Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Chemical Reform Bill, Delighting Chemical Industry
Jun 25, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By Shawn Drury
One of the biggest applause lines at a rally for a Republican presidential hopeful comes when the candidate bashes the EPA. It’s nearly Pavlovian at this point. -
(ACC Mentioned) Physicians Should Talk Frankly About The Risks Of Chemical Exposures
Jun 25, 2015 | Health Affairs Blog
By David Tuller, Rachel Morello-Frosch, and Tracey Woodruff
In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its first national studytracking personal exposures to dozens of chemicals in a representative sample of the U.S. population. -
(ACC Mentioned) We All Need to Move Plastics Recycling Forward
Jun 25, 2015 | Plastics News
By Jerry Powell and Dylan de Thomas
As sustainability has increasingly become part of many corporate strategies, using recycled content in plastic goods manufacturing has become equally important. -
(ACC Mentioned) Despite Challenges, EPA Staff Defend Plan To Assess PCB Mixtures' Risks
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA staff is acknowledging the challenges in assessing the human health risks of exposure to mixtures of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in part due to the varied nature of the mixtures that occur in the environment and new data about their non-cancer risks, but an existing assessment may provide a template for the new effort. -
Reports Highlight Benefits of Adopting Green Chemistry
Jun 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US-based Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) is publishing a series of reports that provide case studies, research and analysis on adopting green chemistry. -
US Commission Reports on Recent Phthalate Exposures
Jun 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is seeking public comments on a new report on estimates of phthalate exposures and health risks in women of reproductive age. -
Five Things You Need To Know About Asbestos
Jun 25, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Sarah Grantham
Many people think asbestos exposure is a thing of the past, but today, it remains a deadly public health concern. -
Shimkus, Udall Predict TSCA Bill Will Land on Obama's Desk
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Two key lawmakers working to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act expressed optimism today that the House and Senate would iron out differences in their respective bills and send a final version to President Obama this year. -
Scandal-Plagued Agency Votes to Become More Transparent
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board yesterday finalized a rule that will provide for greater transparency and public participation at the struggling agency. -
Once Thought an Ally, Senator Now a Target for Green Groups
Jun 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Green groups upset over Sen. Mark Kirk’s recent record on climate issues are mulling a campaign against his reelection bid next year. -
Ind. Governor Vows to refuse Clean Power Plan Compliance Absent Changes
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Weeks before U.S. EPA issues its final Clean Power Plan rule, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said the landmark environmental regulation must undergo an extreme makeover or his state won't comply. -
Gas Pipeline Capacity Can Handle Demands of Clean Power Plan -- Report
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Already planned expansion of the nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure will be enough to meet changing electric generation needs brought about by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, an analysis to be released today concludes. -
Lawyers Mine Health Care Ruling for Clean Power Plan Clues
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Environmental attorneys are grappling with whether today's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Obama administration's health care reform could set a precedent in expected legal challenges to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
GOP Holds Few Cards Against Obama’s Global Climate Play
Jun 25, 2015 | Politico
By Andrew Restuccia
Republicans can see a U.N. climate change deal coming, and they know President Barack Obama will try to circumvent the Senate’s power to block it. -
Federal District Court Blocks BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal district court has temporarily blocked the Obama administration from implementing a rule governing hydraulic fracturing on public land, agreeing with state and industry plaintiffs suing over the rule that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulation should not move forward until the court assesses its legality. -
Oklahoma Earthquakes Putting Pressure on Drilling Regulators
Jun 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A series of nearly three dozen small earthquakes over the last week has prompted Oklahoma regulators to consider new restrictions on oil and gas drilling the state.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Chemical Reform Bill, Delighting Chemical Industry
Jun 25, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By Shawn Drury
One of the biggest applause lines at a rally for a Republican presidential hopeful comes when the candidate bashes the EPA. It’s nearly Pavlovian at this point. Thanks to the public relations arm of the GOP known as Fox News, there are segments of the population who see the EPA as nothing more than a bunch of bureaucrats standing in the way of endless riches for small businesses.
The fact is, environmental regulations keep us safe. Without these laws there would be an untold amount of chemicals in our air, land, and water. And some of those laws, like the Toxic Substance Control Act, are woefully out of date. Passed in 1976, the TSCA is both obsolete and toothless. Critics say the TSCA did not give the EPA the ability to label something as toxic and gave it little guidance on the chemical regulation process.
For example, the chemical that spilled into a West Virginia river last year, which caused tens of thousands of people to go without water for months, was not considered toxic. Believe it or not, asbestos is still legal in the United States. The EPA tried to ban it, but it lost in court in 1991. It hasn’t tried to ban a chemical since.
State environmental agencies could conceivably fill in where the EPA has not, but many of those, thanks to governors like Rick Scott in Florida, have seen their budgets slashed.
An attorney and advocate for chemical-regulation reform told Think Progress that 85,000 chemicals have been commercialized since 1976 and only a thousand have been “well-tested for their human health and environmental effects.”
But the House of Representatives is on the case. On Tuesday, the GOP-led body passed a reform to the TSCA. The bill requires the EPA to test at least 10 chemicals a year, but offers little else in the way of keeping our air, land, and water clean. The new bill requires the EPA to prove a chemical is dangerous before testing it.
In a statement, the Environmental Working Group noted:
The bill would allow chemical companies to pay for quick reviews and approval of their favorite chemicals. But promised reviews of the truly dangerous chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in Americans bodies could languish for lack of funding Congressional appropriators.
Coming out in favor of the bill? The American Chemistry Council.
The Senate is expected to take up a similar bill before it goes to summer recess. That legislation was more to environmentalists’ liking, but it too has been criticized for being too friendly to the chemical industry. How friendly? Well, Hearst got a hold of an early draft of the bill which showed the author to be…The American Chemistry Council.
That’s right; lobbyists for the chemical industry were literally writing the legislation that is meant to prevent them from polluting.
I don’t think this is what the framers had in mind when they put pen to paper and began work on the Constitution.
Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/house-passes-chemical-reform-bill-delighting-chemical-industry/#ixzz3e64c0Sku -
(ACC Mentioned) Physicians Should Talk Frankly About The Risks Of Chemical Exposures
Jun 25, 2015 | Health Affairs Blog
By David Tuller, Rachel Morello-Frosch, and Tracey Woodruff
In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its first national studytracking personal exposures to dozens of chemicals in a representative sample of the U.S. population. The agency found that almost all Americans had an array of industrial compounds coursing through their bodies, although levels varied depending on such factors as age and gender. While many of these substances are found in everyday products, most have never been adequately tested for potential health effects.
That report heralded a wave of biomonitoring of human tissues and fluids, such as blood, urine, and breast-milk. Each of the three subsequent CDC reports has increased the number of chemicals surveyed and the sensitivity of the tests. Each new set of findings suggests there is an inexhaustible supply of ever-greater knowledge to be learned about an ever-longer list of synthetic compounds in our bodies.
Besides the CDC, academic scientists and environmental groups have also pursued biomonitoring projects in the past decade or so, adding a twist to the research mix: studies of household air and dust, a potent method of demonstrating the pervasive nature of chemical pollution. Participants in these studies have sometimes publicized their individual results to put a human face on the environmental concept of “toxic trespass.” The concept presumes that people have a right to object to industrial compounds invading their homes and bodies, whether or not these have proven health impacts.
The extensive exposures to toxic chemicals are beyond dispute; for some compounds, 100 percent of people tested in studies have been exposed. And many population-level studies have, in fact, established clear links between environmental pollutants and a wide range of adverse health outcomes, such as the negative effects of bisphenol A on women’s reproductive health.Knowledge Gaps And Women’s Health
Yet our ability to determine the risks that these exposures pose for a specific individual has lagged behind our skill at detecting their presence. Even when we know that risks exist, we often don’t know how long the exposure needs to be, or how long until the negative impacts appear. This knowledge gap raises challenges for health care professionals seeking to counsel patients — especially those involved in pediatric and women’s reproductive health, who have grappled for years with the challenge of translating population-wide risk to individual patient health.
In 2013, the country’s largest groups of obstetricians and fertility specialists—the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)—issued a joint statement flatly declaring that “preconception and prenatal exposure to toxic environmental agents can have a profound and lasting effect on reproductive health across the life course.”
The statement advised clinicians to counsel their patients on minimizing their exposures. (Our group, the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California at San Francisco, helped develop the statement.)
Not surprisingly, the American Chemistry Council responded with accusations that the professional associations were “creating confusion and alarm among expectant mothers.” The trade group insisted that current regulations reflect the available evidence and offer protection from any purported health risks.
It is understandable, of course, that chemical companies and their allies would want to deflect public attention from any suspected harms caused by their products. They argue that the documented exposures to synthetic substances should not generate concern because the presence of a chemical in the body does not mean it is causing damage.
That might be true for some chemicals, but the absence of evidence of harm cannot be presumed to mean that a compound is safe. It is not a reassuring message for women of reproductive age—or for anyone—to be told, “Don’t worry, just because intruders are in your house doesn’t mean they intend to harm you.”
Unlike pharmaceuticals, the vast majority of chemicals in commerce can and have entered our homes and lives without adequate or even any safety testing; research into potential harms has generally emerged only after the chemicals have been widely used for decades. This is a profound shortcoming of the regulations that govern industrial chemicals under the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
Congress is currently debating proposed revisions to the law, with legislation recently marked up and agreed to in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Health advocates engaged in this legislative process maintain that any reform should shift the burden of proof of safety to the chemical industry and require companies to provide such proof before their products are used commercially. Such an approach would represent a profound change from the situation today, which requires waiting for scientists and government agencies to demonstrate negative effects after exposures have already occurred.Empowering Individuals With Information
Despite the uncertainties, doctors and other clinicians can offer women very useful advice. For example, diets rich in organic foods reduce exposures to pesticides, as measured by urinary levels of their metabolites. And people can choose not to buy body lotions known to contain phthalates or furniture with foam cushions steeped in flame-retardants. Indeed, advising patients on the best ways to reduce potentially toxic chemical exposures is an essential component of public health prevention.
But does telling women about chemicals in their bodies cause them unnecessary worry and stress, as chemical companies claim? And what do women themselves say they want?
With the rise in biomonitoring, a growing literature on the ethics of providing personal data to participants in such studies provides some guidance in answering those questions. In researchfrom members of our group and others, women have consistently chosen to learn of their own chemical levels, even when they have known that this information can’t be linked to specific health outcomes. Participants deal well with the uncertainties in the science, especially when what is known and what is not known are clearly explained.
To be sure, patients in a clinical practice are not the same as participants in a study, and doctors do not routinely have specific data on individual chemical exposures to report back. But given that some substances have been found in everyone tested, clinicians can rightly presume that all patients would benefit from knowing how to minimize their risks.
And—judging by the enthusiastic feedback we have received from readers of our brochure, Toxic Matters, which offers pragmatic recommendations on how to avoid compounds known to be harmful to reproductive health—women themselves, whether in research studies or not, want access to whatever information is available about personal exposures to environmental chemicals.
Discussing these exposures in a clinical setting is consistent with the growing practice in medicine of providing patients with the necessary information to fully participate in critical health care decision-making; for clinicians to act otherwise is paternalistic and disrespectful of people’s right to know what is happening with their bodies.
And disseminating such knowledge to patients is also a first step towards preventing harmful exposures for all. In working with individuals as well as community groups, we have consistently found that increased awareness of the issue alters people’s perspectives, prompting them to engage in community activism and other efforts to reduce pollution through changes in government policy.
When it comes to toxic chemicals, in fact, ACOG and ASRM recommend that the responsibility of health care professionals does not end with advising patients. Notably, the statement also urges health care professionals to participate in policy debates about revamping our current ineffective regime for assessing and regulating industrial chemicals.
We agree that the voices of reproductive health professionals must be heard not only in examination rooms but also in their health care institutions and in the larger public debate about policies to prevent exposures to pollutants in the first place. If chemical companies want to be trusted in their assurances to pregnant women that having synthetic compounds in their bodies is safe, they should provide solid evidence of their claims before releasing their products into the world.
-
(ACC Mentioned) We All Need to Move Plastics Recycling Forward
Jun 25, 2015 | Plastics News
By Jerry Powell and Dylan de Thomas
As sustainability has increasingly become part of many corporate strategies, using recycled content in plastic goods manufacturing has become equally important. That interplay between brand owner objectives and recovered material is just one element in the ever-evolving plastics recycling sphere.
Our company produces the world’s largest plastics recycling event and has done so for more than a decade. We also publish the only print and digital periodical in the plastics recycling space — Plastics Recycling Update — and in this producer/publisher role, we’ve had a front-row seat as the recycling side of the greater plastics industry has taken on a louder voice in the plastics conversation. We have seen plastics recycling move from simple grinding and bagging operations to highly technical, multi-million dollar plants producing recycled resins that can perform right alongside their virgin counterparts.
Just like the companies we cover, we have adapted to plastics recycling’s shifting landscape and thrived amid the unrest. Our goal is to offer attendees and readers a clear, compelling portrait of the industry’s current realities and to help them prepare for the inevitable changes to come.
In addition, a key reason for the success of the Plastics Recycling Conference (it now attracts more than 1,500 attendees each year) is its ongoing alliance with many important trade groups. We have for many years enjoyed the support of the American Chemistry Council, the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, the National Association for PET Container Resources and the environmental division of the Society of Plastics Engineers. We have also hosted SPI-produced content for the past two years, and have invited them to work with us again.
However, a number of individuals in the recycling industry have voiced concern to us that a newly announced conference being put on by SPI may force plastics company representatives to “choose” between the two events. SPI noted that the group will be “focusing the new event on manufacturing issues, zero-waste goals and post-industrial plastics,” as the group’s director of recycling, Kim Holmes, was quoted as saying in this publication. That’s a fine aspiration and important territory to cover as more companies outside the traditional recycling space start to see the economic and social value in boosting recycled content.
As we move forward to produce our 11th annual Plastics Recycling Conference, to be held next Feb. 1-3 in New Orleans, we will continue to highlight the important work from innovative individuals, groups and companies and to bring together all key stakeholders to help move plastics recycling forward.
And we are always listening. If you have questions or concerns about conference offerings or the industry as a whole, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Learn more at www.plasticsrecycling.com.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Despite Challenges, EPA Staff Defend Plan To Assess PCB Mixtures' Risks
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA staff is acknowledging the challenges in assessing the human health risks of exposure to mixtures of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in part due to the varied nature of the mixtures that occur in the environment and new data about their non-cancer risks, but an existing assessment may provide a template for the new effort.
There are 209 PCB congeners, chemicals that were developed and used starting about 1930 until EPA banned their use in 1979. EPA's planning and scoping document for its pending Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of the human health risks of PCBs estimates that "more than 600 million [kilograms] of PCBs were commercially produced in the United States," due to their multitude of uses in electrical applications for insulating and inflammability, as well as other uses in paints, inks, coatings, sealants, caulks and others.
But the breadth of the number of congeners, and the fact that they persist in the environment in various mixtures, complicates EPA's efforts to craft an IRIS assessment. Industry stakeholders pressed IRIS staff on these challenges during a public meeting June 17-18 in Arlington, VA, to discuss the agency's draft scoping and planning document for the PCB assessment.
"I don't envy you people at EPA, there are so many choices and not much data in the tasks at hand," one speaker said during the meeting. "On the other hand, it's so important. Inhaled and higher-chlorinated, less dioxin-like PCBs are not in IRIS."
An industry representative questioned whether EPA's efforts to assess non-cancer risks of exposure to PCBs, with a focus on ingestion and inhalation pathways is necessary, and given competing priorities and limited resources, whether IRIS' existing publications on PCBs are sufficient for the time being. EPA in 1996 published assessments containing reference doses (RfDs) for three Aroclors, the original, commercial form of PCBs.
“Since you already have RfDs for two Aroclors -- they might be sufficient and protective," suggested Nancy Beck, senior director of regulatory science policy at the American Chemistry Council. "Maybe you don't need a full assessment."
"We thought about that," replied Geniece Lehmann, EPA's chemical manager for the PCB IRIS assessment. But "there is much more recent data" than what was available in the early 1990s, she continued. "So even if we were sticking with Aroclors, we'd want to update them." The newer data, she added, "would definitely change the" risk estimates for the Aroclors, but she added that she could not speculate on the magnitude of the changes.
Lehmann identified groups susceptible to PCBs exposure as recreational and subsistence fishers, Native Americans, occupants of PCB-contaminated buildings and breast-fed infants. PCBs were banned due to concerns over their health effects -- some are carcinogenic, and newer evidence suggests some pose non-cancer health risks as well -- and their persistence. PCBs are also bioaccumulative, magnifying up the food chain and accumulating in fish and other meats and fats.
Non-Cancer Numbers
IRIS program director Vincent Cogliano explained in response to other questioning from Beck that several EPA regional offices sought the non-cancer numbers from IRIS to relate to air concentrations measured in schools and other buildings, as well as to provide new benchmarks for fish consumption advisories.
"As you know, there are concentrations of PCBs in air in schools. . . . As far as I know, no federal agency has a [benchmark] concentration of air levels [that is safe]," Cogliano replied. "We're trying to help answer a question a lot of people have with this."
Environmental exposures are generally to mixtures of PCBs, which are often different to the toxicity of individual Aroclors. The complexity of the mixtures, and the number of possibilities of mixtures, given the 209 congeners, led speakers throughout the meeting to question how EPA could advance a general PCBs assessment.
But EPA has already performed one IRIS assessment of multiple PCBs which may provide an approach for the new assessment to follow, an agency source says, pointing to a 1994 cancer assessment of several PCBs.
The 1994 assessment -- written by Cogliano -- includes toxicity studies of four PCBs: Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242 and 1016. The assessment includes three different "tiers of human slope factors [cancer potency estimates for ingestion] for environmental PCBs," titled high risk, low risk and lowest risk. The assessment provides information for the circumstances in which the different slope factors should be used. Such an approach could perhaps be used in the new assessment of non-cancer risks, the source says.
IRIS assessors could calculate "different estimates from different segments of PCB mixtures and then apply them to different" scenarios, the source says.
For example, in the 1994 cancer PCBs assessment, the high risk and persistence tier, with a slope factor of 1-2 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kd-day) is to be used in cases where there were instances of: "[f]ood chain exposure"; "[s]ediment or soil ingestion"; "[d]ust or aerosol inhalation"; "[d]ermal exposure, if an absorption factor has been applied"; "[p]resence of dioxin-like, tumor-promoting, or persistent congeners" and/or "[e]arly-life exposure (all pathways and mixtures)."
The assessment provides a range of slope factor for the low risk tier of 0.3-0.4 milligrams per kilograms of body weight per day (mg/kg-day) to be used with "[i]ngestion of water-soluble congeners"; "[i]nhalation of evaporated congeners" and/or "[d]ermal exposure, if no absorption factor has been applied." The lowest risk tier gives a slope factor range of 0.04-0.07 mg/kg-day with instructions to use this potency range if "[c]ongener or isomer analyses verify that congeners with more than 4 chlorines comprise less than 1/2% of total PCBs."
Agency sources indicate that since the last assessments were published, there are new animal and human data indicating that some PCBs pose non-cancer risks as well as cancer risks, and particularly, that inhalation can be a pathway of concern. It is the suggestion of these new risks that led to the decision to undertake a non-cancer assessment, the sources say.
Pat Casano, an attorney for General Electric Co., raised similar concerns as ACC's Beck, and urged the agency to limit the scope of its assessment to make it more feasible. "This will be an extremely difficult, if not impossible [assessment] because you're going to look at all 209 congeners," Casano said. Instead, she suggested that perhaps EPA try to focus on the PCBs in caulk, and questioned the feasibility of risk management of other areas of concern, such as the presence of PCBs in human breast milk.
"Is there anything that can be done about breast milk?" she asked, citing declining levels of PCBs in the environment and the billions she said have been spent cleaning up waste sites, renovating buildings, and other cleanup projects targeting PCBs. "That would be information that would be helpful to understand to focus your work."
IRIS Assessment
The June meeting is an early step in EPA's efforts to craft an IRIS assessment. IRIS staff presented a draft planning and scoping document for discussion. The document is intended to outline information IRIS staff have gleaned from a preliminary literature search and begin to form EPA's plans for the assessment by discussing which exposure routes -- ingestion, inhalation or dermal -- are of interest to agency decision makers.
In its planning and scoping document, EPA explains that it intends to "evaluate non-cancer human health hazards associated with PCB exposure through oral, inhalation and dermal routes, provided adequate data are available. Dose-response information for identified hazards will also be included when feasible because this information can be useful for both characterizing risks at varying exposure levels and analyzing benefits associated with reducing exposures. A dose-response assessment for the dermal route of exposure is not planned at this point because oral and inhalation exposure are generally considered the major exposure routes. However, toxicokinetic data relevant to dermal exposure will be included to support the evaluation of potential risks from dermal exposures."
In comments submitted to EPA's docket, the Department of Defense (DOD) questions EPA's decision not to calculate dermal risk estimates in the PCBs assessment, calling it inconsistent with EPA's decision regarding its IRIS assessment of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP).
"Given that Lehmann et al., 2015 … state that the major source of ingestion and inhalation of PCBs is dust in the house and given that EPA assumes that household dust is mainly due to outdoor soil, IRIS should use the same assumptions it is using for BaP and [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] regarding dermal exposures to contaminated dust and soil as these chemicals have similar properties," according to DOD's June 3 comments. "Please also explain why dermal exposure to BaP and PAHs is considered important and the same exposure is not for PCBs."
-
Reports Highlight Benefits of Adopting Green Chemistry
Jun 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US-based Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) is publishing a series of reports that provide case studies, research and analysis on adopting green chemistry.
Two of the four planned reports have been published; one, released in April, on the business case for adopting green chemistry, and the other, on how to accelerate its uptake, published last week.
The others will be released later this year – one on measuring progress towards green chemistry and the other on how to make it mainstream.
“Green chemistry is taking hold in industry and academia, but given the significant benefits to public health, the environment and the economy, the GC3 is not satisfied with the current pace,” said co-director Monica Becker.
The reports were commissioned, she said, to gather data and to hear from the chemical companies, brands, and retailers that are “critical” to the uptake of green chemistry.
“With this better understanding of the business case, barriers and mechanisms to advance green chemistry in supply chains, we can have more productive conversations and structure more effective collaborations,” she added.
Last month, NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) released a report, Behind the Label: How Business Sees Opportunity in Safer Chemistry, which analyses two examples of “innovative chemistries” developed in response to demands for safer chemical ingredients in consumer products. Both examples cover cleaning products, produced by AkzoNobel and Seventh Generation.
Read the latest article in our series on green chemistry in the June issue of the Global Business Briefing
-
US Commission Reports on Recent Phthalate Exposures
Jun 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is seeking public comments on a new report on estimates of phthalate exposures and health risks in women of reproductive age.
The report finds that DEHP exposures of women between 15 and 45-years-old have declined since 2005/06, but exposures of DINP have increased. A hazard index reflecting multiple phthalate exposures has declined in recent years overall.
The report analyses biomonitoring data available from the National Human Health and Nutrition Survey (Nhanes) for the years 2005/06, 2007/08, 2009/10 and 2011/12. It was prepared by CPSC staff and follows an earlier report issued last year by a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP), based only on 2005/06 biomonitoring data.
The latest report, however, includes data which has more recently become available from three subsequent years of collection. The data is analysed in the same way as in the CHAP report. The CPSC's aim was to examine phthalate exposures to determine whether limits on the use of DINP, DIDP and DnOP in children’s toys were protecting children and pregnant women.
The commission has recently proposed a permanent ban on another five phthalates in children's toys and childcare articles (CW 12 January 2015).
-
Five Things You Need To Know About Asbestos
Jun 25, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Sarah Grantham
Originally published on Asbestos Nation by Sarah Grantham, policy analyst for the Environmental Working Group Action Fund.
Many people think asbestos exposure is a thing of the past, but today, it remains a deadly public health concern.
The term “asbestos” refers to any of six fibrous minerals. Asbestos fibers are strong, light and heat-resistant and have been used for more than a century in construction, insulation and fireproofing. Scientists have long recognized that when asbestos fibers become airborneand people inhale them, they can cause cancer and painful, usually fatal diseases.
Here are five things you may not know about asbestos in the U.S., compiled by EWG Action Fund. EWG Action Fund, a separate sister organization of EWG, is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization that promotes health and sustainable policies. EWG Action Fund recently launched a campaign called “Asbestos Nation” to raise public awareness about the continued pervasiveness of asbestos in America.Asbestos is still legal in the United States.
In 1989, after a comprehensive 10-year study of the effects of asbestos, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered a phase-out of asbestos and a ban on many products containing it. The asbestos industry took the EPA to court and in 1991, won a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit throwing out most of EPA’s rule. Ever since, EPA has been hamstrung in its efforts to ban not only asbestos but also other dangerous materials. Today, more than 50 other nations have banned the substance, but the U.S. continues to allow industry to expose the public to asbestos.Asbestos kills more people than skin cancer.
Asbestos-related disease kills as many at 15,000 Americans a year, according to EWG Action Fund’s analysis of data complied by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Asbestos-related deaths fall into three categories:Mesothelioma: a cancer that attacks the lining surrounding organs. Most victims die within months; Asbestosis: a deep scarring of the lungs that makes breathing difficult and painful, suffocating victims; andOther lung cancer: caused by inhaling asbestos fibers. No safe level exists for asbestos exposure.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration warns employers and workers that there is “no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any asbestos fiber.” Even brief asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma.The U.S. imports asbestos and products that contain it.
An EWG Action Fund analysis of federal trade records shows that more than 8.2 million pounds of raw asbestos and hundreds of pounds of asbestos waste and products containing asbestos arrived in U.S. ports between 2006 and last year. More asbestos arrived overland from Canada and Mexico.Asbestos is all around you.
About 25 million American homes, mostly older ones, have asbestos-based attic insulation (called Zonolite or vermiculite). Many more have asbestos in pipes, flooring, roof or wall shingles or ceiling finishes. Asbestos can sometimes show up in kitchen appliances, cement sheets and some heat-resistant fabric and clothing. EWG Action Fund’s “Consumer’s Guide to Asbestos” provides a more comprehensive list.
The bottom line is, asbestos is still legal, still lethal and still everywhere. Millions of Americans have been exposed to asbestos, and millions more will likely face exposure in the future.
Read the full story here.
Copyright © 2015, EWG Action Fund. All rights reserved.http://www.asbestosnation.org. Reproduced with permission.
EWG Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization that is a separate sister organization of the Environmental Working Group. The mission of EWG Action Fund is to protect health and the environment by educating the public and lobbying on a wide range of environmental issues.
-
Shimkus, Udall Predict TSCA Bill Will Land on Obama's Desk
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Two key lawmakers working to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act expressed optimism today that the House and Senate would iron out differences in their respective bills and send a final version to President Obama this year.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who oversaw passage of H.R. 2576, the "TSCA Modernization Act," this week, and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said an expected Senate vote on S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," could pave the way for a successful conference on the two plans.
Speaking at a Bipartisan Policy Center event in Washington, D.C., both lawmakers largely dismissed a call from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) for the Senate to scrap S. 697 and take up the House bill instead. Boxer has argued the Senate bill contains ambiguous language that "is complicated and will lead to the courthouse" (E&E Daily, June 24).
A key issue for a conference committee: how the two bills affect state laws, Udall said. The Senate bill lets state seek a waiver for their regulations before U.S. EPA takes final action on a chemical, while the House bill would make this unnecessary.
Another key difference: The House bill keeps the existing system for managing an estimated 700 to 1,500 new chemicals that come on the market each year because House lawmakers consider the status quo on new chemicals largely acceptable, Shimkus said. The current system is an improvement over the grandfathering in of chemicals when TSCA became law in 1976, he said.
A conference committee is unlikely to see deep divisions because both sides are working toward the same goals, Shimkus said.
Advertisement
Even though Republicans have criticized EPA, Shimkus said the agency had a role to play in protecting Americans from harmful chemicals.
Republicans want to prevent EPA from meddling in areas where it's not needed, Shimkus said, but only the federal government is up for the challenge of managing the nation's chemicals.
Both lawmakers acknowledged that TSCA reform is hard to sell politically.
"You don't make yourself into a hero" tacking TSCA, Udall said. "You end up getting down in some real nitty-gritty stuff that nobody understands."
Udall recalled finding himself targeted by advocacy groups that accused him of allowing the chemical industry to have an undue influence in TSCA reform.
"This is absurd," Udall said, adding that the bill has been steadily changed to address the concerns of environmental and public health groups.
Shimkus, a West Point graduate, said the attacks on Udall were not unexpected. He compared Udall to the "Follow Me" sculpture of an infantryman at Fort Benning, Ga.
"Leaders always get shot at," Shimkus said. "If you want to lead the assumption, the risk is you're going to get shot at by both sides."
He told Udall, "I'll help pull the arrows out."
-
Scandal-Plagued Agency Votes to Become More Transparent
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board yesterday finalized a rule that will provide for greater transparency and public participation at the struggling agency.
The vote came on a longtime member's last day at the agency, which has been rocked by problems with leadership, staff morale and delayed investigations.
The new rule will require CSB to set at least four public meetings in Washington, D.C., each year, in addition to public meetings held in communities where CSB is investigating industrial accidents. In addition, the agency will be required to discuss so-called notation votes, which are conducted in private by board members, at a public meeting within 90 days.
The public meetings will include reviews of ongoing CSB investigations and progress on the agency's action plan, a move intended to increase transparency by making it easier for outsiders to determine the progress of ongoing investigations.
Board member Mark Griffon's last day at CSB was yesterday, which leaves the agency with two members -- Rick Engler and Manuel Ehrlich -- who combined have less than a year of service at the agency.
Griffon joined Engler in voting to finalize the rules, the agency said.
Advertisement
"These changes are essential to ensure that the CSB can best help protect workers, communities, businesses, and our environment from chemical disasters," Engler said in a statement. "Just like the public has a legal right to know about the chemicals in their communities, the public has a right to know about the governance of this agency and where our investigations stand."
The agency is entering a period of uncertainty as it lacks a sufficient number of board members and has no clear path to seeing its two outstanding nominees confirmed by the Senate in the near future. Two of its top officials, Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and general counsel Richard Loeb, are also on administrative leave while the agency investigates claims of past misconduct (E&E Daily, June 18).
The board has two nominees awaiting Senate confirmation: Kristen Kulinowski, a research staff member at the IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute, and Vanessa Sutherland, the general counsel at the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, who was nominated to lead the agency.
The board was previously unable to approve the rules because it lacked a quorum while Ehrlich was absent receiving medical treatment.
-
Once Thought an Ally, Senator Now a Target for Green Groups
Jun 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Green groups upset over Sen. Mark Kirk’s recent record on climate issues are mulling a campaign against his reelection bid next year.
The Illinois Republican, who in 2009 was one of just eight Republicans to vote in favor of a cap-and-trade system, was once a frequent ally of environmental groups.
So green activists felt spurned when Kirk turned against them last week and voted against enforcing President Obama’s climate change regulations on power plants.
Kirk’s move was decisive. In a 15-15 vote, the Appropriations Committee failed to restore funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce its carbon rules for power plants.
“We are extremely disappointed,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of NRDC Action Fund, the political affiliate of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC Action Fund, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and the Environmental Defense Action Fund all put out statements blasting Kirk’s vote.
No other Republican who voted against the EPA funding was targeted in the same way, highlighting how the Illinois Republican’s move resonated with environmentalists.
“Mark Kirk had the chance to do something to protect the health of Illinois communities and he instead voted to protect the profits of the fossil fuel
industry,” Liz Perera, the Sierra Club’s
climate policy director, said in a statement.Kirk faces a tough reelection fight next year against Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Their contest could decide Senate control in a difficult year for the GOP, which is defending 24 seats.
Green groups would like the Senate to fall back into Democratic hands, given the GOP’s firm control of the House.
They could also be a powerful force in Illinois. Environmental groups spent $85 million on the 2014 midterm elections.
Kirk’s campaign defended his environmental record and his vote, saying he cares deeply about the environmental issues that matter to Illinois residents.
Aides said the spending bill that was the subject of the EPA amendment highlights his record. It includes a provision Kirk sponsored aimed at preventing pollution in the Great Lakes.
“Sen. Kirk’s legislation creates a strict new ban on sewage dumping in the Great Lakes, including a $100,000 per day violation and the creation of a fund to build new treatment plants,” said Kevin Artl, Kirk’s spokesman. “The simple truth is that Sen. Kirk is responsible for the most aggressive measure ever taken to protect the Great Lakes.”
Artl declined to answer questions about Kirk’s vote on the EPA amendment or about his record on climate change, as did the senator.
Kirk was a star to environmental groups when he voted to set up the
cap-and-trade system in 2009. Since then, he’s fallen in their eyes.In January, he told E&E Daily that Greenland was once much warmer, which is why is was named Greenland. He said that proves that the Earth goes through natural warm and cold cycles that have little to do with greenhouse gases created by human activity.
He later clarified that “climate change is real and human beings definitely play a role,” voting with 58 colleagues to affirm that statement.
“When he was in the House, we were pretty supportive and had a good relationship with him,” said Keith Gaby, spokesman for the Environmental Defense Action Fund. “And we’ve been slow-motion shocked over the last five years as he has completely flipped.”
Kirk held a score of 71 percent in the League of Conservation Voters’s rankings in 2009. That was higher than most of his Republican colleagues.
He and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) sponsored legislation in 2013 to forbid oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, taking up a cause that has united environmental groups for decades.
But last year, the League of Conservation Voters scored him at only 20 percent, one of his lowest with the group during his tenure in Congress.
And greens don’t like his recent votes to approve the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, repeal Obama’s Clean Water Act regulations and reduce the federal
government’s land holdings.Brian Gaines, a political science professor at the University of Illinois, said the environmental arguments are unlikely to sway public opinion in the race for now. But it might make a larger and more lasting impact in fundraising.
“It is never too early to be piling up money from the point of view of the campaigns, so it isn’t too early for both of them to be working on groups and PACs” Gaines said. “The Democrats have been very clear that Kirk is a top target, and that’s not going to change quickly.”
-
Ind. Governor Vows to refuse Clean Power Plan Compliance Absent Changes
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Weeks before U.S. EPA issues its final Clean Power Plan rule, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said the landmark environmental regulation must undergo an extreme makeover or his state won't comply.
Pence issued his demands in a letter to President Obama yesterday. In doing so, Indiana joins Oklahoma in vowing to refuse compliance with the Obama administration's plan to slash carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
"The proposed rules are ill-conceived and poorly constructed and they exceed the EPA's legal authority under the Clean Air Act," Pence said in the letter. He said the state will also "use any legal means available" to block the rule from being implemented.
The statement comes just two weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit seeking to stop the final Clean Power Plan rule from being issued. Indiana was among 14 states to join the lawsuit (Greenwire, June 9).
It also comes a week after Pence announced his bid for re-election amid flagging poll numbers.
Pence has been steadfast in his opposition to the Clean Power Plan. He criticized the proposal the day it was announced in a speech to Midwest utility regulators, vowing to "stand up for our traditional carbon-based, coal-burning power plants" (EnergyWire, June 2, 2014).
Like many other Midwest states, Indiana relies on coal for the bulk of its electric generation. It also has among the lowest carbon reduction goals in the nation -- 20 percent.
But Pence said the Clean Power Plan "will raise electricity costs on Hoosiers, result in less reliable electricity and impede economic growth and prosperity."
"If your administration proceeds to finalize the Clean Power Plan, and the final rule has not demonstrably and significantly improved from the proposed rule, Indiana will not comply."'Just say no' or retain control -- which is better for Indiana?
Pence's statement drew applause from fellow Indiana Republicans, including Sen. Dan Coats and state GOP Chairman Jeff Cardwell, as well as national coal and mining industry groups.
"Indiana relies on coal for 87 percent of its electricity; forcing more low-cost coal generation out of Indiana will make Hoosiers dangerously reliant on less reliable and more expensive sources of electricity," Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Association, said in a statement.
Environmental advocates said Pence's threat to "just say no" to the Clean Power Plan can only hurt Indiana, which would face a yet-to-be-released federal implementation plan for reducing carbon if it refuses to develop its own. EPA is expected to release the federal plan when the final rule is issued.
"We would rather have Indiana be in control of our destiny than have a federal plan imposed on us," said Jodi Perras, Indiana representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
Perras, formerly a deputy commissioner at the state Department of Environmental Management, said the refusal to cooperate with EPA is unprecedented. Indiana has challenged federal environmental regulations in the past, but it has always worked on a parallel track to develop compliance plans, she said.
Clean energy advocates say Indiana's carbon reduction goal could easily be met if the state could meet a modest 10 percent renewable energy goal and followed through with its energy efficiency standard put in place by former Gov. Mitch Daniels.
"It's not a stretch at all," Perras said. "We had policies in place to do that."
But one of those policies is no longer in place. The efficiency standard was repealed by the Republican-led Legislature earlier this year, even though independent evaluations showed it was overwhelmingly cost-effective (EnergyWire, April 13).No specific changes requested
Pence's letter didn't specify what changes the state is seeking in the final rule in order to comply. In the state's formal comments on the proposal submitted to EPA on Dec. 1, state agencies urged EPA to eliminate the interim compliance requirement, adopt a "safety valve" that would allow coal plants to continue running for reliability purposes and make myriad other changes.
EPA has sent strong signals that the final rule would include changes based on the 4.3 million public comments received. Most recently, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, a former Indiana air regulator who still lives in Indianapolis, suggested the final rule would specifically address concerns about the interim compliance requirements (EnergyWire, June 9).
Asked to comment on Pence's letter, EPA again said the final rule would deliver on promises to reduce carbon pollution while enabling continued economic growth.
"This vital input is giving the agency the opportunity to address a wide range of issues in the draft final rule that will deliver a clean, affordable and reliable electricity supply, drive American innovation and American jobs, and that will demonstrate U.S. leadership within the international community," the agency said in a statement.
-
Gas Pipeline Capacity Can Handle Demands of Clean Power Plan -- Report
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Already planned expansion of the nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure will be enough to meet changing electric generation needs brought about by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, an analysis to be released today concludes.
"Even without the CPP, ongoing changes in the U.S. natural gas market will require billions of dollars for new pipeline infrastructure over the next 15 years. About 70% of the projected infrastructure needed is already in the planning stage, prompted by dramatic growth in new gas supplies from areas like the Marcellus and Utica shales," said theanalysis, from the Advanced Energy Economy Institute, a national association of businesses.
Using models developed by Virginia-based ICF International, AEE looked at pipeline expansions between 2016 and 2030 without the CPP, and then determined the incremental capacity requirements prompted by CPP implementation. AEE also asked ICF International to examine how unexpectedly low future gas prices -- a "stress test" scenario in terms of pipeline requirements -- could affect the results by increasing gas demand.
AEE is positioning the analysis, "Impacts of the Clean Power Plan on U.S. Natural Gas Markets and Pipeline Infrastructure," as a response to concerns that up to 90 gigawatts of coal-fired generation may be forced to retire as a consequence of EPA's rule to slash carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030.
For example, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. has warned that states relying heavily on increased natural gas generation for compliance with the CPP might create stress on gas pipeline capacity and affect electric system reliability across regions.
The AEE analysis concludes that existing and planned pipelines will be adequate and that a modest increase in spending of 3 to 7 percent more than currently planned through 2030 can make up any gap in needed infrastructure.
The AEE analysis cited three key factors:A large number of pipeline projects are already in the planning stages to expand capacity over the next three to five years. These projects are sufficient to meet both the anticipated growth in gas demand not related to the CPP, as well as much of the incremental demand resulting from the CPP.The assumed increase in energy efficiency in the CPP cases reduces electric load growth, and because electric load growth is lower, power-sector gas demand in the Northeast and West regions is actually lower with the CPP in 2030.While Midwest and Southern power-sector gas consumption is projected to increase with or without the CPP, these regions are relatively close to incremental gas supplies, principally the Marcellus and Utica shales. The proximity of the incremental gas demand to the source of the incremental supplies and the reversal of existing pipelines (moving gas from Marcellus/Utica to the Midwest and South on existing pipelines) reduces the amount of new pipeline and capital expenditures required.
"With competition from renewable energy and energy efficiency, which are also cost-effective, states are likely to adopt a diverse portfolio of measures for compliance rather than rely exclusively on increased natural gas generation," said AEE Senior Vice President Malcolm Woolf. "There is no reason to see natural gas pipeline capacity as a threat to electric system reliability as a result of CPP implementation."
-
Lawyers Mine Health Care Ruling for Clean Power Plan Clues
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Environmental attorneys are grappling with whether today's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Obama administration's health care reform could set a precedent in expected legal challenges to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices upheld the Affordable Care Act's tax subsidies for people who get insurance on both federal and state-created exchanges.
Challengers claimed that a strict reading of the law mandated that the IRS provide the subsidies only for individuals who purchased insurance on an "exchange established by the state" and, therefore, not on the exchanges in roughly three dozen states that were set up by the federal government.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion for the court, wrote that the context of the law indicated that Congress intended both types of exchanges to qualify for the subsidies. Otherwise, he wrote, the underpinnings of the health care law would crumble.
"Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts," Roberts wrote, "and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."
Environmental lawyers, however, have homed in on the chief justice's brief discussion of the 1984 precedentChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In that ruling, the court set up a two-step structure for adjudicating agency actions. Step 1 is whether the law directing the agency's work is ambiguous. If it is, under Step 2 the court must defer to the agency's interpretation if it was reasonable.
At first glance, the health care reform case, King v. Burwell, looked as if it could be decided on Chevron grounds. But Roberts quickly sidestepped the precedent.
Chevron didn't apply because the health care case is "extraordinary" and centers on a question of "deep 'economic and political significance,'" Roberts wrote, quoting precedent. The Chevron two-step process, he said, need not be initiated if it appears the ambiguity at issue was not one that Congress intended for the acting agency to resolve.
"Had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so explicitly," Roberts wrote.
Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown Law professor and former climate official at EPA, said she was "struck" by the passage.
It's an "affirmation of the idea that because an issue is really important, an agency doesn't get deference," she said.
She noted that the "economic and political significance" argument has been raised in the early challenges to EPA's proposed greenhouse gas standard for existing power plants, the key component of the administration's effort to address climate change that is due to be finalized later this year.
In fact, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a former mentor to President Obama, made that argument earlier this year, Heinzerling said.
A potentially analogous issue involves the conflicting Clean Air Act amendments under which EPA is issuing the greenhouse gas rules. Due to a legislative glitch, two versions of Section 111(d) were signed into law -- one from the House and one from the Senate. Critics of the proposal read the House version to prohibit EPA from issuing regulations forsources of pollution already regulated under the law.
Because EPA has already issued power plant standards for other pollutants, that theory would foreclose the new rule.
EPA and environmentalists counter that the Senate version only prohibits redundant regulation of specific pollutants, which would allow the greenhouse gas standards to stand.
The two amendments are not easily reconciled, and Thomas Lorenzen, a former Justice Department environmental attorney, said today's ruling reinforces the idea that the fate of the Clean Power Plan will ultimately be resolved by judges.
And Roberts' opinion, he said, may have provided a way for them to sidestep the traditional two-step Chevron analysis.
With the two amendments, "you have a congressional goof," said Lorenzen, who now represents industry clients at the law firm Crowell & Moring. There is "no clear intent to delegate authority to the agency."
Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air chief now representing industry at Bracewell & Giuliani, echoed that point.
"The decision in King v. Burwell makes it pretty clear that the court will not just defer to EPA but will make its own decision about the legal implications of the competing House and Senate versions of 111(d)," Holmstead said. "The court clarified its holding in Chevronby saying that the courts should only defer to an agency on the types of issues that Congress intended to leave to that agency's discretion. It will be hard for EPA to argue that Congress intended to give EPA discretion over the scope of its own power."'You need to look at the context'
Heinzerling, as well as environmentalists, however, cautioned against reading too much into today's decision. They noted that several factors differentiate the case from the inevitable challenges to the Clean Power Plan.
Roberts said Chevron didn't apply because the ambiguity in the state versus federal exchange issue was left to the IRS.
"It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort," Roberts wrote.
That would not be the case in a challenge to the Clean Power Plan, said Howard Learner, the president of the Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center.
"There is a congruence between the statute, the Clean Air Act and the agency, EPA, being called upon to execute it," he said. "I would be very, very surprised if the court went to some sort of Chevron step 0 analysis with regard to EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act."
Heinzerling added that there was an alternate way to read the health care decision that would bolster EPA's case.
After rejecting a Chevron analysis, Roberts chose to look at the broader context of the law in order to uphold the administration's reading of it.
In the context of the Clean Power Plan, EPA and environmentalists contend that the 1990 amendments to the law were clearly intended to strengthen EPA's authority under Section 111(d), not weaken it -- and critics' reading would.
Roberts, Heinzerling said, seemed to say "you need to look at the context in which that language appears."
"That's very helpful in most environmental cases," Heinzerling said.
More broadly, some law professors still found reasons to be concerned about Roberts' reasoning, even though the case turned out to be a major win for the administration.
Justin Pidot, a former DOJ environmental attorney now a professor at the Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver, said the ruling reinforces the court's willingness to wade into high-profile agency actions.
There is, he said, "this newly minted rule that the court is going to intercede when costs get high."
"I think it's alarming," he said. "That's a pretty dangerous principle for EPA."
-
GOP Holds Few Cards Against Obama’s Global Climate Play
Jun 25, 2015 | Politico
By Andrew Restuccia
Republicans can see a U.N. climate change deal coming, and they know President Barack Obama will try to circumvent the Senate’s power to block it.
They’re just not sure they can do anything about it.
Negotiators from nearly 200 nations are as close as they’ve been in recent memory to clinching a watershed international climate change deal later this year.
But Republicans in Washington who staunchly oppose the agreement are keeping relatively quiet — for now. Aside from generally lambasting the pending global climate pact, they have yet to publicly coalesce around a strategy for killing it. And experts say their options are limited.
World leaders are expected to engineer a deal that won’t require two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate as most treaties do, and that’s already got some Republicans fuming. But six months before the Paris climate change summit, GOP lawmakers aren’t showing their cards, and many are focused on other issues.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), whose panel has jurisdiction over the State Department-led climate negotiations, told POLITICO that he “will be paying attention,” but he did not commit to any particular action.
“We know it’s coming out. It’s toward the end of the year,” he said when asked about scheduling hearings. “We’ve got some other issues we’re dealing with right now, but we could.”
Corker was instrumental in negotiating bipartisan legislation to give Congress the power to review and potentially reject the nuclear deal with Iran. The bill, which was passed by Congress last month and won the reluctant support of the White House, could be a model for how lawmakers could exert control over the international climate change talks.
But Democrats, who strongly support Obama’s efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, signaled that they are unlikely to support any legislative effort by Republicans to bring the climate deal before Congress, increasing the likelihood that a GOP effort would fall victim to a veto.
The White House, for its part, doesn’t seem worried.
“We feel very comfortable that we’re working within a negotiating construct where we have the authority to get this done,” Brian Deese, a senior adviser to Obama, told reporters at a briefing this week.
Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the most vocal climate skeptic in Congress, acknowledged in a brief interview that Republicans in Congress “probably couldn’t” stop the United States from agreeing to the international climate treaty if it is structured to avoid Senate ratification. But he said such an agreement “wouldn’t have the effect of a treaty” and thus would have little weight.
Inhofe, who has made a habit of jetting to previous climate talks to spread his gospel that climate change is a hoax, said he hasn’t decided whether he’ll attend the Paris summit.
“It depends on what is happening,” Inhofe said, noting that he tends to wait until the last minute to decide whether he’ll attend the conferences.
Inhofe’s aides said the senator is planning a committee hearing on the international climate talks.
Republicans could also publicly show their opposition to the Paris climate change agreement by passing a resolution disapproving of the deal, though the move would be largely symbolic. In 1997, the Senate approved a resolution sponsored by the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Iowa) in a 95-0 vote that signaled lawmakers’ opposition to a pending climate pact.
While U.S. diplomats endorsed the Kyoto Protocol that emerged that year, the Clinton administration never submitted the document for Senate ratification, and the lack of participation from one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters was one of the crucial sticking points in post-Kyoto negotiations.
But the intervening years have taught international climate diplomats an important lesson: The U.S. won’t agree to any deal that would require approval by the Senate.
“We know the politics in the U.S. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius toldnegotiators earlier this month.
Daniel Bodansky, an Arizona State University law professor who served as a State Department climate coordinator at the end of the Clinton administration, said a Byrd-Hagel-style disapproval resolution aimed at a Paris agreement wouldn’t be binding.
But, he said, “a court could find it relevant if there were a constitutional challenge to the president’s actions, since the president arguably has less latitude if he acts in the face of congressional opposition than if he acts when Congress is either positive or silent.”
“Congress could try to enact legislation to tie the President’s hands, but since he’d veto, the Republicans would need a two-thirds majorities in both houses to override, which doesn’t seem at all likely,” Bodansky added in an email.
There is at least one tangible way Republicans can undermine the climate talks: by cutting off funding for the administration’s climate agenda.
House and Senate appropriators are already pushing major cuts to EPA’s budget, which could threaten its ability to implement its climate regulations. They have also refused to fund the Green Climate Fund, which is meant to help poor countries deal with the effects of a warming planet. Obama has pledged $3 billion to the fund over several years and Republicans’ refusal to make good on that promise could foment distrust in the international negotiations.
Still, Republicans’ limited options won’t stop them from using the climate deal to energize their conservative base — especially ahead of the 2016 elections.
While the Paris talks are unlikely to be a major campaign theme, several Republican candidates are expected to make undoing the president’s environmental regulations a major topic on the trail. If a Republican wins the White House, the new president could always ignore the global climate agreement or seek to undo it.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has sought to raise doubtsabout the United States’ ability to meet its climate change commitments as part of the deal. When the Obama administration promised in April to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade, McConnell declared that the U.S. would not be able to meet the target and warned other countries to “proceed with caution.”
Diplomats largely shrugged off McConnell’s warning, noting that President Barack Obama has mended long-time concerns about the United States’ commitment to cutting emissions through a series of major domestic climate regulations as well as a recent joint-announcement with China on emissions limits. A McConnell aide declined to expound on the lawmaker’s strategy for undermining the Paris climate deal.
While Republicans in Washington stew, diplomats around the world are working furiously ahead of the Paris climate change summit, which begins Nov. 30. After an interim climate change meeting in Bonn, Germany, that wrapped up last week, negotiators gave the co-chairs of the United Nations climate process until July 24 to streamline the lengthy draft negotiating text in the hopes of making significant progress before Paris.
After decades of failed and lackluster negotiations, countries are more optimistic than ever that the Paris meeting will end with a deal that commits ever country to domestic plans aimed at tackling climate change. While the final agreement isn’t expected to go far enough by itself to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, countries hope to increase their ambition over time.
-
Federal District Court Blocks BLM Fracking Rule
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
A federal district court has temporarily blocked the Obama administration from implementing a rule governing hydraulic fracturing on public land, agreeing with state and industry plaintiffs suing over the rule that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulation should not move forward until the court assesses its legality.
Judge Scott W. Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming announced at the end of a June 23 hearing that the court is staying the rule -- originally scheduled to go into effect June 24 -- until early August. Skavdahl ordered the government to submit the rule's administrative record to the court by July 22 and intends to issue a ruling within a few weeks thereafter in State of Wyoming v. United States Department of Interior, et al.
Obama administration officials have said the BLM rule, which outlines chemical disclosure, drilling well integrity and other requirements, could serve as a model for states with less-effective oil and gas rules as it allows variances from the rule for states with more-stringent policies.
But industry groups Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance (WEA) sued as soon as the rule was finalized earlier this year, claiming the rule is a “reaction to unsubstantiated concerns” and will slow down development on public lands.
Wyoming has challenged the rule with the novel argument that Congress intended EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act to have sole federal oversight over underground injections -- although a 2005 energy law bars EPA from regulating fracking.
“BLM was ill-prepared to implement an extremely complex rule in a short period of time,” Kathleen Sgamma, WEA vice president of government and public affairs, said in a June 24 statement. “We highlighted how the BLM Washington Office has not given sufficient guidance to the state and field offices that are implementing the rule, and as a result they were issuing confused instructions to companies on how to comply. The judge agreed that it makes no sense to implement an ill-conceived rule which could ultimately be overruled in court.”
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, called the court's decision to grant the stay a “positive step” in the effort to overturn the “fundamentally wrong” rule.
“This is a rule based on fear not facts that favors Washington bureaucracy over progress and science,” Bishop said in a June 24 statement. The Energy Department and EPA “have both found fracturing safe yet the propagandist scare tactics go on. The ballooning lawsuits are an obvious sign of flawed policy. Back to the drawing board for BLM would be an understatement,” he said.
The Sierra Club however called the court's decision a “setback,” and the group's executive director, Michael Brune, said, “While these regulations didn't go far enough to protect public health, they were a first and necessary step in reining in the dirty and dangerous oil and gas industry, and would begin to hold them accountable for the pollution they cause.” Brune added, “Fracking needs more regulation, not less. However, if we are serious about fighting climate change, the best policy is to stop all new fracking, drilling, and mining on our public lands and keep fossils fuels in the ground.”
-
Oklahoma Earthquakes Putting Pressure on Drilling Regulators
Jun 25, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A series of nearly three dozen small earthquakes over the last week has prompted Oklahoma regulators to consider new restrictions on oil and gas drilling the state.
The earthquakes — 35 of them between June 17 and 24 — are a “game changer” for regulators, officials told Reuters on Wednesday. The state has seen a spike in earthquakes, usually under magnitude 3.0, that scientists have blamed on the wells used for disposing wastewater for hydraulic fracturing operations.
Oil and gas officials have previously looked to block wastewater wells in the state’s deepest rock formations, but a spokesman for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission told Reuters that “we have to approach it anew” given the new round of earthquakes.
“There's been a huge increase. That's a game-changer,” OCC spokesman Matt Skinner said.
Oklahoma officials don’t have the power to put a moratorium on disposal wells in seismically sensitive areas, as Arkansas has done, though a state lawmaker has proposed doing so. The state could also consider limiting the volume of water in disposal wells, something Kansas did earlier this year.
Before this recent spate of tremors, Oklahoma had been experiencing about two magnitude 3.0 earthquakes a week since 2013, the Oklahoma Geological Survey said in April. Before 2009, those earthquakes were much less frequent, with only a couple occurring each year.
States with booming oil and gas industries have worked to prevent earthquakes that could come from drilling operations. Ohio has required seismic monitors at injection wells linked to earthquakes, and Texas requires operators of new disposal wells to search a database for seismic activity at their sites first. Regulators there can shut down wells if they are found to contribute to seismic activity.
Oklahoma officials told Reuters that they had hoped their ban on deep disposal wells would give them more time to collect data on the quakes before writing new regulations.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested