Item: 2

Industry criticism is growing against the Obama administration's proposed revisions to EPA's Bush-era definition of solid waste (DSW) as chemical manufacturing and scrap recycling industries becoming the latest to complain that the revised rule would be too costly. The Obama EPA proposed July 6 to amend the Bush-era DSW rule, which relaxed certain waste management requirements on industry in the interest of promoting recycling. The new proposal, which follows a lawsuit from environmentalists and complaints from state regulators that the Bush-era rule is too lax, would tighten many of the requirements. Industry groups, including the National Mining Association (NMA) and American Petroleum Institute (API), and now the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) expressed shock that EPA would no longer exclude so-called 'tolling" where a reclaimer or processor operates on the site of the waste generator. EPA had previouslyagreed that tolling arrangements ensure that there is no discard since the hazardous secondary materials remain under the control of the generator. If EPA removes the exclusion, contractors conducting reclamation may need to obtain storage permits under Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rules.

via www.wastebusinessjournal.com

EPA MOUNTAINTOP MINING REGULATION UNDER CHALLENGE

"Health care issues aren’t the only way some Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves. Manchin, for one, introduced a bill to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling against mountaintop mining, and he’s won over two other Democrats, fellow West Virginian Sen. John Rockefeller and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu."

from Politico  http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=02B1096D-BEB5-F43B-FC7406A0FD1F32CB

FROM POLITICO-EPA AND INDSUTRY BATTLE IN FULL SWING

EPA to double down on climate By: Robin Bravender December 21, 2010 07:18 PM EST

The Obama administration is expected to roll out a major greenhouse gas policy for power plants and refineries as soon as Wednesday, signaling it won’t back off its push to fight climate change in the face of mounting opposition on Capitol Hill. The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to a schedule for setting greenhouse gas emission limits, known as “performance standards,” for the nation’s two biggest carbon-emitting industries, POLITICO has learned. Under the schedule agreed to by EPA, states and environmental groups, the agency will issue a draft greenhouse gas performance standard for power plants by July 2011 and a final rule by May 2012. The agreement – which comes after states and environmentalists challenged the George W. Bush administration’s failure to set the standards – requires EPA to issue a draft limit for refineries by Dec. 2011 and a final rule by Nov. 2012. FROM http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0B6F4294-B06E-28EB-6F698FE46275EDF2

US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TAKES EPA TO TASK ON DATA RELIABILITY

  In yesterday's Washington Post, columnist/reporter (or both, I'm not sure) Cyndy Skrzycki advises that the Unites States Chamber of Commerce is pressing an administrative appeal that contends 16 EPA databases contain errors.  The Chamber contends that these data bases, which are, among other things, used to set chemical clean-up standards, are resulting in businesses expending unnecessary resources to meet erroneous environmental standards.

     Ms. Skrzycki's Washington Post article contains competing quotes from the Chamber on the one hand and from the environmentalist lobby on the other hand:

"We aren't trying to force withdrawal, but to get the numbers right," said William Kovacs , chamber vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "We want them to 'fess up and get it right. Our contention is if they disseminate this data, they are responsible for its correctness."

...

The Center for Progressive Regulation , a liberal think tank, said in a March paper that "disgruntled industries [are trying] an end-run around well-established procedures for promulgating rules to improve air quality, clean up toxic waste sites, and protect children and wildlife from pesticide residues."

     One apparently knowledgeable observer takes the view that, while the Chamber's position may have merit, "the changes [the Chamber] seeks are unrealistic because the agency can't afford the time or expense of revamping the databases. Correcting the errors would take EPA away from other priorities...." (!) 

     If this observer is correct, then the situation has become Kafkaesque ("[m]arked by surreal distortion"; The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000).  The EPA does not promote good science by ignoring past regulatory flaws because addressing them would take time and effort away from launching new regulatory initiatives which may themselves be based on the original flawed data.