Preview Newsletter
ACC June 18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Can The Univar IPO Bring Together A Fragmented Industry And Profit?
Jun 17, 2015 | Benzinga
By Charles Enser
Global chemical distributor Univar Inc (NYSE: UNVR) hopes to raise $420 million by offering 20 million shares between $20 and $22 per share. The company will list on the NYSE under the ticker UNVR on Thursday. At the offering’s midpoint, Univar would have a market value of $2.9 billion. -
White House Seeks Nanotech Breakthrough Ideas
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Obama administration is looking for “ambitious but achievable goals” for ways nanotechnology can be used to solve some of society's largest problems by the end of the 2020s. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, through its National Nanotechnology Initiative, has put out a request for information seeking... -
EPA Risk Assessments 'Could Take A Decade'
Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
At its current pace, it would take the US EPA at least ten years to complete risk assessments of the 83 chemicals that it has identified for action in the work plan programme under the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 23 October 2014 ), according to the agency's watchdog. -
EPA Inspector General Calls for Speedy Completion of RCRA Post-Closure Guidance
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
The Environmental Protection Agency needs to finalize its guidance on whether additional post-closure care is required for hazardous waste disposal facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the agency's inspector general said in a report released June 17. -
EPA Asserts 'Broad Authority' To Protect Workers In New Vapor Guide
Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
In recently released guidance, EPA claims "broad authority" to protect workers from indoor air contamination, explaining the agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) each have distinct responsibilities for ensuring worker health and safety and rejecting arguments from some federal agencies... -
Phthalates: Can Exposure Be Avoided During Pregnancy?
Jun 17, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Phthalates. What exactly are they? Phthalates (sometimes called plasticizers) are chemicals that have been used since the 1950s to soften plastic that would otherwise be prone to cracking when bent. Because phthalates are not chemically bound to the plastics they are added to, they can be released into food or liquids or air. -
Supply Chain Reaction
Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the volume of merchandise traded globally is expected to grow more than 3% in this year, and 4% in 2016. This increased volume of products will bring with them new chemicals – some hazardous and some not properly managed. -
EU Chemicals Agency Calls for Input on Possible Concerns of DecaBDE Restriction
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency's Socio-Economic Analysis Committee June 17 called for comments on a draft opinion in which it backs a wide-ranging restriction under the European Union's REACH law on the brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE). -
Engler Named Temporary CSB Chair While Staffers Linked to Old Regime Go on Leave
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In a series of personnel shake-ups at the top of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, a new interim chairman has taken the agency's reins and two top staffers tied to a former chairman have been sidelined, Bloomberg BNA has learned. The board voted June 11 to temporarily give member Richard Engler executive and administrative... -
Controversial Safety Board Officials Placed On Administrative Leave
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Two top U.S. Chemical Safety Board officials were placed on administrative leave Tuesday and escorted from agency offices, raising tensions at the already beleaguered agency. Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb were both top lieutenants of former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned earlier this... -
Dems Pushed To Remove Pro-Crude Export Language From Cornyn Amendment
Jun 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Any modified version of Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn's amendment on oil and gas exports that comes up during today's final hours of debate on a defense authorization bill will not include symbolic language endorsing overseas crude sales, according to sources. -
GOP Crude Export Amendment Still Alive In The Senate
Jun 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Senate is set to vote today on limiting debate on its defense authorization bill, but the movement towards final passage does not rule out action on a new version of a stalled GOP amendment supporting oil and natural gas exports. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn had offered an amendment that endorses the geopolitical benefits... -
Crude Export Backers See Momentum -- And Ticking Clock
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Supporters of ending the ban on crude oil exports are mounting a full-court press to win over wary lawmakers, while keeping a close eye on global markets and the calendar. Export backers in recent months have cited both national security and economic arguments as they look to line up the votes to repeal the decades-old ban. -
City Council in Texas Votes to Amend Ordinance to Repeal Fracking Ban
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
A Texas city council has voted to amend a city ordinance and repeal its ban on hydraulic fracturing after determining the ban couldn't be enforced because of recent legislation passed by the Texas Legislature. The Denton City Council voted June 16 by 6-1 to amend Ordinance No. 2014-01, known as the hydraulic fracturing ban, Lindsey Baker, public... -
Proposed Regulations for Arctic Offshore Defended as Prudent Adaptive Measures
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
An Interior Department official defended two of the most prominent and criticized elements in the department's proposed Arctic standards for offshore oil and natural gas drilling June 16. Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), told a congressional subcommittee the proposed requirements... -
A Dubious Poll On A Proposed Virginia Pipeline
Jun 17, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Peter Galuszka
Having reported on the controversy in such places as Nelson County, I was surprised to note the Hickman results showing such a strong support for the pipeline. Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised. Let’s start with the Consumer Energy Alliance. For starters, it is a Texas-based lobbying group funded by such fossil... -
Crude Oil Amendments To Defense Authorization Fall To Procedure
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
Senators will not be asked to express their views in the next few days on crude oil exports, after two amendments to the defense authorization bill fell victim to chamber procedure yesterday. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had proposed rival amendments to express Congress' support or opposition to exporting crude oil... -
Water Samples From Barnett Shale Show Chemicals Used in Fracking, Joint Study Says
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
An analysis of groundwater samples collected from water wells on the Barnett Shale formation detected multiple volatile organic compounds, similar to chemicals used in unconventional oil and gas activities, according to a study released June 17. The study, a collaboration between the University of Texas at Arlington and Inform... -
A Husband's Legacy Passed On To His Wife -- And Maybe, Eventually, His Daughter
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Yehle
Four decades ago, 80,000 barrels of oil blanketed the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California, galvanizing a growing environmental movement and inspiring the first Earth Day. Lois Capps was 31 years old, the mother of young children who watched with her as the oil devastated the ocean near their home. The experience left her -- and ... -
Report Says EPA Underestimated Benefits In Proposed Power Plant Effluent Guidelines
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The public health benefits of regulating wastewater effluent from power plants were underestimated by the Environmental Protection Agency in its proposed rule, a report released June 17 finds. In “Selling Our Health Down The River: Why EPA Needs to Finalize the Strongest Rule to Stop Water Pollution from Power Plants,” five... -
Greens: EPA Underestimating Harms From Power Plant Water Pollution
Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Regulators are severely underestimating the health harms from the pollution that power plants dump into waterways, an environmental group said Wednesday. In advance of an expected September rule to crack down on heavy metal pollutants from power plants, the Sierra Club released a report urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)... -
Report Links Power Plants' Discharges, Health Concerns
Jun 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Annie Snider
Pressing the Obama administration to issue a strict regulation for curbing toxic wastewater discharges from power plants, green groups released a report today emphasizing the human health impacts of such pollution. Power plants are the top source of toxic pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, lead and selenium. The report argues... -
Drowning By EPA Overreach
Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Will Coggin
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently found itself in hot water. The New York Times revealed the agency colluded with environmentalist groups in a campaign to manufacture public comments in favor of a new rule that expands its own power. The agency’s actions and the shenanigans of its environmentalist supporters... -
EPA's Move to Block Discovery Is Flawed, Premature, Coal Companies Tell Court
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency's request that a federal appellate court block a lower court's discovery order in a lawsuit seeking to compel a jobs impact review of clean air regulations is premature and legally flawed, coal companies said (In re Administrator of EPA, 4th Cir., No. 15-01639, response filed, 6/17/15). -
Groups Ask Senate Panel for Legislation To Address Deficiencies in EPA Coal Ash Rule
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Senate should pursue legislation to address concerns over enforcement and the potential the Environmental Protection Agency could one day change its mind and regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste, witnesses representing rural electric cooperatives, state environmental agencies and coal ash recyclers told a Senate committee June 17. -
Boxer, Carper Split Over Permanently Regulating Coal Ash As Solid Waste
Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Tom Carper (D-DE) -- the two most senior Democrats on the environment committee -- are split over whether EPA's decision to regulate coal ash as solid rather than hazardous waste should be permanent, with Boxer faulting a House bill to make the designation permanent but Carper backing solid waste regulation. -
Senate May Join House Effort On Coal Ash
Jun 17, 2015 | Politico
By Alex Guillén
Senate Republicans may follow the House’s lead when it comes to giving states more control over handling coal ash waste. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told POLITICO after a hearing on EPA’s coal ash rule on Wednesday that although he didn’t yet have a strategy, the hearing “did bring up the necessity... -
GOP Senators Wary Of EPA Coal Ash Rule
Jun 18, 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... -
Industry's Troubles Driven By Obama Admin Policies -- NMA Chief
Jun 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones
National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn today blamed the Obama administration for exacerbating the coal industry's woes, including the loss of thousands of mining jobs. The industry, he said, has been squeezed by both regulation and low natural gas prices. "While tremendous growth in shale gas supply is understandably an... -
Republicans Question Ozone Studies, Urge EPA to Consider Effects of Job Loss
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency should not follow through on its proposal to revise the national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion because of concerns about studies linking adverse health effects to ozone levels below the current standards, according to Republican members of Congress who are also medical professionals. -
GOP Doctors Question Health Benefits Of EPA Ozone Rule
Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule to limit surface-level ozone pollution might not have the health benefits the agency claims, according to nearly two-dozen doctors-turned-lawmakers. In a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, the lawmakers, all Republicans, said there has been no correlation... -
(ACC Mentioned) PHMSA Crude-by-Rail Rule Appealed to DOT By Five Groups; DOT Responses Due Aug. 6
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Five administrative appeals have been filed with the Transportation Department over its final rule governing certain movements of crude oil and other flammable liquids by rail, and some of the appeals are calling for the federal government to move in conflicting directions. -
DOT Releases Aar’s Oil Trains Appeal
Jun 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
The Transportation Department has made public the text of the freight rail industry’s appeal against the administration’s new crude-by-rail tank car rule, including some of the studies used to back up its complaint. The Association of American Railroads appeal asks PHMSA to “reinstate a tank car standard that ... -
White House, DOT Release New Data Sets Related to Climate Change, Transportation
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amy Phillips
More than 90 data sets containing information relevant to climate change and transportation have been posted as part of the Obama administration's efforts on climate resilience. The data sets include relevant information from six federal agencies, provided through new “transportation themes” added to the administration's Climate Data Initiative... -
Rail Industry Faces Daunting Task Ahead of Deadline
Jun 17, 2015 | Roll Call
By Kellie Mejdrich
Congress’ upcoming deadline for railroads to implement a complex safety upgrade carries a new gravity after the deadly derailment of an Amtrak train on May 12 that killed eight and injured more than 200 in Philadelphia. “The accident we have investigated has shown us that we need technology that can step in when humans...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Can The Univar IPO Bring Together A Fragmented Industry And Profit?
Jun 17, 2015 | Benzinga
By Charles Enser
Global chemical distributor Univar Inc (NYSE: UNVR) hopes to raise $420 million by offering 20 million shares between $20 and $22 per share. The company will list on the NYSE under the ticker UNVR on Thursday. At the offering’s midpoint, Univar would have a market value of $2.9 billion.
Based in Downers Grove, Illinois, Univar’s broad product knowledge and marketing expertise helped make it the North American chemical distribution leader and the second largest in Europe. According to its S-1, “The company sources chemicals from over 8,000 producers worldwide and offers a wide array of products and services to over 110,000 customer locations in over 150 countries.”
From a global perspective, the chemical industry is very fragmented, which gives Univar its competitive advantage. It works to offer customers a “one-stop-shop” for chemical products and services.
Univar's Niche
The bulk of Univar’s business consists of buying and selling large quantities of chemicals to its customers. Its distribution business consists of inventory management, product knowledge and technical expertise through its team, in addition to a mixing, blending and repackaging component.
Univar offers the following value-added services: ChemCare, which collects waste products and specialized blending; MiniBulk, which provides a storage and delivery system for plant safety and production; and a distribution platform called ChemPoint.com.
Univar’s competitive advantage is its ability to provide customers more efficiency and better costs due to its market access and geographic reach. Since the company hired president and CEO, Erik Fyrwald, in May 2012, Univar has greatly improved its management team and put in place a series of initiatives built to drive growth and operating performance through better margins.
Throughout its history, Univar has grown through several acquisitions – a few of which include McKesson Chemical Corporation in 1986, Ellis and Everard in 2001, Chemcentral in 2010, and Key in 2015.
The Market Potential
At $3.4 trillion, the global chemical industry is not small. The fragmentation provides an opportunity for Univar to create a more efficient flow of products and services for more than 100,000 chemical suppliers. The company is focusing its efforts on “attractive, high-growth end markets, including oil, gas and mining, water treatment, agricultural sciences, food ingredients, pharmaceutical ingredients and personal care.”
Univar’s business is organized into four main segments: The U.S., Canada, EMEA and emerging markets. Most of the growth has come from emerging markets such as the Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The U.S. has seen a resurgence in chemical manufacturing activity because of improved demand from shale formations.
Based on information released by the American Chemical Council, “More than 135 new chemical production projects, valued at over $90 billion, were announced in the U.S. This could lead to an incremental $66.8 billion per year in U.S. chemical output.” Univar intends to leverage its size and scale to capitalize on this expected future growth.
Financials
Revenue increased year over from 2012 to now. From 2012 to 2014, revenue grew from $9.78 billion, $10.32 billion and $10.37 billion. In Q1 2015, revenue decreased by 8.6 percent to $2.23 billion from $2.52 in 2014. The decrease was partly due to a stronger U.S. dollar. The U.S. represents the largest market for the company with $1.4 billion in sales compared with $293.2 million from Canada, $476.4 million from EMEA and $134.7 million from the rest of the world.
Univar turned a profit of $19.7 million in the first quarter from a loss of $(2.8) million a year earlier. The company’s losses from 2012 to 2014 were $(197.4 million), $(82.3) million, and $(20.1) million, respectively.
At the end of the first quarter this year, Univar has $181.4 million in cash. Total assets are listed at $5.9 billion with total liabilities at $5.8 billion.
European private equity firm CVC Capital Partners acquired Univar for $2.07 billion in a 2007 leveraged buyout. $1.0 billion was invested for 75 percent stake. Another private equity firm in 2010, Clayton Dubilier, based in New York, invested $800 million to help the chemical company acquire Basic Chemical Solutions and now owns 40.5 percent.
CVC received a $544 million dividend and sold down its stake to 52.0 percent. According to an article by Bloomberg, “An IPO at that valuation would give Univar an enterprise value of $7.8 billion, or a stock market capitalization of about $4 billion after deducting debt. That would give Clayton Dubilier about a 100 percent unrealized profit on its investment. CVC would have more than a 150 percent gain.” The comparison was made by evaluating German competitor Brenntag, the largest in Europe.
Conclusion And Pricing Info
With the U.S. in a recovery and Europe bottoming out, along with developing nations like India and Indonesia growing, Univar can expect to see its revenue continue to grow. Management has a strategy to steer the company to continued profitability along with its private equity backers.
Univar expects to net $389.0 million for its IPO. The company is also conducting a private placement worth approximately $350 million. It intends to use the net proceeds from the IPO and private placement to: Redeem, repurchase, or acquire $600 million of its 2017 subordinated notes and $50 million of 2018 subordinated notesPay related fees and expensesPay equity sponsors a $26 million fee to end its consulting agreements
Univar plans to offer 20 million shares between $20 and $22 per share through the main underwriters for Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. The company will list on the NYSE under the symbol UNVR. Pricing is expected to occur Wednesday night.
-
White House Seeks Nanotech Breakthrough Ideas
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Obama administration is looking for “ambitious but achievable goals” for ways nanotechnology can be used to solve some of society's largest problems by the end of the 2020s. The White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, through its National Nanotechnology Initiative, has put out a request for information seeking ideas for potential “grand challenges” that involve nanoscale materials (80 Fed. Reg. 34,713). The goals must “solve important national or global problems and [have] the potential to capture the public's imagination,” the White House said in a June 17 Federal Register notice. Some possible ideas that could fall into this category would be the creation of microcomputers that can operate without maintenance for up to a decade or the manufacturing of atomically precise materials 50 times the strength of aluminum at half the weight. The White House will be accepting submissions through July 16. Its Federal Register notice is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-14914.pdf.
-
EPA Risk Assessments 'Could Take A Decade'
Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
At its current pace, it would take the US EPA at least ten years to complete risk assessments of the 83 chemicals that it has identified for action in the work plan programme under the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 23 October 2014 ), according to the agency's watchdog.
“Limited authorities and data on chemical toxicities and exposures inhibit the EPA's effective implementation of laws that regulate chemical use and production,” the Office of Inspector General (OIG) said in a report listing the agency's management challenges for 2015.
Saying the agency is “falling short” in implementing several programmes, the report said it needs to “enhance programme management and overcome statutory limitations on data availability to effectively ensure that the production and use of chemicals does not harm human health or the environment.”
Even the Government Accountability Office has voiced concerns about the “EPA's ability to conduct credible and timely assessments of the risks posed by the chemicals,” the report added. The GAO had stressed the need for the agency to ensure that sufficient resources are set aside to implement TSCA and to demonstrate progress in its risk assessment and risk reduction initiatives.
The agency also needs to complete work to establish criteria and procedures for identifying classes of chemicals to undergo assessments for low-level and cumulative exposure assessments. The EPA is yet to propose a regulation, setting a timeline for expiration of confidential business information claims, the report said.
It noted that the agency plans to conduct reviews in 2017 of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program and Antimicrobial Testing Program.
Aside from a brief reference to the six principles the EPA has set for TSCA reform, the report makes no mention of the TSCA updated bills making their way through Congress that would give the agency more authority to act on risk assessments and provide it with the financial resources to do so (CW 4 June 2015) and (CW 25 April 2015).
-
EPA Inspector General Calls for Speedy Completion of RCRA Post-Closure Guidance
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
The Environmental Protection Agency needs to finalize its guidance on whether additional post-closure care is required for hazardous waste disposal facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the agency's inspector general said in a report released June 17.
The EPA also needs to provide information to states regarding the benefits of environmental covenant statutes to strengthen controls for long-term protection of land use, the report said.
The report by the EPA Office of Inspector General also noted that some “legal and operational safeguards” to care for disposal units are already in place.
The EPA on April 29 released a draft of the post-closure care guidance, intended to help states make decisions on the length of the period of care of disposal facilities (88 DEN A-14, 5/7/15).
It has committed to finalizing that guidance by the end of 2015, according to the OIG report.
The report said guidance is needed quickly because states have had to make decisions on the care period without the aid of national guidance and that both federal and state hazardous waste programs will soon face increased workloads as more disposal units reach the end of the 30-year post-closure care period mandated under RCRA.
State agencies are usually tasked with the decision of whether to extend the post-closure care requirements.
-
EPA Asserts 'Broad Authority' To Protect Workers In New Vapor Guide
Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
In recently released guidance, EPA claims "broad authority" to protect workers from indoor air contamination, explaining the agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) each have distinct responsibilities for ensuring worker health and safety and rejecting arguments from some federal agencies and industry that EPA is trying to encroach on OSHA's authority.
EPA June 11 released its long-delayed technical guidance for assessing and mitigating risks from vapor intrusion, which occurs when vapors from below-ground contamination rise into the indoor air of overlying buildings.
In comments on a 2013 draft of the guidance, the Defense Department (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and some industry groups argued OSHA has lead authority over indoor air at workplaces, and therefore OSHA limits should be used to assess vapor risk in non-residential buildings. Industry argued the overlapping authority between two federal agencies should lead EPA to withdraw and revise the draft vapor intrusion guidance.
But EPA's final guidance clearly states its authority to protect workers from indoor air contamination stemming from chemical releases, and advises against using OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) to protect workers from vapor intrusion.
"EPA has broad authority and distinct responsibilities to assess and, if warranted, mitigate vapor intrusion in residential and nonresidential settings arising from a chemical release that causes subsurface contamination by volatile hazardous chemicals," according to the agency's final guidance.
To bolster its authority, EPA points to an OSHA acknowledgment, on a website updated in May, that its own PELs are not sufficiently stringent to protect workers. "OSHA recognizes that many of its [PELs] are outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health," EPA says in the final guidance.
An environmentalist tracking the guidance says OSHA's recent acknowledgment that its PELs are not sufficiently stringent to protect workers from indoor air contamination is "great news" that will hopefully prompt OSHA to strengthen its standards.
EPA has already been addressing vapor intrusion in non-residential buildings, the source says, so the clarification will likely affirm current practice. The strong language in the EPA guidance suggests that EPA and OSHA prevailed over other federal agencies in negotiations on the draft guidance at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the source says.
Whether OSHA's PELs or EPA risk-based limits should apply at occupational sites at risk of vapor intrusion has been a long-running question that brought conflicting comments on EPA's 2013 draft guidance. Industry and federal agencies argued EPA ignored OSHA's role, while regulators from Virginia and California urged EPA to clarify its authority to protect workers.
Historically, OSHA has set standards for indoor air at occupational sites. But OSHA's PELs have not been updated in decades and are typically weaker than EPA's risk-based standards, sometimes by orders of magnitude.
In 2013, prior to OSHA's acknowledgment on its website in May that many of its PELs are outdated and inadequate for protecting workers, a state regulator told Inside EPA the question of agency jurisdiction raised both political and technical challenges.
An EPA assertion that OSHA's limits fail to protect workers would raise problems politically, the regulator said. And at sites where the chemical of concern for vapor intrusion from historic or off-site contamination is also used in industrial processes, differentiating between the underground and indoor sources of contamination is especially difficult.
In the final guidance, EPA says it has a "critical mandate" to protect human health, and that its authority to protect workers from indoor air contamination stems from statutes, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The guidance also cites a November 23, 1990, memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OSHA and EPA seeking improved environmental and workplace safety, and says that agreement remains in effect. Also, in February 1991, a second MOU established a process for the two agencies to coordinate "in identifying environmental and workplace health and safety problems" and better enforce their respective environmental and workplace statutes.
Although the guidance notes that the agencies "each have a distinct statutory responsibility to ensure the safety and health of America's workforce," EPA says OSHA's limits are not intended to protect sensitive workers and may fail to incorporate recent toxicological data because they are outdated.
In a footnote to a section on occupational exposures, EPA's guidance says that most OSHA PELs were adopted in 1971. While OSHA has issued some new PELs since, EPA says scientific data "clearly indicate" that in many cases, those limits also fail to adequately protect workers.
"For these and other reasons, EPA does not recommend using OSHA's PELs . . . for purposes of assessing human health risk to workers" through vapor intrusion in non-residential buildings, EPA says.
EPA struggled for years to craft the vapor intrusion guidance that cleanup experts say will be a game changer at thousands of sites around the country. The guidance consists of two separate documents, including a primary guide for assessing vapor risk from chlorinated solvents, such as trichloroethylene, which EPA says poses a risk of cardiac birth defects from short-term exposures. A supplemental guide focuses on assessing risks from petroleum contamination at leaking underground storage tank sites.
An April 2013 draft of the guidance released for public comment failed to sufficiently clarify EPA and OSHA's overlapping authority over indoor air at occupational sites, sparking critical comments from industry and other federal agencies.
The American Chemistry Council backed use of OSHA limits at workplaces and said EPA's draft guidance suggested overlapping authority between two federal agencies, imposing inconsistent requirements on companies in violation of OMB guidelines.
DOD's push in April 2013 comments was narrower, arguing that standards derived from EPA risk levels are inappropriate for assessing "manufacturing/industrial locations and associated office spaces that use the chemicals being assessed for [vapor intrusion]." The difference, DOD says, is that when workers use a chemical on site they are adequately trained about its hazards.
And in June 2013 comments, NASA cited "significant global concern over EPA's usurping key OSHA responsibilities."
Meanwhile, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control urged EPA to take the opposite approach and clarify that risk assessors should rely on the EPA guidance rather than OSHA PELs when assessing risk from vapor intrusion.
EPA's 2002 draft vapor intrusion guidance included a statement saying that OSHA limits, rather than EPA standards, should apply to "primarily occupational" facilities, but that language was not included in the April 2013 draft. In the 2002 version, EPA also noted vapor intrusion can occur in workplaces due to chemicals that are no longer or were never used in a particular workplace, so regional or state authorities should notify the facility of the potential for this exposure pathway to cause a hazard. The 2002 draft was the first time EPA said it would oversee workplace exposures that stem from environmental contamination.
-
Phthalates: Can Exposure Be Avoided During Pregnancy?
Jun 17, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Phthalates. What exactly are they?
Phthalates (sometimes called plasticizers) are chemicals that have been used since the 1950s to soften plastic that would otherwise be prone to cracking when bent. Because phthalates are not chemically bound to the plastics they are added to, they can be released into food or liquids or air.
Phthalates are suspected endocrine disruptors. They have been banned in certain products in the European Union since 2005 (i.e. toys) but are still allowed in the United States. These toxic chemicals are everywhere: in food packaging, fragrance, cosmetics, household cleaners, and personal-care products.
They have proven to be extremely harmful and toxic for expectant mothers, jeopardizing not only their health, but also the health of their unborn babies.
In 2003, CDC researchers found measurable levels of many phthalate metabolites (breakdown products that pass out quickly in urine) in the general population. By studying an individual’s urine samples, scientists are able to estimate the amount of phthalates that have entered his/her body.
The CDC found that women usually have higher levels of these urinary metabolites than men due to phthalates that are used in soaps, body washes, shampoos, and cosmetics. Pretty scary stuff right?
Although it is unknown exactly how low-level phthalate exposure affects human health, phthalates have been linked to asthma, ADHD, breast cancer, obesity, type II diabetes, lower IQ, neurodevelopmental issues, behavioral issues, autism spectrum disorders, altered reproductive systems, improper organ development, and male fertility issues.
Children and pregnant women are the most vulnerable groups for phthalates. These chemicals can potentially impact birth outcomes such as gestational age and birth weight, fertility, and anatomical abnormalities related to the male genitalia.
Inhaled, ingested, and absorbed through what we put in and on our bodies, phthalates are tough to phase out.
Luckily, there are steps that pregnant women can take to avoid consuming more of these toxics than necessary. Avoid microwaving food in plastic containers.Stay clear of plastic bottles and containers made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)Always store food in glass, stainless steel, or ceramic containers.Synthetic fragrances can often contain hundreds of ingredients. Look at the contents of your fragrances, and go for naturally derived scents or fragrance-free label.Minimize the use of personal care products (shampoos, makeup, lotions) that contain phthalates.Eat organic. Phthalates are used in pesticides.Buy fresh fruits and vegetables. Avoid canned and processed foods.Minimize handling of receipts, which contain chemicals. And and make sure you wash your hands after handling them!Take shoes off at the front door to avoid tracking in dust that may contain these chemicals.Keep carpets and window sills clean – these are popular hang out spots for dust that contains phthalates!Look for products from companies and manufacturers who can verify the products are phthalate-free. It seems that our everyday lives are overrun with phthalates.
We couldn’t agree more Taylor, but these simple steps can help minimize exposure.
-
Jun 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
According to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the volume of merchandise traded globally is expected to grow more than 3% in this year, and 4% in 2016. This increased volume of products will bring with them new chemicals – some hazardous and some not properly managed.
A panel debate - at this year’s Helsinki Chemicals Forum – examined this issue; asking ‘how can communication tackle the “chemical intensification” of the economy?’ Delegates and speakers agreed that developing effective supply chain communication is complex across different regions, legislations and practices but all were clear that it is one of the most important objectives in achieving sound chemicals management.
Offering a US perspective, chairman of the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CSPC), Elliott F Kaye, gave an example of how difficult it can be for the issue of chemical compliance and safety to permeate different tiers of the supply chain. “If you’re a zipper manufacturer, you are unlikely to be thinking about the children’s product manufacturer who may take the zippers and use them in a children’s product.”
In his example, he asked if it is realistic for the zipper manufacturer to think about the chemical requirements of potential product manufacturers further down the supply chain. By the time the end user receives the zippers, he said, it is hoped that they understand that testing is required. However, based on his experience of products coming though US ports, some of which have violated lead and/or phthalate requirements, this message is not being communicated, said Chairman Kaye.
This is something we are all confronting, he said. To address the issue there needs to be a greater emphasis on bringing in chemists and materials engineers at the product design phase to fully understand “what chemicals will be necessary for the best use of that product” he added. It is uncommon to see companies actively looking into the chemicals they need to make a product perform its desired function(s), he said. “Usually this discussion is had at the back-end, after a chemical has been identified as being of concern and then companies scramble to find out if that chemical is actually in their products.”
Mark Rossi, director of Clean Production Action, expanded on this, saying that there is a strong business case for companies to know the chemicals in their products. He said the negative impacts on companies which do not engage in collecting information on chemicals, are becoming more and more apparent. A company’s brand reputation can be hit; its market share can be cut or even lost and investors are beginning to take note of how a business is managing chemicals, he said.
Dr Rossi added that it was critical for sectors to share information; pointing out the electronics (Materials Declaration Standard IPC-1752A) and automotive (International Materials Data System) industries common standards for data sharing. “We need common templates and systems for collecting this information, as well as training suppliers and testing products.”
“Initially you have to make an investment in a system for collecting information on chemicals,” he said. Following this initial investment, said Dr Rossi, a company will often start to see the benefits. “The downstream companies have the most exposure to their brand reputation, so for them having a good handle on the chemicals in their products and supply chain is paramount to maintaining that brand reputation.” He added that a company’s focus should not be on substances of very high concern but on all chemicals in their products, to achieve a systemic understanding of its supply chain.
Very few companies, he said, are realising the opportunities.
A workshop, hosted by Chemical Watch, which followed the two days of debates, showcased some of the work, as well as the challenges global brands face in communicating and managing chemicals throughout the supply chain. Highlighting the scale of the challenge, Sean Cady of VF Corporation, parent company to several global brands including Wrangler, The Northface and Timberland, said his company makes its products in over 60 countries. Mr Cady said the complexity of the rules and framework in which apparel and footwear brands operate is “being pushed to our manufacturing partners”, who may not have the skills or knowledge to implement complex requirements within their supply chain.
“On one end of the supply chain, you have the brand/retailer with some knowledge around chemical requirements and management and, on the other side, you have the big chemical companies which hold a lot of information. But, largely in the developing countries, there are a lot of areas where this information gets lost.”
-
EU Chemicals Agency Calls for Input on Possible Concerns of DecaBDE Restriction
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency's Socio-Economic Analysis Committee June 17 called for comments on a draft opinion in which it backs a wide-ranging restriction under the European Union's REACH law on the brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE).
ECHA proposed the DecaBDE restriction in August 2014 in collaboration with the Norwegian Environment Agency, on the grounds that the substance is classified persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and very persistent and very bioaccumulative.
The restriction, in effect, would result in a total ban in the EU of DecaBDE, with the exception of some uses in the aviation industry.
The Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC), which is responsible for issuing opinions on the socioeconomic effects that the bans or restrictions on a substance could have, said in the draft opinion that the proposed restriction was justified on an EU-wide basis because DecaBDE contributes to “transboundary pollution, reflected by widespread environmental occurrence of this substance in the EU.”
Comments on the SEAC draft opinion can be submitted through Aug. 17.
Flame Retardant Under Pressure
DecaBDE is a very widely used flame retardant that has come under increasing regulatory scrutiny and control in recent years.
Norway proposed the substance for inclusion in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and DecaBDE has been listed as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
In its draft opinion published June 17, SEAC said a wide-ranging EU restriction on DecaBDE was preferable to listing it in Annex XIV of REACH, known as the authorization list, which includes substances that are banned from use in the EU unless specific authorizations are granted. Listing in Annex XIV is one alternative for regulators after a substance has been listed as an SVHC.
If DecaBDE is made only subject to authorization, “emissions from imported articles would not be covered,” the SEAC opinion said.
A second agency committee, the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC), also has backed the wide-ranging restriction on DecaBDE, though ECHA has not yet published the RAC opinion.
When the SEAC and RAC opinions are finalized, they will be sent to the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, which will make the final decision whether to implement the restriction.
Philippe Salemis, director of the European Flame Retardants Association, told Bloomberg BNA June 17 that the industry has been “active in developing alternatives to the flame retardant DecaBDE and these are available on the market to ensure that the same applications can continue to meet fire safety requirements.”
-
Engler Named Temporary CSB Chair While Staffers Linked to Old Regime Go on Leave
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In a series of personnel shake-ups at the top of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, a new interim chairman has taken the agency's reins and two top staffers tied to a former chairman have been sidelined, Bloomberg BNA has learned.
The board voted June 11 to temporarily give member Richard Engler executive and administrative authority in the absence of a Senate-confirmed chairman, according to a June 12 e-mail obtained by Bloomberg BNA. The transfer of power was necessary because member Mark Griffon, who had been acting as the interim chairman, will leave the Chemical Safety Board June 24.
United Steelworkers has “a lot of faith in Mr. Engler,” Mike Wright, the union's director of health, safety and environment, told Bloomberg BNA June 17.
In a June 16 e-mail obtained by Bloomberg BNA, Engler told CSB staff that Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb are on leave. The e-mail doesn't say how long the pair will be out.
Horowitz and Loeb were aligned with former Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned his leadership post under White House pressure March 26 and left the agency April 10. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked the Obama administration to remove Horowitz and Loeb along with Moure-Eraso in a March 18 letter (55 DEN A-8, 3/23/15).
The personnel moves highlight the CSB's struggle to recover from the contentious tenure of Moure-Eraso. The agency previously voted through measures to boost transparency and accountability, and met with key stakeholders to gather input as it develops its next strategic plan (88 DEN A-3, 5/7/15).
Turmoil Ahead?
But more turmoil at the CSB could be in the offing. Once Griffon leaves the agency, the board will have just two Senate-confirmed members: Engler and Manuel Ehrlich Jr. Those two members could be at loggerheads.
Ehrlich sided with Moure-Eraso during a House Oversight Committee hearing March 4 that examined the agency's dysfunction. Ehrlich defended Horowitz and Loeb against the House Oversight Committee's call for their ouster. Ehrlich appeared as an uninvited witness at a House Oversight Subcommittee hearing April 16—the lawmakers had asked Horowitz to testify about low staff morale, but he didn't show up.
Ehrlich also voted against measures to undo a controversial governance motion and to initiate a rulemaking to enhance transparency via regular CSB business meetings.
Ehrlich is expected to miss the CSB's June 18 public meeting, as he went out on medical leave just before the agency's June 10 public meeting. His absence denies the board a quorum and thus prevents any substantive action.
The White House has nominated Vanessa Allen Sutherland, acting deputy administrator at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to become the agency's chairwoman. Sutherland needs to clear the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and win a confirmation vote in the full Senate before she can join the CSB.
-
Controversial Safety Board Officials Placed On Administrative Leave
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Two top U.S. Chemical Safety Board officials were placed on administrative leave Tuesday and escorted from agency offices, raising tensions at the already beleaguered agency.
Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb were both top lieutenants of former CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned earlier this year under pressure from the White House and members of Congress.
Moure-Eraso was accused of creating a dysfunctional agency environment that led to low morale, high employee turnover and delayed investigations of industrial accidents. He was also accused of improperly conducting agency business on a personal email account. At the time, Moure-Eraso said agency officials had complied with the Federal Records Act because all private messages were later turned over to the agency for preservation (E&E Daily, March 27).
The board is facing new turmoil this week, as a private vote that was conducted under "urgency" procedures transferred temporary administrative authority for the agency to board member Rick Engler, who was confirmed last year and joined the board about three months ago (Greenwire, June 16).
Engler and board member Mark Griffon are expected to address the issues at the agency's public business meeting at 9:30 a.m. today, as the board discusses a proposed rule laying out a series of requirements regarding how CSB engages with the public.
The board has made no public statement about the Engler vote, which took place six days ago. The agency didn't respond to a request for comment yesterday about the status of Horowitz and Loeb.
In an email to CSB staff sent Tuesday, Engler said he had ordered Horowitz and Loeb to take leave. Engler said he would notify staff of "some temporary changes in CSB staff leadership" but didn't elaborate.
Engler's move against the senior officials will only further distract CSB from its mission of investigating chemical accidents, the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility warned.
"In charge for less than a week, Engler has escalated from a toxic work environment to thermonuclear war," PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. "These stale and frankly trivial matters do not merit Egyptian-style martial-law retribution meted out here."
Horowitz and Loeb are barred from entering CSB's headquarters or from communicating with other CSB staff, Ruch said.
Engler and Griffon were exhibiting "hypocrisy" by acting unilaterally in private, without a quorum, after they assailed Moure-Eraso for approving governance reforms that increased his own authority earlier this year, Ruch said. Unlike Engler's action, Moure-Eraso's controversial board order was approved at a public meeting in Richmond, Calif., though Griffon said he was not told of the measure in advance (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told E&E Daily yesterday he believed Engler made a necessary choice.
"I'm pleased they're addressing it," Chaffetz said, "because if you're going to change the culture, you're going to have to change those people."
With Griffon's impending departure from the board, the vacancies are an opportunity for CSB to clean house, Chaffetz said.
"We need a fully functional Chemical Safety Board, and based on our hearings, the organization's in disarray," Chaffetz said. "So, if they're making substantive changes, I wholeheartedly support that."
-
Dems Pushed To Remove Pro-Crude Export Language From Cornyn Amendment
Jun 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Any modified version of Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn's amendment on oil and gas exports that comes up during today's final hours of debate on a defense authorization bill will not include symbolic language endorsing overseas crude sales, according to sources.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) objected to the pro-exports provision in Cornyn's amendment and would have forced a vote on it, a Democratic aide said by email, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Removal of that symbolic language would leave intact the amendment's requirement for a report on European vulnerabilities to Russia's role as the continent's leading oil and gas supplier. -
GOP Crude Export Amendment Still Alive In The Senate
Jun 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Senate is set to vote today on limiting debate on its defense authorization bill, but the movement towards final passage does not rule out action on a new version of a stalled GOP amendment supporting oil and natural gas exports.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn had offered an amendment that endorses the geopolitical benefits of overseas oil and gas sales while requiring a new report on the vulnerabilities that Russia’s neighbors experience thanks to its position as Europe’s dominant fuel supplier. The amendment, which drew quick criticism from greens, was later reworked and still could see a vote during the defense debate.
“A modified version of the amendment could be included in a potential manager’s package,” a GOP aide said by email. The scope of that package remains to be seen, subject to ongoing negotiations between the parties. -
Crude Export Backers See Momentum -- And Ticking Clock
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Supporters of ending the ban on crude oil exports are mounting a full-court press to win over wary lawmakers, while keeping a close eye on global markets and the calendar.
Export backers in recent months have cited both national security and economic arguments as they look to line up the votes to repeal the decades-old ban. Earlier this week at a speech at the U.S. Energy Information Administration annual conference, Continental Resources Inc. founder Harold Hamm warned that maintaining the ban would cause U.S. production to fall by 1 million barrels a day (Greenwire, June 16).
EIA's own data from earlier this month pegged U.S. oil production at 9.6 million barrels per day in May, but predicted that amount to "generally decline" until early 2016 before picking up again.
However, EIA's latest forecast also noted the highest average monthly price of 2015 for the global oil benchmark -- Brent crude, which rose $5 a barrel in May. At the same time, U.S. average gasoline prices rose to $2.72 last month, a 25-cent increase over April and the highest of the year so far.
Oil prices regularly rise and fall, but a continued upward trend complicates the task of persuading lawmakers to cast their votes to end the ban -- and later face a voter backlash.
"I think it's important to do it this year," Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told E&E Daily yesterday. "The world market is receptive now."
While noting that the decision on timing resides with House GOP leadership, Barton said he was optimistic about a vote in the coming months. "I would say there's a good chance this summer or early fall," he said. "That's not based on any promises."
Barton said his staff met last week with aides for current Energy Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who earlier this month announced he had made up his mind that the time is right to legislate on the ban (Greenwire, June 2).
But in doing so, Upton stopped short of endorsing Barton's bill (H.R. 702) to fully repeal the ban, which is nearing 70 co-sponsors from both parties. An Upton spokesman declined to comment on the committee's plans for moving a bill, but Barton said he remains convinced that the time is right for a full repeal.
"My gosh, we're awash in oil," he said. "We're exporting 2 [million] to 3 million barrels of refined products a day. This thing is a holdover from the '70s, when we were importing two-thirds of our oil. So the sensible thing to do is just knock it off the books and let the market work."
Senate export backers had hoped to test the legislative waters with a handful of amendments to the defense authorization bill, but votes on side-by-side proposals by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) never materialized.
Cornyn's amendment would require new defense and intelligence estimates of the potential of U.S. exports to insulate U.S. allies from Russian energy bullying, while Markey's espoused the "sense of the Senate" that exports should not be authorized if they increase fuel prices or U.S. reliance on oil imports. A third amendment filed by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) would fully repeal the export ban.
An export backer, Cornyn told reporters in November that he didn't think the issue was quite ripe for legislative action. He blamed Democrats yesterday for blocking amendments to the defense authorization measure, but also acknowledged export backers still have some work ahead of them.
"We're trying to be careful about how we approach it," he told E&E Daily. "When we have that vote, we want to win it, and so we're taking an incremental approach."
Cornyn also sidestepped a question about whether it's important to get a repeal through Congress before global oil prices rise.
"If it were up to me, I'd do it right now," he said.
-
City Council in Texas Votes to Amend Ordinance to Repeal Fracking Ban
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
A Texas city council has voted to amend a city ordinance and repeal its ban on hydraulic fracturing after determining the ban couldn't be enforced because of recent legislation passed by the Texas Legislature.
The Denton City Council voted June 16 by 6-1 to amend Ordinance No. 2014-01, known as the hydraulic fracturing ban, Lindsey Baker, public information officer for the city, said in a statement.
The ban had been rendered unenforceable by the city in H.B. 40, a law passed in May, which prevents municipalities from regulating oil and gas industries. Fracking operations resumed in the city on June 1 (104 DEN A-11, 6/1/15).
The ordinance passed to repeal the ban was a result of the city's intent to comply with H.B. 40, Jessica Rogers, assistant to the city manager, told Bloomberg BNA.
“The city is also considering amendments to its current regulatory ordinance to maintain consistency with HB 40, and those amendments will be presented to the planning and zoning commission in the near future,” Rogers said.
In November, voters in Denton passed a referendum that banned hydraulic fracturing within the city limits.
The Texas Oil and Gas Association and Jerry Patterson, commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, swiftly filed separate lawsuits against the city, stating the ban was inconsistent with state law and violated the Texas Constitution because only the Texas Railroad Commission had the authority to regulate oil and gas activity (Tex. Oil & Gas Ass'n v. City of Denton, Tex. Dist. Ct., No. 14-08933-431, 11/5/14; Patterson v. City of Denton, Tex. Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-14-004628, 12/01/14); (232 DEN A-11, 12/3/14).
In response to the ban, the Texas Legislature filed and passed H.B. 40, granting the state exclusive jurisdiction over oil and gas operations and thereby preempting ordinances and regulations enacted by a municipality that bans, limits or otherwise regulates an oil and gas operation unless the regulation meets one of four tests. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Gregg Abbott (R) on May 18 (96 DEN A-3, 5/19/15).
TXOGA Expands Suit
On June 15, the Texas Oil and Gas Association filed an amended complaint in its lawsuit against the city, broadening the scope of its lawsuit against the ban and targeting the city's moratorium on new gas drilling (73 DEN A-10, 4/16/15).
The moratorium is separate from the ban and was placed in effect in May 2014 when the city decided to update its ordinance on gas well activity. Proposed revisions were issued December 2014, and the council had voted to extend the moratorium until August 2015 so it could decide what it could regulate under H.B. 40.
By repealing the ban, the city can potentially reduce the ongoing court costs and attorneys' fees related to ongoing litigation with the Texas Oil and Gas Association as well as the General Land Office, Baker, Denton's public information officer, said in a statement.
“It also significantly mitigates problems and perceptions associated with operational discrepancies between the ban ordinance and newly-adopted state law, to which the City is bound to comply,” Baker said. “HB 40 is the law now in the State of Texas. Denton will comply with it so long as it remains valid.”
Repealing May Have Best Choice
While repealing the ban wasn't the city's only option, it may be the one with the highest probability of some success, David Spence, professor of law, politics and regulation at the University of Texas at Austin, told Bloomberg BNA.
“They could try to fight by challenging the statute in court, but that seems like a strategy with a very low probability of success,” Spence said. “H.B. 40 pretty clearly preempts local bans on oil and gas activity.”
-
Proposed Regulations for Arctic Offshore Defended as Prudent Adaptive Measures
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
An Interior Department official defended two of the most prominent and criticized elements in the department's proposed Arctic standards for offshore oil and natural gas drilling June 16.
Brian Salerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), told a congressional subcommittee the proposed requirements for a second rig to drill a relief well and for a shorter drilling season were prudent measures to adapt oil and gas operations to the harsh realities of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas north of Alaska.
He spoke a day after the drilling rig Polar Pioneer, under contract to Royal Dutch Shell Plc, was towed from Seattle on its way to Dutch Harbor, Alaska, the port in the Aleutian Islands that serves as a temporary stopping point where the rig can resupply and change crews before heading north through the Bering Strait to Arctic waters.
The Nobel Discoverer, a drill ship also under contract for Shell's planned Arctic work, had not yet left its port in Everett, Wash., as of June 17.
Shell plans to resume drilling this summer at the Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea.
Backup Rigs, Short Seasons
The backup rig requirement in the proposed Arctic standards is made more economical by the fact that both rigs can be drilling wells separately while available to back each other up, Salerno told the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
The requirement was no stricter than what is mandated for the Gulf of Mexico, Salerno said. He added that the rigs backing each other up need not be working for the same company.
Salerno also defended the proposal for a “shoulder season” that is expected to stop drilling each year in late September, several weeks earlier than industry would like. That provision may make it impractical for companies to finish a single well in a single year, given how short the open-water drilling season is in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, critics have said.
“In the Arctic, it is imperative to ensure there is enough time left in the season to conduct emergency operations, should they be needed, before the water freezes over and it becomes difficult or impossible to respond to a well control event,” Salerno testified.
Salerno noted that Canada has a requirement for a same-season relief well if needed. Norway and Greenland have requirements for a relief well to be drilling within 12 days, he said.
Public Comments Under Review
The Arctic standards, an extra layer of regulation adapted to the harsh conditions off Alaska's northern coasts, were issued in February and have been through a public comment period.
Oil and gas industry groups filed comments saying the BSEE was severely underestimating costs, which will be driven up in part by the possibility that companies likely will need two drilling seasons to drill a well (103 DEN A-2, 5/29/15).
Salerno, saying the BSEE is continuing to review the comments, did not concede an inch during the House subcommittee hearing.
The BSEE received comments that an alternative system for killing an out-of-control well has been developed that would be just as effective as a relief well. “If this technology exists, we have not seen it,” Salerno said.
Comments on the proposed rule questioned whether the phrasing would allow flexibility in the choice of types of drilling rigs, including jackup rigs, which stand on steel legs based on the sea floor. But Salerno said a jackup rig would be acceptable.
Shell Needs Last Permits
Shell still needs four permits: two permits to drill on a pair of leases at the Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea, and two letters of authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response to Shell mitigation plans for protecting polar bears and walruses.
The company's exploration plan was conditionally approved in May (91 DEN A-2, 5/12/15).
The company is aiming to start drilling by July 15, assuming the permits are received and the weather and sea ice allow, a Shell spokesman said June 17.
Greenpeace activists in kayaks made a show of trying to get in the way of the rig June 15 as it left Seattle, but police and Coast Guard officers on their own craft pulled the protesters out of the way. Several protesters were detained for violating a Coast Guard safety zone around the drilling rig and around other Shell vessels.
By June 17 the Polar Pioneer was well west of Vancouver Island en route to the Aleutians.
-
A Dubious Poll On A Proposed Virginia Pipeline
Jun 17, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Peter Galuszka
In a recent post, Bacon’s Rebellion extolled the findings of Hickman Analytics Inc., a suburban Washington consulting firm hired by the Consumer Energy Alliance, which found, according to a survey of 500 registered voters, the vast majority of Virginians support Dominion’s Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
The $5 billion project would take natural gas released by hydraulic fracturing from West Virginia southeastward through Virginia into North Carolina. Dominion has used some strong-arm tactics to force the project through, such as suing property owners who declined to let surveyors onto their property.
Having reported on the controversy in such places as Nelson County, I was surprised to note the Hickman results showing such a strong support for the pipeline.
Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised.
Let’s start with the Consumer Energy Alliance. For starters, it is a Texas-based lobbying group funded by such fossil fuel giants as Exxon Mobil and Devon Energy, plus as host of utilities.
It has been traversing the United States drumming up opposition to initiatives to cut back on carbon emissions. It supports the Keystone XL and other petroleum pipelines.
Says SourceWatch, quoting Salon.com: “The CEA is part of a sophisticated public affairs strategy designed to manipulate the U.S. political system by deluging the media with messaging favorable to the tar-sands industry; to persuade key state and federal legislators to act in the extractive industries’ favor; and to defeat any attempt to regulate the carbon emissions emanating from gasoline and diesel used by U.S. vehicles.”
The group was created in the late 2000s by Michael Whatley, a Republican energy lobbyist with links to the Canadian and American oil sectors.
-
Crude Oil Amendments To Defense Authorization Fall To Procedure
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
Senators will not be asked to express their views in the next few days on crude oil exports, after two amendments to the defense authorization bill fell victim to chamber procedure yesterday.
Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had proposed rival amendments to express Congress' support or opposition to exporting crude oil to America's NATO allies (E&E Daily, June 5). Cornyn had the pro-export measure; Markey is a longtime skeptic of lifting the nation's decades-old export ban.
But late yesterday afternoon, Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) ruled that the amendments were "not germane" to the defense authorization bill, and they both fell without a vote.
-
Water Samples From Barnett Shale Show Chemicals Used in Fracking, Joint Study Says
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
An analysis of groundwater samples collected from water wells on the Barnett Shale formation detected multiple volatile organic compounds, similar to chemicals used in unconventional oil and gas activities, according to a study released June 17.
The study, a collaboration between the University of Texas at Arlington and Inform Environmental LLC, surveyed 550 private and public wells in the Barnett Shale area in proximity to wells drilled using hydraulic fracturing.
In 381 of the wells, the study found benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene, which are used in hydraulic fracturing and are not naturally occurring. Thirty-four of the wells were polluted by benzene.
“These results constitute the largest analysis of groundwater quality in aquifers overlying a shale formation associated with UOG [unconventional oil and gas] activities,” the report said.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into wells to release natural gas and oil trapped in tight shale formations deep underground. Opponents of the practice say it has the potential to contaminate drinking water and erode air quality. The Barnett Shale formation in North Texas supports approximately 20,000 hydraulic fractured wells.
Many Compounds Detected at Least Twice
The most striking result of the study, the authors said, is that 13 of the 39 volatile and semi-volatile compounds that were screened for were detected at least once. Methanol and ethanol were detected in 35 and 240 wells, respectively. These are both used extensively in unconventional drilling as anti-corrosive agents and gelling agents, the report said. Methanol showed a negative correlation with well depth, which might mean it was there as a result of mishandling of waste solution or fluid spills.
Of the 550 samples, 350 came from private wells serving residential purposes, 59 samples were from agricultural water wells and 141 samples came from municipal or public supply wells in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the report said. Samples were collected without prior knowledge of the oil and gas activity in the area.
The specific organics to be tested for were selected from a 2011 congressional report on hydraulic fracturing fluid ingredients, as well as frequently listed components of fluids in the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry, the report said.
The information on drilling activity in the region came from fracfocus.org and the Texas Railroad Commission, which governs oil and gas activity in Texas, the report said. Sampled water wells ranged from 90 meters away from the nearest fracked well within the Barnett Shale to 47,220 meters away from the closest well outside the Barnett Shale formation, the report said. The majority of the samples were within 1 kilometer of a well because well owners near oil and gas activity were probably more interested in having their water tested, the report said.
Relation of Water Quality, Well Distances
The scientists evaluated the relationship between water quality and both the distance to the nearest unconventional well and depth of sample well. They also conducted separate analysis to evaluate whether particular counties in north-central Texas exhibited higher or lower-than-expected frequencies with particular compounds.
The results of the study don't necessarily identify unconventional oil and gas activities as the source of contamination. But the report added, “They do provide a strong impetus for further monitoring and analysis of groundwater quality in this region.”
There could be a number of reasons for the contamination, the study said. Other than direct fracking fluid contamination, industrial accidents, faulty gas well casings or improper wastewater disposal can also introduce compounds into the water. Another reason that there could be an increase in metals found in water samples is because of rust and scale formation that can build up in water wells, which could be dislodged by vibrations caused by nearby oil and gas activities.
The study has been accepted for publication in the journal “Environmental Science & Technology.” In 2013, the same group of scientists published a similar study in the journal, in which they tested samples from 100 private wells.
The lead author of the report, Zacariah Hildenbrand, is a professor at the University of Texas at Arlington and founder of the environmental consulting company Inform Environmental LLC.
-
A Husband's Legacy Passed On To His Wife -- And Maybe, Eventually, His Daughter
Jun 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Yehle
Four decades ago, 80,000 barrels of oil blanketed the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California, galvanizing a growing environmental movement and inspiring the first Earth Day.
Lois Capps was 31 years old, the mother of young children who watched with her as the oil devastated the ocean near their home. The experience left her -- and the community she would later represent in Congress -- particularly sensitive to the consequences of offshore oil drilling.
"We saw the birds oiled and the straw bales that they put out to try to corral the oil," Capps said in a recent interview. "I can still remember the smell."
A look at members of Congress who work on energy and environmental issues -- and whose political families influenced their thinking.
Capps entered Congress in 1998, winning a special election to take over the seat of her husband, Rep. Walter Capps (D-Calif.), who unexpectedly died of a heart attack just 10 months into his first term. Since then, she has advocated doggedly for the environment, calling for the prohibition of offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf, the protection of marine ecosystems and the support of renewable energy.
She will retire at the end of 2016. Before then, Capps is tackling what could be her last major issue: another oil spill off Santa Barbara, this time from an on-land pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline.
With about 21,000 gallons making it to the Pacific Ocean, the recent spill "wasn't nearly as impactful" as the one in 1969, Capps said. But she tied it to the need for more renewable energy, as well as more safety regulations.
"We who live in the area know that drilling for oil is dangerous, it's dirty, and it's messy," Capps said, later adding: "My focus really is on helping to move more quickly the transition away from fossil fuels."
The spill has seemingly presented her with an opportunity -- and the 77-year-old lawmaker has been quick to take it. Last week, the House passed the fiscal 2016 transportation spending bill with an amendment from Capps that requires automatic shutoff valves on new pipelines.
She has also demanded that the two lines involved in the spill not be reopened until the conclusion of a full investigation, sending letters to Plains Pipeline and the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (Greenwire, June 12). And as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, she has asked House leadership for a field hearing on the spill. Sugar and spice
Capps is often referred to as the "nicest" member of Congress, thanks to her decadelong perch atop Washingtonian magazine's "Best and Worst of Congress" series. Indeed, her Democratic colleagues describe her as well-liked, albeit adamant on her issues.
But she is also politically savvy, having helped her husband become the first Democratic candidate to win their California district in 50 years. When Walter Capps suffered serious injuries in a car accident less than a year before the election, it was Lois Capps who kept the campaign running.
After her husband's win, Capps quit her nursing job and joined her husband on his weekly trips to Washington, D.C.
"When she was the congressional spouse to Walter, I realized I saw them as a couple together. They covered that responsibility -- she just made up a really important part of it," said former Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) in a recent interview. When Walter Capps died in October 1998, "it was just such a natural thing to have Lois come in and just pick up the ball and go forward."
Capps describes her original candidacy as one born of desperation. After the "bombshell" of her husband's death, Capps and others reached out to various Democratic politicians to fill the seat. But no one would risk a special election run in the Republican-leaning district.
"Finally I -- in despair -- rolled up my sleeves and said, 'Somebody's got to do it. I will,'" Capps said. "It was a very hard election ... I was amazed that it worked." Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)
By then, Capps knew more about Capitol Hill than perhaps the usual first-term lawmaker. She had dived into the congressional world when Walter Capps took office, spending her days in the House gallery and joining spouse groups.But she was also a woman in a male-dominated Congress. She adopted a low-key legislative style; former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) posits that she may be more successful than any other lawmaker at getting amendments accepted on legislation.
"She's well-regarded; she's very approachable; she handles herself with poise and dignity," Waxman said. "I think she's the kind of person who elicits a response from others that makes them want to work with her."
When asked about her "nice" reputation, Capps shrugged it off as a "funny moniker" that has stuck. Her husband, who was a religious studies professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was also known as genial; at his memorial, President Clinton called him "entirely too nice to be in Congress."
Capps said she tries to "keep my sense of who I am," chipping away at the issues she thinks matter most, with bipartisan backing.
"I'm very conscious of being in a place that's male-driven," Capps said. "I don't consider myself necessarily as a feminist, though if pressed, I think I am. Those descriptions are so limited."
Progress through amendments
Of the 297 bills that made it into law last Congress, Capps authored language in five. Three were in the form of amendments attached to broader bills.
Capps conceded that most of her bills and amendments are not "headline-making." Her successes in the 113th Congress included laws to increase coordination on pediatric research, safely allow organ transplants between HIV-positive patients and ensure organic labels comply with certain standards. Within last year's National Defense Authorization Act, she managed to insert an amendment making breastfeeding supplies and services available under health insurance to military families.
On the environmental side, she authored a bill authorizing the buyback program in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery to remove boats in a depleted fishery. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote the Senate version, and it was folded into the fiscal 2005 omnibus.
Some of Capps' more significant legislative successes never resulted in a bill passing Congress. In 2010, for example, she joined then-Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in introducing House and Senate bills to create an independent commission to investigate the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The lawmakers then pressured the White House to establish a commission on its own -- and it did, modeled on their legislation.
"I've been active," Capps said. "I'm not going necessarily for the jugular, but I've accomplished a fair amount."
One of her recent causes is boosting research on ocean acidification, a problem that has gotten little congressional attention or funding. But it also presents an opportunity for bipartisanship on a climate change issue: Oysters, clams and other mollusks important to the seafood industry have trouble growing their shells in an ocean made more acidic as it absorbs increasing levels of carbon dioxide.
Last week, Capps introduced a bill with fellow California Democratic Rep. Sam Farr and Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young that would create an advisory board to better coordinate ocean acidification programs. Before that, she introduced another ocean acidification bill that would authorize funding for cooperative research between the seafood industry and the academic community (E&E Daily, March 5).
In a statement on the bipartisan bill, Capps emphasized the threat not just to ocean life but also to "our local economies and industries that depend on the oceans for their livelihoods." It was a message Young echoed, citing Alaska's shellfish industry (E&E Daily, June 11).
Capps, the Younger
Walter Capps was primarily known for his academic work on Vietnam and his part in the effort to establish Vietnam veterans' centers in every major U.S. city. But Lois Capps described her husband as also sharing the family's interest in the environment -- an interest that their daughter, Laura, has also carried on during her years as a congressional staffer and now as an up-and-coming political force.
Many political observers expected Laura Capps to run for her mother's seat this year. The younger Capps came to D.C. before her father entered Congress; by the time he took the oath, she was a speechwriter for President Clinton.
She spent the next decade building up an impressive résumé: as a communications director for Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) 2004 presidential bid, as an aide to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and then as a senior vice president at the Ocean Conservancy.
Laura and her husband, political consultant Bill Burton, have spent the last two years back in Santa Barbara, a move that many saw as a precursor to a congressional run. But a few days after her mother's retirement announcement, Laura announced she would not make the bid, citing the difficulty of a cross-country commute on her young family (E&ENews PM, April 27).
By then, other Democrats had already announced their own bids. Allan Hoffenblum, who publishes the California Target Book, a political tipsheet, said Santa Barbara County Supervisor Salud Carbajal (D) made it clear he wanted the seat and had been building up support for months.
Lois Capps endorsed Carbajal last week. The 24th District race is expected to be competitive but will likely favor Democrats.
If Laura wanted to run, "I think they handled it very badly," Hoffenblum said. Instead, he said, she should have announced her intentions simultaneously with her mother's retirement.
In an interview last month with the Los Angeles Times, Laura said she knew she might not get another chance. But a two-flight commute each way -- and her mother's experience with delays -- dissuaded her from running.
"I visualized that I'd be stuck in Denver knowing I was going to miss a soccer game," she told the paper.
Her future intentions unclear, Laura is still involved in the environmental issues her mother has prioritized: getting the nation off fossil fuels and protecting oceans. She is on the board of directors for both the Ocean Conservancy and the Community Environmental Council, which aims to move Santa Barbara away from fossil fuels and energy-intensive products.
"She's got her whole life ahead of her," Woolsey said when asked whether Laura may one day run for Congress. "Timing's everything."
-
Report Says EPA Underestimated Benefits In Proposed Power Plant Effluent Guidelines
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The public health benefits of regulating wastewater effluent from power plants were underestimated by the Environmental Protection Agency in its proposed rule, a report released June 17 finds.
In “Selling Our Health Down The River: Why EPA Needs to Finalize the Strongest Rule to Stop Water Pollution from Power Plants,” five environmental groups claim the EPA in estimating the benefits of the proposal didn't factor in the decrease in risks associated with contamination of drinking water near power plants and consumption of contaminated fish or drinking water downstream among other environmental risks posed by discharge of toxic pollutants.
According to the proposed rule, the direct benefits of regulating power plant wastewater effluent are estimated to range between $14 million and $20 million. The report termed these benefits a “tip of the iceberg.”
“A comprehensive valuation of the human health benefits of the proposed rule would be far greater than the $14 to $20 million per year estimated by EPA,” the report said.
The environmental groups—Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility—released the report nearly three months before the EPA is scheduled to release the final rule regulating wastewater effluent from power plants.
“We felt like public health benefits of this rule haven't received enough discussion. We want the EPA to be thinking about those benefits as they decide which option to adopt. Our goal is to release this in time when EPA is thinking about those options and to influence that thinking,” Casey Roberts, one of the report's authors and Sierra Club staff attorney, told Bloomberg BNA June 16.
According to Roberts, the EPA is in the final throes of deciding which of the four preferred options to mandate in the final rule (RIN 2040-AF14), which the agency is under a court mandate to issue by Sept. 30.
The environmental groups sought the most proscriptive of the options that would require dry handling of fly ash and bottom ash, chemical precipitation and biological treatment of scrubber waste and chemical precipitation of metal cleaning wastes.
The agency also is about to send the final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for an interagency review, which is usually the last step an agency takes prior to releasing the rule to the public.
The report, however, stopped short of attempting to quantify what Roberts termed “intangible benefits.”
Such benefits would arise if the EPA in the final rule adopts the controls the groups prefer.
Among the intangible benefits offered by the rule are clean drinking water supplies, reduced arsenic in drinking water and benefits to communities that live further downstream from power plants, Roberts said.
“Just because a benefit can't be quantified doesn't mean it isn't significant,” Roberts said.
Published June 2013, the EPA's proposed effluent guidelines for power plants would establish new or additional controls to regulate wastewater discharges associated with the following processes and by-products: flue gas desulfurization, fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas mercury control, combustion residual leachate from landfills and surface impoundments, nonchemical metal cleaning wastes and gasification of fuels such as coal and petroleum coke (78 Fed. Reg. 34,431; 110 DEN A-2, 6/7/13).
The report was authored by Roberts with Sierra Club, Lisa Evans and Thomas Cmar, attorneys with Earthjustice, and Abel Russ, an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. Barbara Gottlieb, director of environment and health with Physicians for Social Responsibility and Jennifer Peters, national water campaign coordinator for Clean Water Action also were co-authors on this report.
-
Greens: EPA Underestimating Harms From Power Plant Water Pollution
Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Regulators are severely underestimating the health harms from the pollution that power plants dump into waterways, an environmental group said Wednesday.
In advance of an expected September rule to crack down on heavy metal pollutants from power plants, the Sierra Club released a report urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to look again at the numbers it has put out.The group argues that with more expensive harms, the EPA’s rule could have a better cost-benefit analysis than previously estimated.
The Sierra Club said a better accounting would put the benefits of the rule at more than $300 million annually, compared with the $14 million to $20 million the EPA previously predicted in 2013.
The group prepared the Wednesday report along with other health and environmental organizations.
“EPA has a historic opportunity to update Clean Water Act protections and to make sure our nation’s drinking water systems and their consumers aren’t bearing the burden and footing the bill to clean up coal plant water pollution,” Jennifer Peters, water programs director at Clean Water Action, said in a statement.
“EPA must put the prevention of contamination and public health protection before the interests of an industry that has had a free pass to poison our nation's waters for decades,” she said.
The rule from the EPA would further crack down on metals like arsenich, hexavalent chromium, lead and mercury, updating rules that have not been changed since 1982.
Power plants emit over half of the water pollutants that come from industrial sources, the EPA said.
The green groups are using the report to urge the EPA to go with the strongest possible options for the rule.
-
Report Links Power Plants' Discharges, Health Concerns
Jun 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Annie Snider
Pressing the Obama administration to issue a strict regulation for curbing toxic wastewater discharges from power plants, green groups released a report today emphasizing the human health impacts of such pollution.
Power plants are the top source of toxic pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, lead and selenium. The report argues those releases threaten water supplies -- with more than a third of power plants located within 5 miles of a drinking water intake -- as well as people who eat fish from nearby waters.
"Strong clean water laws are about a child's right to grow up healthy and holding polluters accountable for decades of toxic dumping," said Casey Roberts, a staff attorney at the Sierra Club who wrote the report with staffers from Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and Clean Water Action.
"As things stand today, thousands of lives are unnecessarily put at risk due to outdated policies and irresponsible polluters."
U.S. EPA has not updated its wastewater pollution guidelines for power plants since 1982. Under a consent decree with environmental groups, the agency agreed to issue a new, final rule in September. Environmental groups said they expect the final rule could be sent to the White House for review soon.
Greens were unhappy with the proposed rule EPA issued in April 2013. That proposal included a suite of options, with four identified as preferred (Greenwire, April 22, 2013).
But greens' choice options lost that "preferred" rating when the rule went through interagency review at the White House, according to a document showing changes made there.
Overall, EPA estimated its proposed rule would cost between $185 million and $954 million a year.
But industry groups argued these were overly optimistic estimates, and have said the rule would be a "significant financial and operational burden." In particular, they've noted that the rule does not come in a vacuum but will have to be implemented at the same time as a number of other new or looming regulations.
Environmental groups argue, though, that the agency vastly underestimated the monetary value of the rule's positive benefits.
The agency estimated the more stringent options that greens prefer would be worth between $14 million and $20 million per year. Those estimates were based on the rule reducing the number of cancer cases caused by eating arsenic-contaminated fish, preventing IQ losses associated with eating lead-contaminated fish and preventing IQ loss in children whose mothers ate mercury-contaminated fish from waters near power plants.
But in their report, environmental groups argue this analysis is flawed because it doesn't account for risks associated with nearby drinking water or with impacts to fish farther downstream. They also say the agency's analysis of neurological effects is too limited.
-
Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Will Coggin
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently found itself in hot water. The New York Times revealed the agency colluded with environmentalist groups in a campaign to manufacture public comments in favor of a new rule that expands its own power. The agency’s actions and the shenanigans of its environmentalist supporters shed light on how a bad rule can flow through the regulatory process.
The Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule extends the reach of EPA to regulate ponds, ditches and even large puddles under the Clean Water Act (CWA). That’s bad news for farmers, ranchers, small businesses or anyone else who wants to use land under CWA jurisdiction: It costs an average of $270,000 to obtain the special permit required to do so, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
The downsides are clear, and the EPA’s judgment was murky even before the rule. Last year, the agency threatened to fine a Wyoming man $75,000 a day for building a pond on his own property without a permit.
Almost immediately after its proposal, the rule prompted a wide opposition urging the EPA to “ditch the rule,” from small businesses, farmers and ranchers, energy producers and others.
The EPA needed support for its water grab. While the EPA failed to consult with those harmed by the WOTUS rule, documents obtained by The New York Times show the EPA worked with environmentalist groups including the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council to manufacture public comments in its favor.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy later testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing that 87 percent of the approximately 1 million public comments her agency received were supportive. By omitting mention of the efforts (or money spent) to solicit the comments, McCarthy attempted to make it look like there was a spontaneous groundswell of support for her rule.
And that wasn’t the only subterfuge behind the EPA’s power grab.
A number of left-wing groups camouflaged as sportsmen-friendly organizations, including the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) and Trout Unlimited, were also helping the EPA to foist the water rule onto an unsuspecting public.
In July 2014, TRCP called for “broad public involvement,” setting the table for the EPA’s campaign to gather public comment in support. This despite the fact that the organization’s support had already been touted by the EPA in an effort to make it look like a broad coalition was in favor.
These groups claim to represent sportsmen’s interests—giving the rule seemingly conservative support—but they are tangled in a web of money from left-wing foundations with anti-gun and anti-agriculture agendas. BHA gets most of its donations from three environmental groups, according to tax records, while TRCP gets its money from a handful of Big Labor and Big Green groups. Trout Unlimited, meanwhile, has taken tens of millions from fringe environmental groups.
A bipartisan bill to send the rule back to the EPA’s drawing board has already passed the House and a similar measure introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has gained cosponsors from both sides of the aisle in the Senate. In response BHA labeled the congressional effort “un-American.”
Meanwhile, attorneys general in three states have said that state challenges to the rule are likely.
And the EPA may have violated federal law that prohibits using appropriated funds for lobbying in creating the comments. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) called it “a political grassroots lobbying campaign with environmental groups to manipulate the process and disregard legitimate concerns from rural America.”
The EPA’s brazenness in ramming through a rule with camouflaged and concocted support is concerning even for a town where there’s no shortage of dirty tricks. Congress would be wise to wash away the water rule before it does lasting damage.
-
EPA's Move to Block Discovery Is Flawed, Premature, Coal Companies Tell Court
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency's request that a federal appellate court block a lower court's discovery order in a lawsuit seeking to compel a jobs impact review of clean air regulations is premature and legally flawed, coal companies said (In re Administrator of EPA, 4th Cir., No. 15-01639, response filed, 6/17/15).
The EPA should have exhausted other remedies such as negotiating with the plaintiffs over the scope of discovery in the lawsuit before asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to overturn a lower court's order requiring the agency to provide documents and make staff available for depositions, Murray Energy Corp. and other coal companies said in a June 17 response to the agency's request.
“EPA's argument before the district court and now this court boils down to its belief that EPA can unilaterally limit the scope of discovery based solely on its own legal theories of the case,” Murray Energy said. “The district court correctly rejected EPA's contentions regarding the appropriate scope of discovery based on an evaluation of an extensive record and lengthy briefing. EPA has no right to demand that this court issue a writ to countermand this routine order providing for further discovery simply because EPA disagrees with it.”
EPA Seeks to Overturn Court Order
The EPA petitioned the Fourth Circuit June 12 to overturn an order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia compelling discovery in a lawsuit brought against the agency by Murray Energy and 11 other coal companies seeking to compel the agency to review the impact its air pollution regulations have on jobs as required by Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act (114 DEN A-1, 6/15/15).
Murray Energy and other companies argue that various EPA regulations such as its proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants and hazardous air pollutant limits for power plants, boilers and other industrial equipment have negatively affected jobs.
District Court Judge John Preston Bailey had denied the EPA's petition to limit discovery. The EPA is asking him to reconsider that decision (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, N.D. W.Va., No. 5:14-cv-00039-JPB, motion for reconsideration, 6/1/15; 106 DEN A-5, 6/3/15).
Murray Energy Challenges EPA Effort
“While EPA tries to impugn the district court's rulings by describing them dismissively and out of context, Judge Bailey's opinions more than adequately explain the reasons and bases for his decisions and EPA actually offers no challenge to the district court's findings or conclusions,” Murray Energy said. “Instead, EPA simply reiterates the same erroneous legal theories that were considered by the district court after full briefing and properly rejected.”
-
Groups Ask Senate Panel for Legislation To Address Deficiencies in EPA Coal Ash Rule
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Senate should pursue legislation to address concerns over enforcement and the potential the Environmental Protection Agency could one day change its mind and regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste, witnesses representing rural electric cooperatives, state environmental agencies and coal ash recyclers told a Senate committee June 17.
Those groups told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee the EPA's April final rule (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302) on coal ash disposal and management could leave regulated entities subject to dueling state and federal regulatory requirements, place state environmental agencies “on the sidelines” and harm beneficial reuse of the material by leaving open the possibility the agency could one day change how it regulates the material under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
“States do not oppose [the final rule]—we actually think the final, federal rule is quite good,” Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, said. “However, there's an implementation problem with the final rule and a lack of flexibility that we'd like, hopefully, this committee to help us address.”
“Narrow changes” to the existing RCRA structure would allow state permitting programs to operate in lieu of federal programs, Dunn said. These programs could incorporate the minimum federal criteria but also provide certainty, clear regulatory roles and sufficient flexibility to account for unique local conditions.
The hearing marks the Senate's first foray into the coal ash issue since the agency opted to regulate coal ash under the nonhazardous waste provisions of Subtitle D of RCRA in April. That final rule established a number of requirements for landfills and impoundments currently receiving the material, including location restrictions, inspections, groundwater monitoring and fugitive dust controls, but it contained no federal enforcement mechanism (74 DEN A-4, 4/17/15).
Groups raised many of the same concerns during multiple House hearings examining the final rule, which is due to take effect Oct. 14.
Inhofe Open to Legislation
Following the hearing, EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters he believed the Senate should take action to address the concerns raised about the final rule (RIN 2050-AE81).
“It does raise the prospect that maybe we should be doing something,” Inhofe said. “I don't want to say yet that we will be introducing legislation on this, but I wouldn't be surprised [if we did].”
Inhofe said he would discuss possible paths forward with the House, which is expected to vote on legislation (H.R. 1734) supported by the groups during the week of June 22. That bill, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would prevent the EPA from ever regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste while allowing states to draft, implement and enforce their own permitting programs.
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have been working on their own version of coal ash legislation in the Senate but have no imminent plans to introduce it (113 DEN A-21, 6/12/15).
Rule Deserves a Chance
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the committee, left open the possibility of addressing implementation issues associated with the regulation but seemed skeptical of legislation to alter the rule.
“I strongly believe that the EPA rule must be given a chance to work,” Boxer said. “I am dismayed that there is legislation moving through the House that attempts to weaken this rule even further.”
Those comments align closely with the views of environmental advocates. Many groups believe the EPA should have gone further in its final rule by regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste but are strongly opposed to efforts in Congress to alter the regulatory scheme.
“The final rule is our only line of defense against states who have demonstrated they are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens,” Nancy Cave of the Coastal Conservation League told the committee.
Advocates point to two high-profile incidents as proof of the need for the federal rule—the December 2008 Kingston Fossil Plant spill in Tennessee and the February 2014 spill of 140,000 tons of coal ash and wastewater into North Carolina's Dan River (35 DEN A-2, 2/23/15).
They said congressional legislation may include some of the EPA provisions but leaves out others, such as mandatory public information sharing, and relaxes compliance time frames. Litigation on the final rule is considered a near certainty.
-
Boxer, Carper Split Over Permanently Regulating Coal Ash As Solid Waste
Jun 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Tom Carper (D-DE) -- the two most senior Democrats on the environment committee -- are split over whether EPA's decision to regulate coal ash as solid rather than hazardous waste should be permanent, with Boxer faulting a House bill to make the designation permanent but Carper backing solid waste regulation.
Despite the difference between the two senators over the designation in EPA's final coal ash disposal rule issued in December and published in the April 17 Federal Register, it remains uncertain at best whether a push for legislation in the Senate to revise the rule would gain any traction. Environmentalist and industry sources say there has been no indication that work has begun to craft a Senate counterpart to the House bill to overhaul EPA's rule, H.R. 1734. As a result it could be some time before legislation is formally proposed in the upper chamber, sources say.
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) held a June 17 hearing to debate EPA's rule, in which the agency sided with an industry push to regulate ash as solid waste under subtitle D of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rather than the subtitle C hazardous waste rule advocates sought.
Environmentalists argue that hazardous waste regulation would impose stricter controls on disposal and prevent ash spills like the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority ash spill disaster that led to development of the rule.
Industry and states counter that subtitle D rules are just as strict, but are better because it would not “stigmatize” reuse of ash in products and also offers more flexibility in how states can manage the waste.
Although EPA granted the request for a subtitle D rulemaking that had GOP support, House lawmakers are pushing their bill to make permanent the designation, in order to prevent any future regulation of ash as hazardous waste. H.R. 1734 would also give states primary authority to enforce the rule's technical requirements. The agency's rule, which applies RCRA subtitle D's enforcement standards, allows enforcement only through citizen suits in federal district courts rather than empowering state or federal regulators to require corrective action for violations.
EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) at the hearing noted the concern over the fact that the solid waste designation is not permanent -- as it would be under the House bill. “This is causing unnecessary uncertainty to the electric utilities covered by this rule and to the companies that use and recycle coal ash,” he said.
Carper, chair of EPW's Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, added, “One of the things that I think is attractive about the regulation . . . is that it chose not to classify this substance as a toxic substance -- rather, the idea here is to make it non-hazardous so we can actually use it for recycling purposes.”
But other Democrats at the hearing, including EPW ranking member Boxer, said that rather than backing legislation to codify the solid waste designation such as the House bill, they would continue to urge EPA to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste -- suggesting a potential split among members of the party on supporting a bill.
Democrats' Concerns
“I would have preferred that EPA issue a stronger rule -- designating coal ash as 'hazardous waste,'” Boxer said in her opening statement. “It is important that this new rule not be diluted by Congress. EPA should be allowed to move forward with critical new protections for the safety of our communities,” she said.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) added the EPA rule “is not as robust as I, or many others, would have liked,” while criticizing the House bill as failing to protect groundwater from exposure to coal ash.
Markey said under the bill “household waste could be regulated more stringently than coal ash in some or all states,” while Boxer argued that its standards for public disclosure would substantially weaken EPA's rule.
During the hearing, Boxer asked witness Alexandra Dunn -- executive director of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing many state environmental agencies -- “Don't you think [communities] have the right to know if there are toxic chemicals leaking into their drinking water? And why would you support a House bill that limits the right to know?”
Dunn responded that ECOS, which represents state environmental regulators, only “generally” supports the legislation, and added that “state regulators believe in transparency.” However, she noted in her testimony that ECOS members have universally backed the legislation for its provisions delegating enforcement authority to states.
However, Boxer also appeared open to the possibility of a more targeted bill than H.R. 1734. In her final comment to Dunn, she said she might consider delegated enforcement authority for coal ash if states would have to comply with stringent technical requirements. “I would be happy to work with you to make that fix if necessary,” Boxer said.
Industry, states and GOP lawmakers have generally supported the House bill. They argue that a permanent solid waste designation is needed to ensure regulatory certainty for disposal facilities and the ash recycling industry, and that delegated enforcement authority will prevent scenarios where facilities are subject to parallel state and federal standards or to judges' varying interpretations of the rule requirements.
Republicans at the Senate hearing echoed those comments. For instance, Inhofe expressed concern over “what would happen to the recycling industry in the event that they changed [the determination] from non-hazardous to hazardous.” And Sen. Deb Fischer (R-WV) said the rule “puts states on the sidelines” by not delegating enforcement authority.
However, Democrats have charged that the bill would weaken key provisions of the federal rule, and generally opposed it in committee. While Republicans are still practically assured of being able to move H.R. 1734 through the House -- where a vote could come as soon as the week of June 22 -- a Senate companion could be vulnerable to a filibuster unless it wins support of the eight Democrats needed to reach the 60-vote threshold for moving a bill.
Cleanup Assessment
Meanwhile, federal and state regulators are preparing to assess damages from last year's major coal ash spill in North Carolina's Dan River, which could set a standard for the cleanup mandates facilities that violate EPA's RCRA rule will face in the future.
In a draft assessment plan released in June by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Virginia and North Carolina's environment and wildlife departments, the agencies set out their agenda for taking stock of the environmental harms created by the release of 39,000 tons of coal ash into the state's waterways.
The draft assessment says regulators will be weighing impacts from possible contamination due to the ash containing arsenic, lead and selenium, among other chemicals considered “hazardous” under RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act, known as the Superfund law. The agencies are seeking public comment on the assessment plan. It says the regulators have not yet identified the “specific hazardous substances of concern” that their final assessment will target, but notes that they currently believe an assessment can be done without extensive new monitoring or other data, instead relying in large part on water and soil monitoring data from EPA, states and the Duke Energy facilities that were the source of the spill. However, the draft plan notes that in some cases new laboratory studies may be needed.
-
Senate May Join House Effort On Coal Ash
Jun 17, 2015 | Politico
By Alex Guillén
Senate Republicans may follow the House’s lead when it comes to giving states more control over handling coal ash waste.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told POLITICO after a hearing on EPA’s coal ash rule on Wednesday that although he didn’t yet have a strategy, the hearing “did bring up the necessity to communicate with the House to see if there’s something we could do to make some modest changes” in the lower chamber’s bill.
Inhofe declined to specify what changes he may be looking for in the House legislation.
EPA’s coal ash rule, which was published in April and goes into effect in October, classifies the ash created by burning coal in power plants as a non-hazardous waste that, like disposal of household trash, should be regulated largely by the states, with enforcement coming via citizen suits.
Republicans were relieved that EPA did not classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, which would require heightened regulatory oversight, but they fear the agency left the door open to one day change its mind, and that created uncertainty for states and the industry.
But EPA’s decision didn’t please Democrats and environmentalists, who argue that recent high-profile coal ash leaks, such as the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority spill and last year’s Dan River incident in North Carolina, as well as other instances of groundwater contamination are evidence that coal ash should be considered a dangerous substance.
Greens were also dismayed that EPA concluded it does not have authority to require that utilities clean up their older coal ash ponds unless they are leaking.
Though Senate Republicans are only just starting to mull legislation, coal ash has been on the House GOP’s radar for some time.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) has pushed aggressively for action on his Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, H.R. 1734. That bill would write into law EPA’s conclusion that coal ash should always be regulated as a non-hazardous waste, while giving EPA the authority to regulate coal ash in states that don’t do enough on their own.
Critics of the GOP bill argue that it would delay health and safety protections, cut public disclosure of data about ponds and drop a national standard for drinking water protection.
Wednesday’s committee hearing brought mostly passing mentions of McKinley’s bill, but Senate Republicans made clear they are interested in addressing their concerns through legislation.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) took aim at the enforcement provisions, saying they “put states on the sidelines” since citizens lawsuits are the only mechanism for enforcement in the rule.
“I believe the best solutions are made at the local level, at the state level, because they understand the uniqueness within their own boundaries,” Fischer said.
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) raised concerns about the timeline as states working ahead of the rule’s October effectiveness date to incorporate technical standards into their regulations. And Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) doesn’t like EPA’s so-called one-size-fits-all standard for coal ash disposal.
Though Republicans rarely directly referenced the House bill on Wednesday, Senate Democrats are already gearing up to attempt to fend off similar legislation in the upper chamber.
“While I strongly believe EPA should have done more to address the dangers of coal ash, EPA’s rule will go a long way to protecting people from toxic coal ash in the future,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said. “It is important that this new rule not be diluted by Congress. EPA should be allowed to move forward with critical new protections for the safety of our communities.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) questioned whether the House bill would mean household trash could be regulated more stringently than coal ash in some states.
“The whole point of the House bill from the industry’s viewpoint is to eliminate or weaken those national standards and leave it to the states, who in the past have simply refused and failed to effectively enforce the law,” said Frank Holleman of the Southern Environmental Law Center. The House is expected to bring its coal ash bill to the floor next week. It attracted full GOP support and the backing of two Democrats when it was voted out of committee in April
-
GOP Senators Wary Of EPA Coal Ash Rule
Jun 18, 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.
-
Industry's Troubles Driven By Obama Admin Policies -- NMA Chief
Jun 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Manuel Quiñones
National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn today blamed the Obama administration for exacerbating the coal industry's woes, including the loss of thousands of mining jobs.
The industry, he said, has been squeezed by both regulation and low natural gas prices.
"While tremendous growth in shale gas supply is understandably an unwelcome intrusion upon our dominance in the power markets, we cannot begrudge it as a product of the free market," Quinn said at an industry gathering in Pittsburgh.
He added, "It is not natural gas prices alone that have separated 45,000 coal miners from their high-wage jobs over the last three years. Fuel switching can't account for the estimated 60 [megawatts] of coal-based capacity forced into early retirement by 2020 or shortly thereafter.
"Contrary to the administration's false narrative, this is not market-driven. It is policy-driven. It is asset destruction and its attendant human toll on a massive scale."
The administration has repeatedly said it is not waging what the industry calls a "war on coal." Administration officials point to spending on technology to help coal survive amid concerns about climate change. Companies have called for more.
Environmental groups say coal's woes come from several fronts, including difficult geology in some mining areas, global oversupply and the growth of renewables.
But Quinn maintains U.S. EPA underestimated the impact of its new mercury standards for power plants. Analysts point to them as a significant factor behind retirements. EPA's proposal to reduce carbon emissions from existing plants would force even more closures, said the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
"The administration now promises federal assistance to stricken Appalachian coal communities," Quinn said. "But it is these regulations that have so often left communities distressed in the first place."
Quinn welcomed the Republican takeover of the Senate, which makes Congress friendlier to coal and more willing to challenge the administration.
"On the policy front, this development is most welcome," Quinn said. "Yet, alone, it may remain inadequate to the task of erasing all the damage done by the president's generous use of the executive pen."
Another option is resistance. He repeated NMA's call for governors to shun EPA's Clean Power Plan. The agency has touted its proposal as giving states flexibility. But believing some of the rule's options illegal, pro-coal advocates say opting out would give states -- and the industry -- more leverage.
"Roman emperors required their architects to sleep under the bridges they built, just to be sure," he said. "We are telling governors they do not need to sleep under bridges that EPA builds for them."
-
Republicans Question Ozone Studies, Urge EPA to Consider Effects of Job Loss
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency should not follow through on its proposal to revise the national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion because of concerns about studies linking adverse health effects to ozone levels below the current standards, according to Republican members of Congress who are also medical professionals.
The Republican lawmakers, led by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), sent a letter June 17 to the EPA that questioned the adequacy of studies it used to justify the proposal. The lawmakers also urged the agency to consider adverse health effects associated with potential job losses that could result from the cost of achieving more stringent ozone standards.
The EPA in November 2014 proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the national ambient air quality standards for ozone to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, which the agency estimated would cost as much as $16.6 billion annually while providing as much as $38 billion in public health benefits (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
Health of Constituents
The lawmakers, all of whom identified as being a medial doctor, registered nurse or other type of health care professional, expressed concern that the EPA proposal could “ultimately undermine” the health of their constituents.
The lawmakers objected to four controlled exposure studies cited in the EPA proposal. The findings of those studies, which linked ozone exposure to reduced lung function and other respiratory effects, are “far too limited” to be applied to the U.S. population and used to support a more stringent ozone standard, the lawmakers said.
The letter released by Cassidy's office was signed by 22 lawmakers, including 2016 presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). However, a statement issued by Cassidy's office indicated that Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) also signed the letter, bringing the number to 23.
Consideration of Economic Effects
The lawmakers also called on the EPA to consider adverse health effects that are associated with job loss, poverty and loss of health insurance.
The letter cited an industry-funded report prepared by NERA Economic Consulting that projected much higher compliance costs than the EPA's regulatory impact analysis and estimated the agency's proposal could reduce the gross domestic product by about $140 billion annually.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups have been critical of that report, which they said overstated the compliance costs and economic effects of tighter ozone standards by assuming pollution control measures would be unrealistically expensive (39 DEN A-14, 2/27/15).
The Republican lawmakers said there is evidence linking income to public health, so the agency should consider the adverse effects of its ozone proposal.
Holistic Approach Urged
“Public health should not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful of the correlation between health and the economy,” the lawmakers wrote.
Janet McCabe, EPA acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, addressed economic concerns during a June 12 hearing on the ozone proposal, stating that history has shown that economic growth and clean air regulations go “hand in hand” (114 DEN A-6, 6/15/15).
McCabe also reiterated that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 ruled the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from considering the cost of compliance when setting national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (U.S. 2001) ).
The lawmakers acknowledged that the EPA is not allowed to consider compliance costs when setting national ambient air quality standards, but they said costs should be considered when they lead to lost income associated with adverse health effects.
The agency is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to issue a final decision on whether to revise or retain the current ozone standards.
-
GOP Doctors Question Health Benefits Of EPA Ozone Rule
Jun 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule to limit surface-level ozone pollution might not have the health benefits the agency claims, according to nearly two-dozen doctors-turned-lawmakers.
In a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, the lawmakers, all Republicans, said there has been no correlation between falling ozone levels and the asthma rate in the United States. That “highlights important questions concerning the validity of EPA’s conclusions” about its ozone restrictions, they said.The letter also questioned the methodology behind ozone research the EPA used to justify the rule, saying it relies on test groups 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 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 say 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.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) PHMSA Crude-by-Rail Rule Appealed to DOT By Five Groups; DOT Responses Due Aug. 6
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Five administrative appeals have been filed with the Transportation Department over its final rule governing certain movements of crude oil and other flammable liquids by rail, and some of the appeals are calling for the federal government to move in conflicting directions.
Tribal groups, chemical manufacturers, an oil group, a hazardous materials industry group and railroads appealed aspects of the tank car and operation control rule ranging from reporting to brake-installation requirements.
An additional appeal by public interest and environmental groups has been withdrawn following a back-and-forth regarding proper jurisdiction with the Transportation Department.
“[T]o remove any arguable obstacle to the local government and conservation groups’ petitions for review [in court] from being heard expeditiously, we hereby withdraw our administrative appeal,” Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, ForestEthics, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Riverkeeper, the Washington Environmental Council, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, the Spokane Riverkeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, Scenic Hudson, the Village of Barrington and the city of Aurora, Ill., said in the withdrawal.of their appeal.
The groups are appealing a final rule from the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that set several requirements for tank car designs used to transport Class 3 flammable liquids, such as crude oil and ethanol, in larger trains known as either high-hazard flammable trains or high-hazard flammable unit trains.
It also set operational requirements for those trains, such as speed restrictions and notification requirements (103 DEN A-20, 5/29/15).
Responses Due in August
The administrative appeals were largely due June 8; however, the appeals documents weren't fully posted publicly until June 17.
The agency has until Aug. 6 to respond to the appeals but can extend its time to respond to them by publishing a notice in the Federal Register, PHMSA said.
The appeals challenged different areas and could provide insight into what many of these groups may be challenging or later challenge through the courts.
Several groups mentioned concerns regarding the lack of harmonization with certain Canadian requirements, such as Transport Canada's decision to phase out use of older tank cars based on the commodity versus PHMSA's choice to phase out use of older tank cars based on the packing group (level of hazard of a flammable liquid).
The hazardous materials trade group, the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, for example, said sampling and testing requirements for flammable liquids established in the rule weren't justified and should be taken out of the final rule. The group also said the rule should only apply to crude oil and ethanol trains—not all Class 3 flammable liquids—and called for eliminating an electronic-pneumatic brake requirement, among several other areas they challenged.
Retrofitting Requirements Addressed
The American Chemistry Council, separate from the dangerous goods council, said the final rule's retrofitting requirements should only apply to cars carrying crude oil and ethanol.
Meanwhile, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers said PHMSA should expand its reporting requirement for retrofitting tank cars.
The Association of American Railroads said the rule wasn't protective enough and should include more stringent thermal protection requirements.
The tank car standards should apply to all tank cars carrying Class 3 flammable liquids, not solely depending on what other cargo it is being moved with, but there should be no electronic pneumatic brake requirement included in the rule, the railroad group said.
Tribal Groups Cite Concerns
Finally, four tribes—Umatilla, Yakama, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce tribes—said the rule didn't adequately consult with the tribal groups and should be reopened for notice-and-comment. These tribes objected to provisions in the rule related to notification requirements, tank car requirements and other areas, they said in their petition.
“[C]ompliance with the Final Rule will not be practical or reasonable,” Thomas Schick, senior director of the chemistry council, said in his group's appeal.
-
DOT Releases Aar’s Oil Trains Appeal
Jun 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
The Transportation Department has made public the text of the freight rail industry’s appeal against the administration’s new crude-by-rail tank car rule, including some of the studies used to back up its complaint.
The Association of American Railroads appeal asks PHMSA to “reinstate a tank car standard that applies to all shipments of all Class III flammables,” increase thermal protection requirements “to meet modern standards,” and remove the ECP braking requirement — or, barring that, reopen the record and revise the rule “to allow a full, fair and genuine debate about the true costs” of the ECP brake mandate.
As expected, AAR takes particular aim at the rule’s ECP brake section, which it calls “unreasonable and contrary to the public interest,” saying it can’t be justified “based on the real-world experience” with brakes and citing reports from Oliver Wyman and the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. -
White House, DOT Release New Data Sets Related to Climate Change, Transportation
Jun 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amy Phillips
More than 90 data sets containing information relevant to climate change and transportation have been posted as part of the Obama administration's efforts on climate resilience.
The data sets include relevant information from six federal agencies, provided through new “transportation themes” added to the administration's Climate Data Initiative, White House and Transportation Department officials said in a June 17 blog post.
“These datasets include a comprehensive inventory of the nation's highway system, airports, and railroad crossings, as well as census data of all ferry operators in the United States and its territories,” the officials said.
In addition, transportation-related resources have been added to the Climate Resilience Toolkit, which provides case studies, visualizations, and other resources.
The two websites also include more than 25 tools, maps and other reports compiled from across the federal government, it said.
“Actionable science, data, information, and tools can empower planners and decision makers to account for these impacts in the transportation sector, potentially helping avoid disruptions to operations and costly repairs, and helping ensure that major investments into infrastructure intended to last many decades is not put at risk prematurely,” the officials said.
-
Rail Industry Faces Daunting Task Ahead of Deadline
Jun 17, 2015 | Roll Call
By Kellie Mejdrich
Congress’ upcoming deadline for railroads to implement a complex safety upgrade carries a new gravity after the deadly derailment of an Amtrak train on May 12 that killed eight and injured more than 200 in Philadelphia.
“The accident we have investigated has shown us that we need technology that can step in when humans fail,” Christopher Hart, National Transportation Safety Board chairman, said during a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing dedicated to last month’s accident.
At issue is a congressional mandate that railroads must upgrade their safety systems by the end of the year, a task most railroads admit they are unable to accomplish. Congress knows this, but is incapable of offering any viable solutions in the near term. Lawmakers are concerned that extending the deadline too far may lead railroads to implement the technology more slowly. But doing nothing would risk putting many railroads in violation of the law, opening rail companies to liability or fines, or being forced to close down service.
Lawmakers have known for years they will likely have to extend the December 2015 deadline for implementing the technology known as Positive Train Control, which provides a failsafe system that can stop speeding trains and enforce important signals that keep trains from colliding.
The time frame has been called “impossible” by the Association of American Railroads, which represents major freight railroads and Amtrak, which will have the technology on only a fraction of its total network by the end of the year.
In the past month, Amtrak has faced significant public scrutiny over its delayed upgrade process.
But Amtrak’s struggle has brought into focus larger issues with the train control mandate that will likely take years to address.
“The question in Congress has not been whether to extend the deadline, but rather how to extend the deadline,” Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., said during a recent hearing on efforts to install the technology on passenger railroads.
The task is massive: Railroads carrying passengers and certain types of hazardous cargo must spend billions of dollars, train thousands of workers and install thousands of pieces of equipment without interrupting service.
The Association of American Railroads has estimated roughly $5.7 billion has already been spent by freight railroads on the technological upgrades, but by the end of 2015 companies will have only equipped 11,000 of the 62,000 miles where the technology is needed.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, publicly funded commuter rail systems have spent $950 million as of April. And a recent survey performed by the group estimated at least $3.48 billion is needed to implement PTC on these railroads nationally.
The Senate has two proposals on the table related to extending the deadline mandated by Congress as part of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt’s bill (S 650) has already been marked up by the committee and has two Democrats among the original co-sponsors, Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Bill Nelson of Florida. The bill would offer a five-year extension for railroads to implement the technology with two additional years after that under certain circumstances.
But Nelson withdrew his support after the Amtrak accident and opted for a measure proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., (S 1006) that would propose one-year, rolling extensions with a full implementation by 2018.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested