ACC PM

Industry and Association News

1. Shell Buys Former Zinc Smelter Site for $13.5 Million

   Jun 17, 2015 | AP

   Shell Chemicals has bought the western Pennsylvania site of a former zinc smelter although it hasn't announced a decision on building a petrochemical plant on the property.

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Expects To Release IRIS Development Handbook Later This Year

   Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   Staff with EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program have completed a handbook on how to conduct IRIS assessments, a multi-year project begun as part of the agency's response to a critical National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in 2011, and the agency expects to release the guidance later this year after an internal review.
3. Senators Seek To Build Support To Protect TSCA Bill From 'Fringe' Riders

   Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo
   
   
   Senators pushing a bipartisan bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are working to build more support from moderate Democrats and Republicans to ensure a majority that can vote down "fringe" amendments that could doom the bill, such as attempts to block unrelated EPA rules or undo key TSCA reforms in the bill.
4. Environmental Toxicologists Urge House To Guide EPA TSCA Risk Standard

   Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad
   
   
   A professional group of environmental toxicologists is urging Congress to provide EPA guidance in defining and applying the "unreasonable risk" standard at the heart of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that Congress is moving toward reforming, providing more detail than another group of toxicologists that has also called on lawmakers to direct EPA to define the term.
5. US EPA Receives Test Data for Two Substances

   Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has received test data for two substances in response to a test rule, issued by the agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
6. Green Chemistry: Becoming the Rule, Not the Exception

   Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Amy Cannon
   
   
   Molecular designers, chemists and engineers rely on a set of design criteria when they are creating new molecules and materials.
7. US EPA Consults on Antimicrobial Test Guidelines

   Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA is seeking comment on draft guidelines, developed by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), for conducting testing by the public and companies that are subject to the agency's data submission requirements.
8. There’s Toxic Antimony In Baby Bibs, Clothing, Toys And Games

   Jun 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

   By Tasha Stoiber
   
   
   With all of the chemicals that get put into consumer products, it can be difficult to protect our children from toxic hazards.
9. Moms' Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors Linked with Birth Defect

   Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   Mothers exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals during pregnancy are at higher risk for giving birth to baby boys with a genital defect, a French study has found.

Chemical Security News

10. Feds Say Spill Chemicals Toxic Only at Higher Levels

    Jun 17, 2015 | Charleston Gazette

    By Ken Ward Jr.
    
    
    Federal researchers studying the chemicals from the January 2014 Elk River spill said Tuesday that they have so far found evidence of potential long-term health effects only at exposures greater than the government’s 1-part-per-million health advisory, but also said their work didn’t consider inhalation of Crude MCHM or fully account for impacts during the “flushing” of home plumbing systems.

Energy and Environment News

11. (ACC Mentioned) Natural Gas Liquids Find Some Love in a Rough Market

    Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Jenny Mandel
    
    
    Natural gas liquids -- the cocktail of propane, butane, ethane, "natural gasoline" and a few other petroleum derivatives that comes up along with crude oil or natural gas from many petroleum formations -- are either a blessing or a curse, depending on whom you talk to.
12. Doctor Lawmakers: EPA Ozone Rule Won’t Help Health

    Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule limiting surface-level ozone pollution might not have the positive health benefits the agency says it will, nearly two dozen physician lawmakers said Wednesday.
13. 22 GOP Lawmakers Criticize Health Rationale for Lower Ozone Limit

    Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Amanda Peterka
    
    
    More than 20 GOP members of Congress who are health care professionals today called on U.S. EPA to retain the existing ozone standard. In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the 22 Republican members of the House and Senate raised questions about the analysis underlying EPA's conclusions about the public health benefits of a lower ozone limit. EPA in November proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standard for ozone from 75 parts per billion -- last set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb after finding that the 75 ppb limit was no longer adequate to protect public health. "As healthcare professionals, we rely upon the most accurate health data," the group of lawmakers wrote. "From this vantage, we believe that the proposal's harms outweigh its claimed benefits and are concerned it could ultimately undermine our constituents' health." Of the lawmakers signing the letter, 13 have doctor of medicine degrees. Some of the other signatories have been trained as dentists or eye doctors. Two are registered nurses. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who has a doctor of medicine degree, led the effort. In their letter, the GOP members singled out four controlled exposure studies that went into EPA's analysis of the public health effects of ozone pollution. They said that those studies relied on a limited number of test subjects and that their findings could not be extrapolated to the general U.S. population. Advertisement "As a whole," they wrote, "these controlled exposure studies do not support the necessity for a lower standard." The GOP lawmakers also took issue with EPA's use of epidemiology studies, or studies that look at populations, in determining that ozone pollution causes respiratory effects and is linked to premature death in the long term. They argued that errors in the studies make them inadequate for supporting a lower ozone limit. In its regulatory impact analysis released in November, EPA said reducing ozone to its proposed range would prevent between 750 and 4,300 premature deaths, between 1,400 and 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits, and between 320,000 and 960,000 asthma attacks in children yearly by 2025. A tighter standard would also result in a reduction of up to 1 million missed school days and 180,000 missed work days. Nationally, public health organizations such as the American Lung Association and American Thoracic Association have called on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb, arguing that the weight of evidence has only gotten stronger since the last review that ozone pollution is a serious public health threat. In a March letter, more than 1,000 public health and medical professionals wrote EPA urging the agency to choose the 60 ppb limit. They argued that the controlled human exposure studies and epidemiological studies showed that the current level is too high to protect public health. "The current ozone standard clearly puts far too many people at risk," the health professionals wrote. In their letter, along with raising concerns about EPA's scientific analysis, the GOP lawmakers said they were also troubled by the potential costs of complying with a tighter standard. They cited a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers that found a 65 ppb ozone standard could cost up to $140 billion a year. The lawmakers charged that EPA had not taken into account human health impacts of unemployment and income loss that could result from a tighter ozone standard. "Public health should not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful of the correlation between health and the economy," the lawmakers' letter says. EPA's own cost estimates for a tighter ozone standard are much lower than NAM's estimates. The agency also found that benefits in the form of health care savings would outweigh costs by a factor of 3-to-1. John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program, slammed the lawmakers' letter for ignoring more than 1,000 studies that EPA said supports its conclusion that the 75 ppb limit is no longer safe and for dismissing epidemiological evidence. "In two curt sentences lacking any content, the letter dismisses the large body of epidemiological evidence accompanying EPA's rulemaking -- running many hundreds of pages -- that shows adverse impacts from short-term & long-term ozone exposure," he wrote in an email. He also noted that the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that EPA should consider income loss in its review of public health effects and that EPA's own science advisers have recommended a tighter standard.
14. GOP Senators Wary of EPA Coal Ash Rule

    Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    Republican senators on Wednesday aired concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule on coal ash disposal, saying they might try to revise it.
15. Inhofe Weighs Support for Legislation to Change EPA Rule

    Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Manuel Quiñones
    
    
    Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said today he might support legislation aimed at changing U.S. EPA's new coal combustion waste disposal rule.
16. Time to End Federal Interference with Free Trade in Crude Oil

    Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

    By Benjamin Zycher
    
    
    The current ban on exports of U.S. crude oil was enacted as part of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and was justified on the basis of two fallacies. First: That the 1973 Arab OPEC oil "embargo" was the cause of higher oil prices and the gasoline lines and other market disruptions experienced in the early 1970s.
17. States, GOP Warn 'Background' Ozone May Make EPA NAAQS Unattainable

    Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    States and Republican lawmakers are ramping up concerns that naturally occurring “background” ozone levels that are beyond states' ability to regulate could make it impossible for many areas of the United States to attain EPA's looming possible tighter ozone standard, trying to make the case for the agency to retain its existing standard.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

1. Shell Buys Former Zinc Smelter Site for $13.5 Million

   Jun 17, 2015 | AP

   Shell Chemicals has bought the western Pennsylvania site of a former zinc smelter although it hasn't announced a decision on building a petrochemical plant on the property.

   The Beaver County Times (http://bit.ly/1MIX15p ) reports that the company paid $13.5 million for the former Horsehead Corp. site in Potter and Center townships in Beaver County.

   Shell officials have maintained that buying the property is a necessary step in gaining state permits to build an ethane cracker plant at the site about 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.

   Shell proposes piping in ethane from natural gas wells and then chemically "cracking" the liquid fuel so it can be converted to polyethylene pellets used to make various plastic products.

   Officials say 400 to 500 operational jobs and thousands of construction jobs would be created.

   
   Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article24649042.html#storylink=cpy

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Expects To Release IRIS Development Handbook Later This Year

   Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   Staff with EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program have completed a handbook on how to conduct IRIS assessments, a multi-year project begun as part of the agency's response to a critical National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review in 2011, and the agency expects to release the guidance later this year after an internal review.

   IRIS Director Vincent Cogliano announced June 8 during a conference call of EPA's chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) that the handbook is under review by senior managers.

   "We haven't rested in the year since the [latest] NAS report" reviewing the IRIS program, released last year, Cogliano told the board, which was reviewing subcommittee reports on three draft IRIS assessments. The draft handbook "is with our senior managers right now . . . We hope to release it in the next several months and do a workshop at the end of the year."

   Additionally, Cogliano said the handbook will be put before a meeting of the full Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC), the relatively new subcommittee of the SAB that reviews draft IRIS assessments, "later this year." The committee was one a series of efforts EPA instituted to bolster the IRIS program after the NAS published its critical 2011 review of EPA's draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. The report included an unusual additional chapter outside of its charge outlining recommendations that the NAS committee considered important for EPA to make to IRIS assessments generally.

   "We hope to get their advice on systematic review," Cogliano said of the CAAC.

   Systematic review is a relatively new approach in environmental health sciences intended to improve quality of literature searches and evaluation of information. IRIS leaders discussing the approach, adapted from medical research, have also pointed to its transparency as an important attribute to the program.

   Systematic Review

   EPA's sister agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), has crafted a systematic review approach for one of its programs, and Ken Olden, director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees IRIS, expressed interest in NIEHS' approach.

   Of the handbook, Cogliano said, "It's going to cover the entire flow of information," including scoping and problem formulation, how to conduct systematic reviews and dose-response analyses.

   Industry has been pressing EPA to complete the handbook for some time. In a blog post last October, the American Chemistry Council's Nancy Beck called on the agency to complete the handbook soon to "create a more structured process and provide clear guidelines for conducting assessments."

   An NAS committee in 2014 favorably reviewed the IRIS program's progress towards completing the 2011 recommendations in NAS' critical formaldehyde review reviewed the draft pieces of the handbook available at the time -- though Chairman Jonathan Samet told reporters that the important quantitative chapter discussing how IRIS assessors should calculate the toxicity values in the assessments had yet to be written.

   "That is the one missing piece of the draft handbook," he said last year. "We hope these recommendations will be helpful to them as they write" it. Among NAS' quantitative advice in that report is a controversial recommendation that IRIS assessments should present risk ranges, rather than single point estimates, as a way to account for scientific uncertainties.

   IRIS Meeting

   Meanwhile, EPA has announced that the IRIS program's August bimonthly meeting, where scientific experts and stakeholders are invited to discuss ongoing IRIS assessments, has been rescheduled to Sept. 24, "to accommodate scheduling constraints associated with the end of summer and the Labor Day holiday."

   The agency also announced that it is rescheduling a workshop titled, "Temporal Exposure Issues for Environmental Pollutants: Health Effects and Methodologies" to Jan. 27-29, 2016.

   "This workshop will explore the state-of-the-science with respect to various exposure scenarios and associated human health effects (cancer and noncancer) and focus on multiple environmental pollutants," the agency's notice says.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Senators Seek To Build Support To Protect TSCA Bill From 'Fringe' Riders

   Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Bridget DiCosmo

   Senators pushing a bipartisan bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are working to build more support from moderate Democrats and Republicans to ensure a majority that can vote down "fringe" amendments that could doom the bill, such as attempts to block unrelated EPA rules or undo key TSCA reforms in the bill.

   The legislation, S. 697, "reflects the outcome of some very extensive negotiation resulting in an unusual coalition of stakeholders. I think that the addition of other unrelated and controversial topics would fracture that coalition and bring other parties into the mix, delaying and perhaps ultimately dooming the bill," says a legal source.

   The bill's lead authors Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) recently announced the addition of three new Republican and two new Democratic co-sponsors of the measure, bringing the total number of backers at press time to 20 Democrats and 21 Republicans including Vitter and Udall. One industry source says the announcements of additional co-sponsors is designed to promote the bill as something with broad backing.

   The addition of support from moderate lawmakers could help guard against pressure from "hard left" Democrats who might feel the bill does not go strong enough in ensuring public health protections, and from Tea Party Republicans who may seek to use the bill to block EPA policies that they oppose, says the source.

   "They try to do them at the same time because it helps to insulate [the bill] from crazy attacks -- they're trying to isolate it from the fringe," one industry source says. Supporters of the legislation hope enough support in the center will help to defeat such riders. "It's carefully crafted to get 80 members [in support] if not more."

   Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the environment committee, told Inside EPA recently that the legislation's lead sponsors do "not want a lot of hitchhikers" on the legislation with amendments offered on the floor. He said the bill's backers believe they will have an adequate number of supporters to defeat any non-germane amendments, saying it's a "number game" and adding that it would be "almost impossible to pass a hostile bill."

   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told the Morning Consult recently that he plans to bring TSCA reform legislation to the floor before Congress' August recess.

   S. 697 cleared the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee in a 15-5 vote following an April 28 markup where Vitter and Udall announced revisions to the bill that came about as a result of negotiations with committee Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Cory Booker (NJ). The changes were aimed at addressing concerns over the bill raised by Democrats, environmental and public health advocates and EPA.

   Those revisions include allowing states to be co-enforcers of chemical regulations, modifying the factors for when EPA designates a chemical as a "high priority," and changing the safety standard to be consistent with existing law while clarifying the term "unreasonable risk" to be consistent with the standard.

   Bill's Opponents

   Nevertheless, the bill's opponents -- led by EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) -- are vowing to pursue dozens of amendments on the floor, fearing the bill is worse than current law.

   Boxer acknowledged during the markup that the amended bill contains a number of improvements over the original legislation, including allowing states to co-enforce toxics laws on the condition that there are no duplicative penalties and clarifications that state air and water laws would not be preempted.

   But she suggested that she is likely to filibuster the legislation, saying, "I will stand on my feet until I can't stand on my feet anymore" to ensure passage of a stronger reform bill.

   However, if Boxer succeeded in attaching language to significantly rewrite parts of the bill's TSCA reforms, that could lead some moderate Republicans to drop their existing support for the bill. Similarly, riders designed to weaken parts of the toxics law overhaul could lead to Democrats withdrawing their backing.

   Separate from floor fights over the specifics of the reform efforts, some senators might try to attach riders on unrelated EPA polices -- such as trying to block the agency's pending greenhouse gas rules for existing and newly constructed power plants, or its recently finalized Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.

   Proponents of the legislation acknowledge that the bill would likely face floor efforts from senators critical of EPA that would seek to attach riders to the bill to curb other agency policies.

   A spokeswoman for frequent EPA critic Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) declined on whether Paul would consider a TSCA reform bill as a way to move policy measures to block agency rules, but added, "That said, we are always looking for vehicles to move our priorities on the floor."

   "There's always that temptation," by senators to try to attach riders to EPA-related legislation, Inhofe told Inside EPAfollowing a May 7 press conference in which the bill's sponsors announced 14 new co-sponsors for the bill. "I don't think unfriendly amendments will get very far on this," Inhofe added.

   If the legislation appears to poised to clear the Senate, "There's always those who will see the train [leaving the station] and want to get on it," Inhofe said in response to a question about non-germane amendments such as measures to block EPA's water law jurisdiction rule or its climate rules for power plants.

   During the press conference, Vitter said he is committed to an "open amendment process" on the floor. But he added that, "We already have compromised a huge amount," noting that he believes the legislation is "in a good place now" and that too many amendments could upset that balance of bipartisan support for the bill.

   Whitehouse said that in the "old days" of Congress, "co-sponsors and floor managers of bills would stick together on amendments that could tear an agreement apart," even for riders those lawmakers would otherwise support. "I hope that's the kind of process we get when we get to the floor," he added.

   At the April 28 markup, Boxer had prepared 27 amendments but only called for a vote on three of them during the markup. She vowed to pursue additional changes to the bill ahead of a floor vote, however. Voicing her opposition to S. 697 absent major changes, Boxer said during the markup, "If anybody thinks the fight is over, it is just beginning."

   In a May 18 press release from Udall's office, Udall noted that the bill has gotten support from senators in more than half the states and that "Momentum continues to build in both parties and in both houses of Congress," given that the House energy panel recently voted to approve its counterpart to the Senate reform bill.

   House Legislation

   The House's version of TSCA reform, H.R. 2576, cleared the Energy & Commerce Committee June 3 in a unanimous vote with 47 lawmakers voting in favor of the bill and one Democrat, Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA), voting to abstain. 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.

   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.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Environmental Toxicologists Urge House To Guide EPA TSCA Risk Standard

   Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Maria Hegstad

   A professional group of environmental toxicologists is urging Congress to provide EPA guidance in defining and applying the "unreasonable risk" standard at the heart of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that Congress is moving toward reforming, providing more detail than another group of toxicologists that has also called on lawmakers to direct EPA to define the term.

   The Society of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology North America (SETAC) in recent comments on a draft of the House TSCA reform bill that cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently raises questions about the "unreasonable risk" standard that the bill would maintain in a reformed version of the 39-year-old statute. SETAC is a professional organization of industry, government and academic environmental scientists and risk assessors.

   Unreasonable risk represents the standard used in the existing TSCA, and its interpretation by courts and the agency has led skeptics to argue that it is ambiguous and unworkable, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in the 1991 ruling Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA found that EPA's attempt to ban asbestos because it poses unreasonable risk to human health under TSCA Section 6 was not the most cost-effective way to regulate the substance.

   Various legislative efforts have considered other risk standards, but H.R. 2576 and the bipartisan S. 697 use the unreasonable risk standard, though the Senate version says that EPA cannot use cost as a factor when considering whether a pollutant poses unreasonable risk.

   By contrast, the competing Senate bill offered by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) adopts the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard found in the Food Quality Protection Act.

   "The term 'unreasonable risk' is used throughout [the draft version of H.R. 2576], but it is never defined," SETAC's TSCA Reform Dialog Group writes in a May 13 letter to Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Paul Tonko (D-NY), the chairman and ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subpanel working on the bill. The group wrote its comments before Shimkus and Tonko officially introduced the legislation.

   "Also, it is implicit that costs or benefits are not included in the standard. Yet, for many decades 'unreasonable risk' has always denoted risk/benefit and risk/cost balancing under TSCA and [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act]. Consequently, we recommend that Congress provide some guidance on what is meant by this term."

   Acknowledging that such an effort would be too lengthy for inclusion in the bill, the group recommends that the House bill "include in the legislative history a discussion of its intent with regard to 'unreasonable risk.'"

   'Unreasonable Risk'

   The recommendation differs from that of the Society of Toxicology (SOT), another professional group of scientists and risk assessors including government, academic and industry members, though with a broader focus on toxicology generally than SETAC's environmental focus. SOT in March advice to Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), the original sponsors of S. 697, recommended that bill direct EPA to define "unreasonable risk."

   In a March 18 letter to Vitter and Udall, the SOT work group writes that even without the cost or other non-risk factors included with "unreasonable risk" in the existing TSCA, "we continue to have concern for how 'unreasonable risk' will be defined." Such a definition "has been an issue with TSCA since its enactment and will require further guidance by the [EPA] Administrator to support the standard," according to the panel of SOT, which is an organization of toxicologists from academic institutions, government, and industry.

   "There has always been a discussion around what is 'unreasonable risk?' Is it [one in one million or one in ten thousand] cancer probability? Is it a worst-case situation for most sensitive individuals?" an SOT source said in March. "If they are going to continue to use the standard, it would be a good idea [for the EPA] administrator to define what 'unreasonable risk' is."

   Asked whether Congress should be more specific in its safety standard, the source indicates that EPA would be the better author for the standard's definition. "The definition of a standard like that shouldn't really be written into the language of the bill," the source says. "It should evolve with science and the evolution of policies.”

   In contrast, the chairman of the SETAC dialogue group, a former EPA toxics employee and now a private consultant, said while working in EPA's new chemicals program in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he and colleagues leaned on the legislative history in TSCA to make decisions. "Without that we would've been at a loss," said the chairman, Stuart Cohen, president of Environment and Turf Services.

   Asked about the difference between SOT and SETAC's comments on the unreasonable risk standard, Cohen said, "SOT's right, and I think we're right. Congress should give EPA guidance so EPA can be more" definitive in its application of the standard.

   Scientific Comments

   SETAC, like SOT, aims to provide scientific comments on the bill but does not endorse legislation, in part because the groups' tripart membership would be unlikely to reach consensus opinions on bill merits.

   Along with its comments, SETAC provides House lawmakers with a pair of issue papers that it has developed on topics addressed in the TSCA reform bill, namely differences between risk and hazard and how to consider the weight of evidence of information regarding chemicals and other environmental pollutants.

   The SETAC group relies on these white papers in writing its comments to the congressmen. "The language in the draft [House bill] is consistent with our description of the concept. It is clear that the authors of the [the draft bill] understand that risk is a function of hazard and exposure."

   In its comments on the House bill's treatment of weight of evidence, the SETAC letter notes that an earlier draft of the bill contained SETAC's preferred definition of weight of evidence. SETAC does, however, acknowledge that this remains an evolving scientific topic, adding that the group will conduct a workshop on it in August.

   "Thus, the [the draft bill's] initial draft language was not only clear, but it was appropriate for the current state of knowledge and experience. In the event that the compromise that resulted in this change precludes the reinsertion of the definition, we recommend that our comments on this matter be included in the legislative history." H.R. 2576 continues to reference weight of evidence without defining it.

   The letter adds that the SETAC group will comment on the new section on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals in the introduced version of the House bill in the near future, and the group also intends to review the Senate bill. Further, the group is preparing another white paper on prioritization and and tiered testing, Cohen said. 

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. US EPA Receives Test Data for Two Substances

   Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has received test data for two substances in response to a test rule, issued by the agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

   The data is on aquatic toxicity for the substances, d-gluco-heptonic acid, monosodium salt (2.xi.), an organic agent used as a cleaning agent in cosmetics, among other things, and 2,4-hexadienoic acid, (E,E), a mould and yeast inhibitor mainly used in foods and cosmetics.

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Green Chemistry: Becoming the Rule, Not the Exception

   Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   By Amy Cannon

   Molecular designers, chemists and engineers rely on a set of design criteria when they are creating new molecules and materials. These are typically a list of physical and chemical properties that define the performance of the material. 

   For example, a plastic packaging material would most likely need to have specific thermodynamic and mechanical properties that define strength and resilience, as well as optical properties for its appearance. The research scientist relies on these specifications to guide the process in creating the packaging material. 

   These endpoints are tested in an iterative process to improve on the chemical and physical properties and create a viable product that performs well. In this process, the focus of the scientist is on creating a material with those well-defined properties. And, because of this specific focus, research scientists will create materials and products that may or may not have environmental and human health impacts.

   Changing the focus

   Green chemistry seeks to bring environmental and human health impacts into the focus for research scientists so that they can intentionally create products and processes that have minimal impact. The challenge in this is that chemists and engineers are typically not trained to approach research through this holistic lens. 

   However, in reality, scientists with the skills to implement green chemistry within an industrial process, either at the bench scale or in the scale-up process, can realise tremendous economic and environmental benefits. Industry has proven it can result in cost savings from more efficient products, including by reducing energy, materials use and waste generation. Countless companies have embraced green or sustainable chemistry and have used these as a framework on which to base their research objectives.  

   Despite its adoption in industry, a gap still remains – that of preparing students effectively to enter the workforce with skills to implement and design greener processes and products. Our academic institutions are beginning to respond to this demand – however, the large majority of higher education institutions do not educate students on green chemistry theory and practice. 

   In the academic year 2008–2009, US colleges and universities that offer a chemistry degree approved by the American Chemical Society (ACS) granted 14,577 bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, 1,986 master’s degrees and 2,543 doctoral degrees. Thus more than 19,000 students were trained in chemistry in the US in just one year. More than 600 colleges and universities offer ACS-approved degree programmes inchemistry. Only one of these requires classes in green chemistry, toxicology or environmental impact: the University of Massachusetts Boston’s PhD programme, from which two PhD students graduated in the academic year of 2008–2009. However, not one undergraduate institution requires such classes. 

   Although higher education institutions are not yet requiring students to be trained in green chemistryknowledge and skills, there are a growing number of academic institutions that are including it in their courses and programmes. Its adoption in higher education has been catalysed by the creation of numerous green chemistry educational materials including an online, searchable database for Greener Educational Materials (GEMs), of professional development workshops for faculty members and most recently by the development of the Green Chemistry Commitment programme, aimed at uniting the community around common green chemistry student learning objectives. The increase in the resources available to faculty members has helped significantly in the adoption of green chemistry in their lectures and labs. However, it still remains the exception, rather than the rule in academia. 

   Collaboration

   Thinking back to those research scientists who are designing molecules and materials with very specific chemical and physical properties – how can we create a future where these scientists are bringing toxicological and environmental endpoints into their set of design criteria? How can this become how we think about designing new molecules, materials and products? The answer has to be found both in how we approach research and development in industry and education in academia. 

   Today, companies have an opportunity to support and enable this change in academia in meaningful ways. The Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) created a policy statement on green chemistryin higher education that has over 30 signatories including companies, government agencies, NGOs and academic institutions. The statement supports the need for students with skills and knowledge in greenchemistry and engineering. It states that all things being equal, these organisations would preferentially hire students with these skills, due to the many benefits it brings to a company. 

   The Michigan Green Chemistry Program also developed a checklist to benchmark company implementation of this policy statement. It can help academia understand the urgency and the great need to shift towards green chemistry within higher education to better support the growing demand for students with these valuable skills. 

   The Green Chemistry Commitment (GCC), a programme of Beyond Benign, is also a means for companies to work collaboratively with academic institutions and to reach out to academic partners to communicate the need for change. The GCC seeks to build on the efforts of leaders in this field to systemically changechemistry education so that green becomes the rule in academia, rather than the exception. The GCC is centred around green chemistry student learning objectives that can be implemented in different ways at each academic institution. 

   If companies and academic institutions can work together towards creating a future where scientists and engineers consider toxicity and environmental impact a part of their design criteria when creating a new product or process, or re-designing a current system, then we can get to a place where healthy, safe, economic and effective products are also the rule, rather than the exception.

   BOX: 

   Academic year 2008–2009, US colleges and universities that offer a chemistry degree approved by the ACS granted:14,577 bachelor’s degrees in chemistry; 1,986 master’s degrees; and 2,543 doctoral degrees. 

   More than 19,000 students were trained in chemistry in the US in just one year.

   More than 600 colleges and universities offer ACS-approved degree programmes in chemistry.

   Only one of these requires classes in green chemistry, toxicology or environmental impact: the University of Massachusetts Boston’s PhD programme, from which two PhD students graduated in 2008–2009 academic year.

   However, not one undergraduate institution requires courses in green chemistry, toxicology or environmental impact. 

   The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. US EPA Consults on Antimicrobial Test Guidelines

   Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA is seeking comment on draft guidelines, developed by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), for conducting testing by the public and companies that are subject to the agency's data submission requirements.

   The guidelines are OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2000: general considerations for testing antimicrobial agents, OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2100: sterilants & sporicides recommendations for efficacy testing and OCSPP Test Guideline 810.2200: disinfectants for use on hard surfaces - efficacy data recommendations.

   These serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra) and Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

   “As guidance documents, the test guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the test guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice,” the agency says in a Federal Register notice.

   The guidelines can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov, grouped by series under docket ID numbers: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150 to EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0576.

   The deadline for comments is 17 August.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. There’s Toxic Antimony In Baby Bibs, Clothing, Toys And Games

   Jun 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

   By Tasha Stoiber

   With all of the chemicals that get put into consumer products, it can be difficult to protect our children from toxic hazards. Knowing what to look for and what kids’ products contain harmful chemicals is the first step. 

   For example, antimony, an obscure metal, is widely used in consumer products. It can be a pigment, and the compound antimony trioxide is used as a flame retardant in textiles and plastics. It also turns up in baby bibs, children’s shoes and clothes and in toys and games.

   Antimony is toxic. Several states list it as a priority chemical in children’s products. In Washington and Vermont, manufacturers must report antimony compounds in children’s products and other chemicals of high priority to designated state departments. Antimony trioxide is a known carcinogen. Chronic exposure can cause lung damage, skin irritation and stomach problems and has been linked to reproductive problems.

   In 2008, Washington state passed a remarkable disclosure law, the Children's Safe Product Act, requiring manufacturers to test and disclose information on 66 toxic chemicals in children’s products. Consumers can search the state’s online database of more than 2,500 products listed as containing antimony or antimony compounds.

   Knowing what chemicals are in children’s products is important, since children’s bodies are still developing and are more susceptible to chemical exposures. They often have higher body burdens of chemicals than adults.

   But assessing the actual risks from chemicals in kids’ products can be difficult, because children often use them in unexpected ways, such as chewing on clothes or putting toys in their mouths. Studies have shown that antimony can leach into food from plastic packaging, but there’s little information about children’s products, so consumers need to know what products contain potentially hazardous chemicals.

   State disclosure laws are powerful because in addition to informing consumers, they can also motivate companies to remove toxic chemicals from their products or seek out better alternatives.

   Other states are moving to adopt similar laws. Vermont and Maine already have similar programs for listing toxic chemicals in children’s products, and New York, Oregon and Minnesota are working on similar legislation.

   These state disclosure initiatives are all the more important because federal regulation of chemicals under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has been notoriously weak and ineffective. That has left it to the states to take action as one step toward protecting some of their most vulnerable citizens from toxic chemicals.

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Moms' Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors Linked with Birth Defect

   Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

   Mothers exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals during pregnancy are at higher risk for giving birth to baby boys with a genital defect, a French study has found.

   The study, which examined more than 600 children in France, found that babies exposed to the chemicals were more likely to be born with hypospadias, a genital defect. Baby boys exposed to the chemicals saw a 68 percent higher risk than those who were not, the study said.

   The condition, one of the most common genital defects in baby boys, usually requires surgery before the age of 2. About five of every 1,000 boys in the United States are born with the condition.

   The study, which was published in the journal European Urology, seems "well-crafted and supports the thought that chemicals in the environment are affecting our genital well-being," said George Steinhardt, a pediatric urologist at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., who wasn't involved in the study (Brian Bienkowski,Environmental Health News, June 16). -- SP

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

10. Feds Say Spill Chemicals Toxic Only at Higher Levels

    Jun 17, 2015 | Charleston Gazette

    By Ken Ward Jr.

    Federal researchers studying the chemicals from the January 2014 Elk River spill said Tuesday that they have so far found evidence of potential long-term health effects only at exposures greater than the government’s 1-part-per-million health advisory, but also said their work didn’t consider inhalation of Crude MCHM or fully account for impacts during the “flushing” of home plumbing systems.

    Officials from the National Toxicology Program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said their examination of pregnant rats found reduced birth weight and some fetal malformations -- extra ribs in the lumbar and cervical region -- only at levels thousands of times higher than would have been allowed under the drinking water advisory issued after the spill.

    State and federal officials said that the findings supported the decisions public health authorities made following the Freedom Industries spill, and affirmed the use of the results of just two studies by Eastman Chemical, makers of MCHM, in setting the chemical concentration at which residents would be told they could resume using home tap water following the incident.

    “The scientific results of the NTP studies released today upheld the drinking water advisory issued during the Elk River chemical spill which is good and reassuring news for West Virginia residents who reside in the affected communities,” said Bureau for Public Health Commissioner Dr. Rahul Gupta, who as Kanawha County health director at the time was highly critical of the state’s handling of the incident.

    Gupta said, though, that the findings don’t excuse the lack of information available about MCHM at the time of the spill, and that reforms in chemical regulation, public health, and emergency response systems are still needed to ensure authorities have adequate data the next time such an incident occurs.

    John Bucher, associate director of the NTP, said that the study results to date are good news, but that given the lack of data about MCHM at the time of the spill, there was no guarantee that follow-up research was going to confirm the decisions local officials made.

    “There is a certain amount of serendipity, if you will, in this case,” Bucher said. “Obviously, the numbers, the information that [Centers for Disease Control] and [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] had to work with on the day of the spill was inadequate from any sort of toxicology standpoint.”

    Bucher and Gupta also said the findings suffer from a lack of data about inhalation exposures residents experienced, especially when following the state-promoted guidance for running hot and cold water to flush home plumbing systems of any contamination. Federal officials abandoned a plan in the immediate aftermath of the spill to come up with a limit for how much MCHM was safe in the air, no air sampling was done in homes or public buildings, and follow-up research has warned residents could have been exposed to dangerous levels of chemicals during flushing procedures.

    In a letter to the NTP, Maya Nye of the local group People Concerned About Chemical Safety noted the lack of agency examination of inhalation issues and said that after reviewing the new findings, “We are left with as many questions as we are answers.”

    Gupta said that, given the study findings, his agency has no immediate plans to launch any sort of long-term medical monitoring of potential spill impacts on residents. But he said a review of low-birth weight issues would be conducted in response to the findings of the NTP rat study.

    “We’ll look at that,” Gupta said. “We really felt that we have to do it.”

    In its report on the rat study, the NTP emphasized that, “The finding that MCHM is toxic to the developing rat fetus does not establish that it would cause similar effects in humans.

    “Many factors determine whether toxicity in animal studies translate to similar effects in humans, such as the amount of duration of exposure, differences in how the human body handles the chemical compared to other species, and whether the biological basis for the effect is similar between different species and humans,” the NTP report said.

    Gupta noted that the same factors are involved in determining not only if an animal study that shows effects translates into similar effects in humans, but whether an animal study that does not show effects translates into no effects in humans.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

11. (ACC Mentioned) Natural Gas Liquids Find Some Love in a Rough Market

    Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

    By Jenny Mandel

    Natural gas liquids -- the cocktail of propane, butane, ethane, "natural gasoline" and a few other petroleum derivatives that comes up along with crude oil or natural gas from many petroleum formations -- are either a blessing or a curse, depending on whom you talk to.

    "It's sort of a 'make it go away' product," according to Macgill James, an NGL market manager with Phillips 66.

    "Fifteen years ago, you couldn't pay 150 people to sit in a room and listen to people talk about NGLs," he told a crowd yesterday at a conference hosted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It wasn't long after that, when energy companies Conoco and Phillips merged, that "they actually saw this business as so worthless that they ... spun a lot of [it] off," James said.

    Now, the numbers tell a different story. Along with the tight oil and gas that were unlocked with the shale revolution, NGL production has soared.

    The last decade has seen U.S. crude production increase by 67 percent and natural gas production rise by 42 percent, James said, but NGL production has grown by an even more impressive 73 percent.

    Unfortunately for drillers, liquids are not generally as valuable as the oil and gas that they come up with.

    Advertisement

    Current NGL prices run around $18 per barrel, James said -- a meaningful bump for natural gas producers, and enough to draw drillers toward "wet gas" that is NGL-rich rather than "dry gas" without those co-products, but no more than a distraction for most oil drillers.

    The real issue with liquids, James explained, is that NGLs must be handled in some way as they come out of the ground, but there isn't sufficient takeaway infrastructure in many of the major oil and gas plays.

    In some parts of the country, dedicated pipeline networks are in place to carry propane and other NGLs to market. But where such pipelines are not available, he said, the economics of handling them can be tricky.

    "Above-ground storage for NGLs is prohibitively expensive," he noted, but other options, like pumping the liquids into salt caverns for storage, can be viable.

    James outlined some figures behind Phillips 66's recent expansion of its NGL midstream business: crude oil in storage is currently up 8 percent over the past decade, and natural gas stocks have gone up 10 percent since 2005, but NGL annual ending stocks were 49 percent higher than 10 years ago.

    "If we don't clear the surplus, production stops. And it's all driven by that upstream," James added. "You can't keep growing your inventory at this level and not run out of storage."Doubling down on demand growth

    The big picture, of course, includes demand.

    The U.S. petrochemical industry has been booming in recent years, and the American Chemistry Council, which includes major petrochemical companies among its membership, tallies about $145 billion in investments that are planned or under way through 238 shale-related chemical industry projects.

    Much of that investment is premised on the low cost of ethane, a key feedstock for polyethylene and other plastics, among other products.

    Renato Montero, from Brazilian petrochemical company Braskem, said world demand for natural gas liquids is clear, as current estimates show that the world "needs four to five new, world-scale crackers per year to satisfy the ethylene global demand growth."

    "The U.S. is a good place for them," he added, in light of the boom in NGLs, but investment decisions have slowed with the oil price crash, which has made it harder for companies to predict their margins and finalize projects.

    James sees much of the surge in U.S. NGLs going to export markets. Northern Europe could account for some of that market as declining North Sea oil fields supply less of European demand, he said, while the obvious Asian markets like China and India will be joined by fast-growing neighbors like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam in their thirst for petrochemical feedstocks.

    James said a Phillips 66 project slated to start up in the second half of this year will export butane and some natural gasoline, while bringing together the pipeline, storage and shipping infrastructure needed to serve a wide range of customers.

    "We started out [in the NGL business] because we were pushed into it, but now we've embraced this opportunity," he said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Doctor Lawmakers: EPA Ozone Rule Won’t Help Health

    Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule limiting surface-level ozone pollution might not have the positive health benefits the agency says it will, nearly two dozen physician lawmakers said Wednesday.

    In a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, the lawmakers said that there has been no correlation between falling ozone levels and the asthma rate in the United States, which “highlights important questions concerning the validity of EPA’s conclusions” about its ozone restrictions.

    The letter also questioned the methodology behind ozone research the EPA used to justify the rule, saying it relies on pools of test subjects too small to get accurate results.

    “These studies’ findings are again far too limited to be appropriately applied to the general U.S population, or, for that matter, to groups of sensitive individuals in the population,” the doctors-turned-lawmakers, led by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), wrote. 

    The EPA intends to finalize more stringent standards for surface-level ozone concentration by this fall, reducing the allowable level from 75 parts per billion to 65 or 70 parts per billion. 

    “The science clearly tells us that exposure to sufficiently elevated ozone levels poses a real threat to our health, especially to growing children, older Americans, those of us with heart or lung conditions, and those who are active or work outside,” Janet McCabe, the acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, told a House subcommittee last week. 

    “The administrator’s proposal to strengthen the standards is designed to better protect children and families from the health effects of ozone pollution.”

    Republicans have said it will be very expensive for communities and the private sector to comply with the rule. Job losses associated with cutting ozone pollution, lawmakers said in the letter, will have their own impact on Americans’ health.

    “If the true intent here is to improve public health, then the agency should factor how its ozone proposal affects every aspect of human health — including impacts from unemployment, poverty and reduced access to health insurance,” the lawmakers wrote. 

    “Public health should not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful of the correlation between health and the economy.”

    Read the GOP lawmakers' letter:

    06.17.15 Congressional Physician Ozone Letter FINAL

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. 22 GOP Lawmakers Criticize Health Rationale for Lower Ozone Limit

    Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Amanda Peterka

    More than 20 GOP members of Congress who are health care professionals today called on U.S. EPA to retain the existing ozone standard.

    In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the 22 Republican members of the House and Senate raised questions about the analysis underlying EPA's conclusions about the public health benefits of a lower ozone limit.

    EPA in November proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standard for ozone from 75 parts per billion -- last set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb after finding that the 75 ppb limit was no longer adequate to protect public health.

    "As healthcare professionals, we rely upon the most accurate health data," the group of lawmakers wrote. "From this vantage, we believe that the proposal's harms outweigh its claimed benefits and are concerned it could ultimately undermine our constituents' health."

    Of the lawmakers signing the letter, 13 have doctor of medicine degrees. Some of the other signatories have been trained as dentists or eye doctors. Two are registered nurses. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who has a doctor of medicine degree, led the effort.

    In their letter, the GOP members singled out four controlled exposure studies that went into EPA's analysis of the public health effects of ozone pollution. They said that those studies relied on a limited number of test subjects and that their findings could not be extrapolated to the general U.S. population.

    Advertisement

    "As a whole," they wrote, "these controlled exposure studies do not support the necessity for a lower standard."

    The GOP lawmakers also took issue with EPA's use of epidemiology studies, or studies that look at populations, in determining that ozone pollution causes respiratory effects and is linked to premature death in the long term. They argued that errors in the studies make them inadequate for supporting a lower ozone limit.

    In its regulatory impact analysis released in November, EPA said reducing ozone to its proposed range would prevent between 750 and 4,300 premature deaths, between 1,400 and 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits, and between 320,000 and 960,000 asthma attacks in children yearly by 2025. A tighter standard would also result in a reduction of up to 1 million missed school days and 180,000 missed work days.

    Nationally, public health organizations such as the American Lung Association and American Thoracic Association have called on EPA to set a new standard no higher than 60 ppb, arguing that the weight of evidence has only gotten stronger since the last review that ozone pollution is a serious public health threat.

    In a March letter, more than 1,000 public health and medical professionals wrote EPA urging the agency to choose the 60 ppb limit. They argued that the controlled human exposure studies and epidemiological studies showed that the current level is too high to protect public health.

    "The current ozone standard clearly puts far too many people at risk," the health professionals wrote.

    In their letter, along with raising concerns about EPA's scientific analysis, the GOP lawmakers said they were also troubled by the potential costs of complying with a tighter standard. They cited a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers that found a 65 ppb ozone standard could cost up to $140 billion a year.

    The lawmakers charged that EPA had not taken into account human health impacts of unemployment and income loss that could result from a tighter ozone standard.

    "Public health should not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful of the correlation between health and the economy," the lawmakers' letter says.

    EPA's own cost estimates for a tighter ozone standard are much lower than NAM's estimates. The agency also found that benefits in the form of health care savings would outweigh costs by a factor of 3-to-1.

    John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and clean air program, slammed the lawmakers' letter for ignoring more than 1,000 studies that EPA said supports its conclusion that the 75 ppb limit is no longer safe and for dismissing epidemiological evidence.

    "In two curt sentences lacking any content, the letter dismisses the large body of epidemiological evidence accompanying EPA's rulemaking -- running many hundreds of pages -- that shows adverse impacts from short-term & long-term ozone exposure," he wrote in an email.

    He also noted that the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that EPA should consider income loss in its review of public health effects and that EPA's own science advisers have recommended a tighter standard.

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. GOP Senators Wary of EPA Coal Ash Rule

    Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    Republican senators on Wednesday aired concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule on coal ash disposal, saying they might try to revise it.

    While they are glad the EPA in December did not classify coal ash as hazardous waste, Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said the agency wrote a one-size-fits-all rule that reduces the role of states and opens utilities that operate coal-fired power plants to lawsuits.

    “The EPA rule finalized last December correctly determined that coal ash should continue to be regulated as a nonhazardous waste,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairman of the committee, said at a Wednesday hearing. “It also established minimum one-size-fits all standards for the management and disposal of coal ash in landfills and surface impoundments.”

    Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said that the rule does not account for differences in states. In South Dakota, he says, a requirement for coal ash pits to be lined with composite material would not make sense.

    “I’m concerned that this approach does not take into account the various factors involved in coal ash disposal at different facilities across the country,” he added.

    Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said the rule effectively “puts states on the sidelines, because the citizen suits are the only mechanism that is provided for enforcement of the rule.”

    The rule will take effect in October, and is the Obama administration’s response to a number of high-profile coal ash spills in recent years.

    Coal ash, the waste product of burning coal, can contain small amounts of arsenic, mercury, chromium and other hazardous substances. It’s usually stored in massive ponds or pits near power plants, which are often located near major waterways used for cooling.

    But the waste has been known to seep into groundwater or even break barriers altogether,  which happened recently in Tennessee and North Carolina.

    The EPA’s rule sets the first national standards for coal ash disposal. But the agency said it lacks the authority to enforce the rule itself, so it is encouraging states to adopt the standards, or let citizens sue in federal court.

    Democrats and environmentalists had hoped for a stronger rule, but the Democratic senators nonetheless defended the EPA’s approach.

    “I really believe this rule ought to have a chance to work,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat. “I personally would have preferred the EPA issue a stronger rule … but I do think their rule is a first step.”

    Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) noted that “although the EPA rule is not as robust as what I or many others would have liked, it does, for the first time, create a federal standard to protect human health and environment.”

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee has passed a bill that would allow the EPA to enforce the rule in states that do not have regulations as stringent as the federal government.

    But it would also weaken the rule by extending some deadlines and adding flexibility to some of the provisions. The full House is scheduled to vote on the legislation this month.

    The Republican senators did not endorse the House bill, but the industry and state witnesses called to the hearing by the GOP were generally supported the House’s effort.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Inhofe Weighs Support for Legislation to Change EPA Rule

    Jun 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

    By Manuel Quiñones

    Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said today he might support legislation aimed at changing U.S. EPA's new coal combustion waste disposal rule.

    The Oklahoma Republican discussed the rule as he presided over the first EPW Committee hearing on coal ash since a massive 2008 ash spill in Tennessee.

    The House, controlled by Republicans since 2011, has been doggedly pursing the coal ash issue for years and is scheduled to vote on legislation next week.

    EPA's decision to regulate coal ash as a nonhazardous substance under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act largely gave utilities and recycling companies, and pro-coal lawmakers, what they wanted.

    At the same time, because of RCRA's wording, the agency's decision to stay away from a Subtitle C "hazardous" designation makes its rule largely rely on citizen lawsuits. States may or may not adopt EPA's new standards as their own.

    Echoing his colleagues in the House, Inhofe expressed "significant concern with this approach." He said companies could face litigation "even if they were in compliance with their state's requirements."

    Advertisement

    When it comes to coal ash recycling interests, companies are worried about EPA leaving the door open to changing its mind about a hazardous designation.

    "We are painfully aware that EPA has made the final coal ash decision before only to reverse course in the future," said Danny Gray, executive vice president of coal ash management company Charah Inc.

    Gray stressed the importance of coal ash in road construction, a point Inhofe touted in connection with upcoming consideration of a long-term transportation bill.

    But after the hearing, Inhofe demurred on whether he's willing to consider a coal ash amendment to the transportation bill. He has long been skeptical of measures that could jeopardize the bipartisan nature of the transportation measure.

    Utilities, recyclers and states would like the Senate to consider something similar to the House bill, H.R. 1734, which would create a state-centered coal ash disposal regulatory system and implement many of EPA's new mandates.

    "We actually think the final federal rule is quite good," said Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States. "However, there is an implementation problem with the final rule."

    The panel's top Democrat, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, left the door open to discussing implementation issues with the states but is skeptical of the need for legislation.

    Speaking about EPA's rulemaking, Boxer said, "I think they should have been tougher, stronger." At the same time, she called it a good first step.

    "We need this rule," Boxer said, adding she's "dismayed" about the House bill.Greens mull legal action

    Boxer was echoing environmental groups, which may yet sue EPA over its decision. They say the House bill may incorporate some agency provisions but would leave out key requirements.

    Groups say the legislation, for example, would relax compliance timelines and scrap limits on where companies can build new coal ash impoundments. It also, they say, would relax public information sharing.

    Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the House bill would not provide for "uniform enforcement" because of the leeway states would have in developing their own plans.

    Gray responded by saying the bill "would give EPA additional power."

    But Frank Holleman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said, "The whole point of the House bill is to eliminate or weaken those national standards and leave it to the states."

    Holleman has for years been representing groups in litigation against utilities over seeps and other contamination from coal ash ponds. "In the South," he said, "we need the minimum protection of the EPA rule."

    Holleman and Boxer pointed to last year's spill from a Duke Energy Corp. ash pond, blasting the company and state regulators. Duke representatives were in the room.

    The Environmental Council of the States' Dunn said states have been beefing up enforcement, especially with delays in EPA's rulemaking. But Boxer, as the hearing was wrapping up, asked for a chat with her, wondering why problems were happening if state regulators were doing their job.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Time to End Federal Interference with Free Trade in Crude Oil

    Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog

    By Benjamin Zycher

    The current ban on exports of U.S. crude oil was enacted as part of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and was justified on the basis of two fallacies. First: That the 1973 Arab OPEC oil "embargo" was the cause of higher oil prices and the gasoline lines and other market disruptions experienced in the early 1970s. Second: That a ban on exports of crude oil would insulate the U.S. economy from the effects of international supply disruptions.

    The central analytic principle to bear in mind is straightforward: Abstracting from such minor factors as transport costs, there can be only one price for oil in the world market, because a higher price in one region would attract sellers, reducing the price there so as to equalize it with that everywhere else.

    And that is why the 1973 embargo, directed at the U.S., the Netherlands and some other allies of Israel, had no effect at all. Since there can be only one price in the world oil market, that attempt to impose a higher price on certain nations did not succeed; market forces resulted in the reallocation of oil so that prices were equal everywhere. The U.S. faced the same higher prices as everyone else.

    The actual source of the price increase was not the embargo; it was for the most part the production cutback by Arab OPEC. A far less important factor was the weakening of the dollar related to the collapse of the Bretton Woods exchange rate system, and the (sensible) decision by the Nixon administration to stop exchanging gold for dollars, that is, to end the fixed exchange-rate system by closing the gold window.

    Similarly, the gasoline lines and market disruptions were the result of the price and allocation controls imposed upon the domestic market for crude oil and refined products. Notice that there was no embargo in 1979; but there was a production cutback in the Persian Gulf as a result of the overthrow of the shah of Iran, there was a newly invigorated system of price and allocation controls, and there were once again gasoline lines and market chaos.

    This straightforward analysis means that the "insulation" rationale for the export ban similarly is fundamentally flawed: As long as the U.S. participates in the world market for crude oil, the volume of such imports or exports will adjust so that U.S. and international prices are equalized, controlling for transport costs.

    Accordingly, the first central point to bear in mind is straightforward: The intellectual and policy justifications for the export ban were bankrupt when it was enacted, and remain so today.

    With respect to the domestic price of crude oil, note that the current price difference between domestic (West Texas Intermediate) and foreign (Brent) crudes is about $5 per barrel. A repeal of the export ban would increase domestic prices modestly, by an amount of around $2 to $3 per barrel. This would be a straightforward supply-and-demand effect reducing the difference between the spot prices for crudes produced domestically and overseas, a difference that is likely to have been made artificially larger by the export ban.

    There is the further matter that an increase in crude exports would have the effect of strengthening the dollar, an impact the magnitude of which is very difficult to estimate among all the many factors influencing the dollar exchange rate. But however difficult to measure, this effect is real, and it would put some downward pressure on the dollar prices of crude oil internationally, thus offsetting to some degree the supply/demand effect just noted. And that stronger dollar would increase aggregate wealth in the U.S., which in principle would take the form of a reduction in the overall price of the U.S. basket of goods and services, an effect that again is difficult to measure in isolation, but that would offset in the aggregate the increase in the domestic price of crude oil.

    One might assume that an increase in the domestic price of crude would yield a rise in the prices of such refined products as gasoline and diesel fuel. Counterintuitively, that is not correct. Because refined products are not included in the export ban, and thus are traded freely in the international market, it is difficult to see how a repeal of the export ban on crude oil could increase product prices. Instead, ending the export ban on crude actually would put downward pressure on product prices, for two reasons.

    First: The increase in the international supply of crude oil created by increased U.S. exports would reduce both crude and product prices overseas. Accordingly, product prices in the U.S. would decline because, again, products are traded more-or-less freely in the world market, creating the one-price outcome described above.

    Second: Both internationally and domestically, the export ban has distorted the allocation of various types of crude oil among refineries, which are designed in various ways to refine particular crude oil types more efficiently than others. An end to the export ban would improve the alignment of refinery and crude oil characteristics, particularly in the U.S., thus reducing the cost of refining crude oil generally, and therefore of producing refined products. (This would be one of the hidden benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline.)

    Two final observations are worthy of attention. First: The reduction in international crude prices would have the salutary effect of reducing foreign exchange earnings by several unsavory regimes, the Iranian and Russian ones in particular. That impact might be modest, but every bit helps, particularly in terms of increasing energy security in Europe by increasing the Russian need to sell natural gas there.

    Second: The defense of free trade is a crucial component of the larger defense of capitalism and freedom, with important implications for such other specific issues as the prospects for the export of liquefied natural gas. The export ban on crude oil was from the very beginning a deeply perverse policy implemented in a futile attempt to mitigate the perverse effects of other government policies. Ending the ban would be an important component of a larger reform agenda for this Congress.

    Zycher is the John G. Searle scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. States, GOP Warn 'Background' Ozone May Make EPA NAAQS Unattainable

    Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker

    States and Republican lawmakers are ramping up concerns that naturally occurring “background” ozone levels that are beyond states' ability to regulate could make it impossible for many areas of the United States to attain EPA's looming possible tighter ozone standard, trying to make the case for the agency to retain its existing standard.

    The House Energy & Commerce Committee's power panel held a June 12 hearing on the proposal to tighten the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to between 65 and 70 ppb, followed by a joint hearing of the energy panel's power and commerce subcommittees on potential impacts on manufacturing from a stricter limit. Under court order, EPA must issue a final NAAQS update Oct. 1.

    According to the White House's website the agency has not yet sent the text of the final rule for mandatory Office of Management & Budget pre-publication review. Ahead of that review starting, industry groups, advocates and others have been meeting with agency officials to push for their preferred limit for revising the NAAQS.

    Democrats at the two hearings defended EPA's proposal as in line with scientific evidence and the air law mandate to set the NAAQS at the level requisite to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety."

    But GOP lawmakers who oppose a stricter NAAQS due to concerns about it creating major new costs for industry hope that the hearings will put pressure on EPA to retain the 75 ppb ozone standard.

    For example, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) -- chair of the energy panel's power subcommittee -- at the June 12 hearing pressed acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe on the potential costs of tightening the NAAQS.

    The agency says that under the Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent it is prohibited from taking costs into account in setting the standard, a point McCabe again made in response to Whitfield.

    That prompted the lawmaker to say “many of us believe the Clean Air Act needs to be changed,” a nod to the position of many Republicans that the air law should allow the costs be taken into account when EPA sets NAAQS. Whitfield and his colleagues cited estimates by economic consulting firm NERA that a tougher ozone NAAQS set at 65 ppb could cost $140 billion per year to implement, with the loss of 1.4 million jobs. These figures diverge widely from EPA's cost-benefit analysis, which shows a substantial net benefit from a tougher ozone rule.

    The agency 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.

    'Background' Ozone

    GOP lawmakers at the June 12 hearing queried McCabe on the implications of a tougher NAAQS for areas of the country that experience high levels of “background” ozone, generated either by natural processes or originating from outside the country. Whitfield said EPA “proposed levels so low that in some areas they are at or near background."

    State regulators with primary responsibility for meeting the NAAQS cannot regulate background ozone. EPA has previously estimated background ozone at up to 35 ppb, but readings in various parts of the country, especially the mountain West, have been much higher, reaching 60 ppb or more in some locations.

    EPA says this will not be a factor for most parts of the country, which could attain a NAAQS set at, for example, 70 ppb by 2025 without introducing new measures to curb pollution.

    Also, the agency in its proposal listed air law mechanisms to ease the problems areas may have with background ozone, such as the “exceptional events” rule that allows state regulators to exclude emissions monitoring data gathered during events such as dust storms and wildfires from determinations of NAAQS compliance.

    In high altitude areas in the West, however, McCabe conceded that background ozone can be a problem, noting that background levels vary by region and that some high-altitude monitors do show high background levels at times. Challenged by GOP lawmakers on how the NAAQS can take high or variable background levels into account, McCabe said that the standard should be equally health-protective everywhere.

    Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chair of the energy panel's environment subcommittee, questioned McCabe on what areas with high background ozone should do if they cannot attain the NAAQS by imposing pollution controls. McCabe stressed that the air law does not hold areas responsible for pollution they cannot control, but also underscored that the NAAQS also serve to inform people when the air they are breathing is unhealthy.

    This prompted Shimkus to ask whether inhabitants of such areas should move elsewhere if they learn their air in unhealthy.

    McCabe noted that high ozone days are episodic, prompting Shimkus to ask, “so, on bad air days, should they take a vacation?”

    States' Concerns

    Republicans' interest in background ozone is being driven in part by a recent report from the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), an group of air of regulators from 17 states that was created as an alternative to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), which represents state and local regulators in 41 states.

    AAPCA was formed after some GOP-leaning states became uncomfortable with some NACAA policy positions. NACAA supports EPA adopting a tougher ozone standard, citing the strong scientific case for doing so in its March 17 comments on EPA's proposed rule. AAPCA does not take a position on the level of the standard.

    In its June 11 report, AAPCA says that many states are concerned about background ozone that may interfere with them meeting any tougher ozone standard.

    AAPCA surveyed the comments of all 44 state environmental agencies that commented on the proposed new ozone NAAQS, and found, “A majority of state agency comments raised concerns about the role of background ozone, including both naturally-occurring and internationally-transported contributions to ground-level ozone, as an achievability or implementation challenge (26 states). Similarly, a majority of state comments identified limitations to the Clean Air Act tools highlighted by U.S. EPA for regulatory relief to address background ozone (24 states).”

    Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) raised the background ozone issue at the June 16 joint subcommittee hearing, saying, “God gave us natural ozone,” and at a certain point “we can't go any lower.”

    Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) also noted his concern that restrictions on rural counties' industrial expansion because of ozone attainment concerns could constraint natural gas drilling. This could limit the availability of gas to repower coal-fired power plants, one compliance strategy for power plant GHG rules proposed by EPA.

    At the June 16 hearing, Republicans and Democrats continued to tout competing analyses of the costs and benefits of a tougher ozone NAAQS. Ross Eisenberg, vice-president for energy and resources policy with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), explained that the prime difference between the NERA study and EPA's very different analysis is the assumptions made about costs of “unknown” technology.

    Exceptional Events

    EPA in its proposal listed the exceptional events rule established under air law section 319 as an option for states to exclude high ozone readings occurring for reasons beyond their control, but states do far have had little success in using this provision, and EPA is currently reviewing its rule, having made changes only to implementation guidance on the issue in recent years.

    A backlog of requests to exclude data under the rule has developed at EPA regions, notably in the West, and state sources have described varied experiences in what their EPA regional offices, which are responsible for approving the requests, consider adequate demonstration of an “exceptional event."

    AAPCA says 22 states in their comments noted the limited utility of the exceptional events rule. Another 16 commented on the limitations of using air law section 179B, cited in the proposal, to petition EPA to label an area in attainment with ozone NAAQS where it can show it would have attained the standard “but for” international pollution. The provision has been used in two border areas in the past -- in one case, El Paso, TX, has successfully petitioned EPA over excess particulate pollution coming from neighboring Mexico -- but it has not been used to exclude, for example, ozone of Asian origin from states' attainment designation.

    EPA in its proposal further cites air law section 182(h) as an option to treat nonattainment areas as “rural transport areas” (RTAs) if they meet certain criteria, such as they do not contain emissions sources that make significant contribution to ozone levels, and are not adjacent to a metropolitan area.

    However, this provision does not allow an area to escape a nonattainment designation, which normally brings with it the obligation to impose costly pollution controls on industry.

    Instead, the provision allows areas to avoid some of the more stringent requirements of the air law, but still requires that they impose nonattainment new source review permitting on industry, transportation conformity and the need for industry to obtain “offsets” to compensate for its air pollution, among other requirements. Transportation conformity requires that transportation projects not result in degraded air quality.

    AAPCA says 17 states in their comments expressed concerns about the viability of using RTAs. For example, Wyoming in comments cited by AAPCA says, “the fact that this classification has only been approved for two areas since the RTA's inception calls into question the RTA's usefulness as a nonattainment regulatory relief mechanism."

    Republicans at the June 12 subcommittee hearing entered the AAPCA report into the Congressional record. Democrats, meanwhile, entered NACAA's March 17 comments as a counterpoint -- though the NACAA comments do not discuss background ozone issues.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time