Preview Newsletter
ACC June 26
-
(ACC Blog) Highlighting Spray Polyurethane Foam At West Coast’s Largest Homebuilding Trade Show
Jun 25, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Justin Koscher
This week thousands of members of the building industry are visiting San Diego to attend PCBC, the largest annual homebuilding trade show in the western United States. More than 10,000 participants are expected to visit the two-day event, which is open to anyone professionally involved in the building industry. Participants include builders... http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production Down Slightly in May
Jun 25, 2015 | Chem.Info
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index (U.S. CPRI) slipped by 0.2 percent in May, following flat growth in April and a 0.1 percent gain in March. Over the same period, chemical production by segment was mixed. There were gains in the output of pesticides, chlor-alkali, other specialties, and... -
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Chemicals Market Softens in Second Quarter
Jun 25, 2015 | Powder & Bulks Solids
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a new tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), remains on a soft note, falling 0.4 percent in May from the previous month, on a three-month-moving average (3MMA). This follows steady declines since December as weakness in oilfield chemicals and a few other segments weighed... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Activity By Month Edges Down: ACC
Jun 25, 2015 | Hydrogen Processing
There were gains in the output of pesticides, chlor-alkali, other specialties, and synthetic rubber. These gains were offset, however, by declines in the production of plastic resins, organic chemicals, adhesives, fertilizers, acids, phosphates, sulfates, manufactured fibers, and pharmaceuticals. -
(ACC Mentioned) House, Senate Staff Identifying Ways to Meld Chambers' Differing TSCA-Reform Bills
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
House and Senate staff are identifying ways they could integrate the different approaches each chamber is taking to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since 1976. The TSCA-reform bills under consideration in each chamber take different approaches to achieve their shared goal of increasing federal oversight of chemicals... -
(ACC Mentioned) US House Passes TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 for Chemical Management
Jun 25, 2015 | Energy Global
On 23 June, the US House passed the bipartisan ‘TSCA Modernization Act of 2015’, taking a significant step toward reforming the country’s outdated primary chemical management law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Commentary: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President... -
(ACC Mentioned) House Votes To Reform Toxic Chemical Regulation For The First Time In Nearly 40 Years
Jun 25, 2015 | Florida Coastal & Ocean Coaltion
By Natasha Geiling
Tuesday night, the House passed legislation aimed at reforming the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the 1976 law that for almost 40 years has dictated how chemicals are managed in the United States. Passed with broad bipartisan support — with the only no vote coming from Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) — the bill is a first step toward... -
3 Out of 4 Americans Waste Food — and Money
Jun 25, 2015 | MoneyTalks News
By Karla Bowsher
Three out of four Americans — 76 percent — say they throw out food at least once a month, and 53 percent throw away food every week. Yet 70 percent say they are bothered by how much food goes to waste in the United States, according to a survey sponsored by the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) A Look Inside Boston's New 'Expired' Food Supermarket
Jun 26, 2015 | ABC News
By Katelyn Murphy
We’ve all been in this confusing scenario: your milk in the fridge expires the day you want to use it. But is that its sell-by date? Best by? Use by? What does that expiration date really even mean? All the confusion is one of the factors leading Americans to throw away about $640 worth of food every year, according to a survey out Wednesday... -
(ACC Mentioned) Food Waste is a Source of Methane Gas
Jun 25, 2015 | NYC Today
By Gloria Bradley
A novel report by American Chemistry Council has revealed a clear cut picture of how much food gets wasted every year. Annually, Americans throw away around $640 each worth of food without considering its impact on environment. The report unveiled that many Americans do use leftovers, like many use them to make something new... -
(ACC Mentioned) Consumers Not Thinking About Environmental Impact Of Thrown Away Food
Jun 25, 2015 | Perfect Science
By Karan Gosal
American Chemistry Council has conducted a survey and its report unveiled that Americans waste around $640 each worth of food every year. It seems that Americans are not bothered about the impact of trashed leftovers on environment that pile up in landfills. The report unveiled that many Americans do use leftovers... -
(ACC Mentioned) What Happens To Our Wasted Food?
Jun 25, 2015 | Picayune Item
Americans, for the most part, are blessed with the ability to obtain food most anytime. That fact has led many people to throw food away when they feel it’s not fresh enough or they are just plain full. The next time you go to a restaurant take look at other people’s plates once they’re done eating. Did they leave some food on their plate, or was it all... -
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Waste $640 Of Food A Year
Jun 25, 2015 | KSEE 24 - Your Central Valley
How much money do Americans waste every year throwing out uneaten food? A new study found $640 worth of food is trashed by the average American every year. That's according to a new study by the american chemistry council. Researchers say that just 15% of those surveyed were concerned about the environmental impacts of throwing... -
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Worried About Wasted Food
Jun 25, 2015 | WILX 10
A new survey shows Americans are worried about the amount of food they throw out. But most, have no idea about the negative effects is has on the environment. The American Chemistry Council says a national survey showed 70% percent of Americans are bothered by the amount of food wasted in the U.S. Most, 79%, say money is the leading... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Processing Tech Could Up Mixed-Waste Recycling And Waste Diversion Volumes: Report
Jun 25, 2015 | Waste Dive
By Jonathan Barnes
Dive Brief: A new report by Fairfax, VA-based Gershman, Brickner and Bratton Inc. has found recycling rates could be substantially improved as a result of recent advances in processing technologies, including devices such as optical sensors. "The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities 1970-Today" notes that the typical waste sent through... -
(ACC Mentioned) Urine Irritates Your Eyes After Swimming
Jun 25, 2015 | West Texas News
By Leah Gardiner
Researchers have found that red eyes after swimming are caused by urine, instead of what people usually think. Excess of chlorine is generally considered as a reason behind this problem. As per health experts from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Water Quality and Health Council and the National Swimming... -
Lawmakers Weigh Options For Non-Contentious Conference On TSCA Bills
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) are weighing options to avoid a contentious conference process to reconcile the House-approved Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill with a pending Senate measure, with options including a potential “informal” conference to resolve the differences between the two bills. -
The House Passes TSCA Reform!
Jun 25, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the TSCA Modernization Act by a whopping 398 to 1 vote. (In case you’re wondering, the “no” vote was Tom McClintock of CA.) The vote is mostly good news for those of us who have been working so long for meaningful reform of our nation’s broken chemical policy. -
Carcinogencity 'Gap' In Mixtures Assessment Must Be Filled
Jun 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Risk assessment practices should be revised to recognise that mixtures of chemicals in the environment may act together to cause cancer, according to a review by 174 cancer biologists and environmental health researchers. “Without a way to anticipate the carcinogenicity of complex mixtures, an important gap in capability exists... -
Require Companies to Submit Mercury Data, State Officials, Nature Group Petition EPA
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies that import, produce or use 10 pounds or more of mercury a year should be required to submit mercury-use reports to the Environmental Protection Agency, state officials and the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a rulemaking petition filed June 24. NRDC and the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association... -
Groups Petition EPA To Gather Information On Mercury Use
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA needs to do more to determine how mercury is used in the United States, to reduce and eventually eliminate it from products and industrial processes, the Natural Resources Defense Council and a group of state waste agencies contend in a petition filed with the agency. The petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council... -
‘Microbead' Prohibition Among Water Bills Signed by Indiana Governor
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The manufacture and sale of synthetic plastic “microbeads” will be prohibited in Indiana under legislation signed June 25 by Gov. Mike Pence (R). H.B. 1185 prohibits the manufacture of the beads after Dec. 31, 2017. The beads aren't biodegradable and have been cited as a source of concern for the Great Lakes, because they canThe manufacture and sale of synthetic plastic “microbeads” will be prohibited in Indiana under legislation signed June 25 by Gov. Mike Pence (R). H.B. 1185 prohibits the manufacture of the beads after Dec. 31, 2017. The beads aren't biodegradable and have been cited as... -
Host of PHMSA Policy Revisions Included In Committee-Approved FY 2016 Funding Bill
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a fiscal year 2016 bill June 25 that funds the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and includes a host of policy directives for the agency that go beyond crude-by-rail. The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations... -
Energy And Commerce Begins Bipartisan Pipeline Safety Inquiry
Jun 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The bipartisan leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today opened an inquiry into the status of federal pipeline safety mandates, as well as the recent California oil spill. In letters to Plains All American, the company behind the 100,000-plus-gallon May 19 spill, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety... -
Pipeline Safety Agency To Propose Stronger Spill Notification Rules
Jun 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Federal regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are finalizing a proposal that would firm up the one-hour maximum time limit for companies to notify first responders of an oil or natural gas leak, according to a source familiar with the agency’s plans. The pending rule from PHMSA also would seek to clarify... -
Bipartisan E&C Lawmakers Press Obama Admin Over Meeting Statutory Mandates
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
A bipartisan group of House Energy and Commerce Committee lawmakers is pressing the Obama administration for answers about pipeline safety reforms in the wake of last month's California spill. Last month, an on-land pipeline failure in the Santa Barbara area sent more than 100,000 barrels of oil onto the beach and about 20,000 gallons... -
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Leading Challenge to New Smog Standards
Jun 26, 2015 | The Texas Tribune
By Neena Satija
Intent on wringing more smog from the nation's skies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is just months away from imposing new ozone standards meant to lessen pollution from the nation's cars, factories and power plants widely believed to worsen asthma, lung and heart disease. The impending restrictions have already... -
Efficiency, Crude Exports Are Sticking Points As House Prepares For July Floor Debate
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
House negotiators are closing in on a broad energy package that may be ready for floor action in the coming weeks, a key lawmaker said yesterday. Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said staff is working to finalize the bill's various titles, while discussions continue over outstanding... -
Even More Riders for Interior, EPA Expected to Spending Bill on House Floor
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Ari Natter
Even more policy provisions on matters ranging from off-shore drilling and endangered species listing to blocking the renewable fuel standard could be added to a bill funding the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for the 2016 fiscal year. Republican lawmakers have been adding these types... -
House Trims EPA In First Day Of Spending Bill Debate
Jun 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
The House this afternoon finished its first day of debate on the fiscal 2016 Interior-EPA spending bill, adopting more than a dozen amendments via voice vote and setting up roll-call votes for when it returns to the bill after the Independence Day recess. A full list of amendments considered today is available from the House Republican... -
House Punts Controversial EPA-Interior Spending Questions Until July
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
The House yesterday approved several amendments to the fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA and set up votes on other contentious provisions for after the Fourth of July recess. Among the 15 amendments approved by voice vote yesterday were provisions that would boost funding for EPA's... -
Whitfield Says House Energy Bill to Get Marked Up in July, Floor Action Possible
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Broad energy legislation being crafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee will be released shortly after the Fourth of July congressional recess and marked up by the committee later that month, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, told Bloomberg BNA June 25. -
Senate Democrats to Release Bill Outlining Energy Priorities After Break, Cantwell Says
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will release their own version of a broad energy bill to emphasize their caucus's priorities, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) told Bloomberg BNA June 25. The minority bill comes as negotiations with Republicans intensify over the shape of energy legislation being drafted... -
McCabe Says EPA to Address Interim Goals In ‘Mid-Summer' Clean Power Plan Release
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency still intends to finalize its proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants by “mid-summer” and be responsive to the issues raised in 4.3 million public comments, Janet McCabe, the agency's top air official, said June 25. -
EPA Floats 'Short' Supplemental To Proposed Landfill Methane Air Policy
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA's draft proposed rule that it submitted for White House review earlier this week is a supplemental proposal to its previously issued new source performance standards (NSPS) to limit landfill methane, the potent greenhouse gas (GHG), a proposal that one industry source describes as “short” rather than a significant rewrite of the earlier proposal. -
Progressive Activist To Lead Sierra Club's Political Operation
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
The Sierra Club has tapped a veteran progressive activist and former Washington, D.C., City Council candidate to lead its political operation. Khalid Pitts, a longtime political operative who ran for an at-large D.C. City Council seat last year, has joined the Sierra Club as its national political director, the green group announced today. -
House Could Vote on Bumped Coal Ash Legislation in July, McCarthy Aide Says
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House will “possibly” vote in July on a bill (H.R. 1734) to give states a greater role managing and disposing of coal ash, although no final scheduling decisions have been made yet, Matt Sparks, an aide to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Bloomberg BNA June 25. McCarthy previously said the House would... -
EPA To Revise Small MS4 General Permit 12 Years After Adverse Ruling
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is moving to revise its Clean Water Act (CWA) general permit program for small municipal stormwater systems almost 12 years after a federal appellate court ordered it to tighten and add new oversight to the program, a delay that prompted environmentalists to file a lawsuit seeking a legally binding deadline for the long-awaited revision.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Blog) Highlighting Spray Polyurethane Foam At West Coast’s Largest Homebuilding Trade Show
Jun 25, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Justin Koscher
This week thousands of members of the building industry are visiting San Diego to attend PCBC, the largest annual homebuilding trade show in the western United States.
More than 10,000 participants are expected to visit the two-day event, which is open to anyone professionally involved in the building industry. Participants include builders, developers, architects, remodelers, designers, contractors, dealers/distributors and suppliers/manufacturers – and they come from the U.S., Mexico, Canada and approximately 25 other countries from all over the globe. “PCBC” was originally the acronym for “Pacific Coast Builders Conference,” the show’s leadership thought that was an incorrect reflection of the global audience. Today the show is known simply as PCBC.
I find that there are many similarities among this diverse group of homebuilders. I have spoken with many attendees, and they all focus on the importance of safety and quality in their work. They share the goals of building beautiful, energy-efficient, and safe homes that their customers can afford.
It immediately became obvious that spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation offers benefits and solutions that homeowners want. SPF can substantially reduce energy needs and costs for both residential homes and commercial buildings. Many new homes could even lower their energy use and costs by installing SPF insulation.*
These are just a few of the excellent benefits of SPF: ENERGY EFFICIENCY & SAVINGS: SPF can be highly effective at preventing conditioned air from leaking out of house by sealing cracks, seams and joints, which means less energy is needed to heat and cool one’s home.COMFORT & QUIET: Using SPF insulation can make homes and buildings more comfortable by preventing drafts, which helps better control indoor temperature. Some types of SPF help minimize sounds transmitted through the air, which can make a house quieter.IMPROVED INDOOR ENVIRONMENT: SPF can act as a barrier to water and vapor, helping to prevent condensation and water intrusion. Using SPF can provide better moisture control to help resist the formation of mold. Sealing gaps with SPF can provide a barrier against exterior pollen and dust, which can be especially helpful in households with allergy sufferers.
To learn more about the SPF insulation for your home or building, go to www.whysprayfoam.org, or visit my previous blog to learn more about how SPF can make a difference for home owners in California.
*Savings vary. Find out why in the seller’s fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating power. - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/highlighting-spray-polyurethane-foam-at-west-coasts-largest-homebuilding-trade-show/#sthash.e9w4S1Je.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production Down Slightly in May
Jun 25, 2015 | Chem.Info
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index (U.S. CPRI) slipped by 0.2 percent in May, following flat growth in April and a 0.1 percent gain in March.
Over the same period, chemical production by segment was mixed. There were gains in the output of pesticides, chlor-alkali, other specialties, and synthetic rubber. These gains were offset, however, by declines in the production of plastic resins, organic chemicals, adhesives, fertilizers, acids, phosphates, sulfates, manufactured fibers, and pharmaceuticals. Coatings production was flat.
Nearly all manufactured goods are produced using chemistry in some form or another. Thus, manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production. On a three-month-moving average basis, manufacturing activity was flat in May, following declines in March and April. Production expanded, however, in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including appliances, motor vehicles, aerospace, rubber products, printing, and textile products.
Compared to May 2014, U.S. chemical production was ahead by 4.0 percent on a year-over-year basis, a slowing comparison. Chemical production remained ahead of year ago levels in all regions.
The chemistry industry is one of the largest industries in the United States, an $812 billion enterprise. The manufacturing sector is the largest consumer of chemical products, and 96 percent of manufactured goods are touched by chemistry. The U.S. CPRI was developed to track chemical production activity in seven regions of the United States. It is comparable to the U.S. industrial production index for chemicals published by the Federal Reserve. The U.S. CPRI is based on information from the Federal Reserve, and as such, includes monthly revisions as published by the Federal Reserve. To smooth month-to-month fluctuations, the U.S. CPRI is measured using a three-month moving average. Thus, the reading in May reflects production activity during March, April, and May.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Specialty Chemicals Market Softens in Second Quarter
Jun 25, 2015 | Powder & Bulks Solids
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a new tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), remains on a soft note, falling 0.4 percent in May from the previous month, on a three-month-moving average (3MMA).
This follows steady declines since December as weakness in oilfield chemicals and a few other segments weighed on overall volumes. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments monitored, 11 expanded in May, 14 declined, and three were flat.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was up just 0.6 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) also on a 3MMA basis. Year-earlier comparisons were generally in the 4.0 percent to 6.8 percent range since January 2012, but since February of this year they have been below that range as the downturn in the oil and gas sectors affected headline volumes. Still, on a Y/Y basis, gains are fairly widespread among most market and functional specialty chemical segments and, in some cases, they are improving. Compared to last year, May volumes were up in 21 segments and down in only seven segments. Year-earlier comparisons have clearly moderated. Similar patterns were seen in year-to-date (YTD) comparisons.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates. Some areas where specialty chemicals are used include adhesives, cleaning materials, cosmetic additives, construction materials, food additives, fragrances, and detergents
This data is the only timely source of market trends for 28 market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over 96 percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Activity By Month Edges Down: ACC
Jun 25, 2015 | Hydrogen Processing
There were gains in the output of pesticides, chlor-alkali, other specialties, and synthetic rubber. These gains were offset, however, by declines in the production of plastic resins, organic chemicals, adhesives, fertilizers, acids, phosphates, sulfates, manufactured fibers, and pharmaceuticals.
Keywords:
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) slipped by 0.2% in May, following flat growth in April and a 0.1% gain in March.
Over the same period, chemical production by segment was mixed.
There were gains in the output of pesticides, chlor-alkali, other specialties, and synthetic rubber. These gains were offset, however, by declines in the production of plastic resins, organic chemicals, adhesives, fertilizers, acids, phosphates, sulfates, manufactured fibers, and pharmaceuticals. Coatings production was flat.
Nearly all manufactured goods are produced using chemistry in some form or another. Thus, manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production.
On a three-month-moving average basis, manufacturing activity was flat in May, following declines in March and April. Production expanded, however, in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including appliances, motor vehicles, aerospace, rubber products, printing, and textile products.
Compared to May 2014, US chemical production was ahead by 4.0% on a year-over-year basis, a slowing comparison. Chemical production remained ahead of year ago levels in all regions.
-
(ACC Mentioned) House, Senate Staff Identifying Ways to Meld Chambers' Differing TSCA-Reform Bills
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
House and Senate staff are identifying ways they could integrate the different approaches each chamber is taking to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since 1976.
The TSCA-reform bills under consideration in each chamber take different approaches to achieve their shared goal of increasing federal oversight of chemicals in commerce while ensuring that chemical manufacturers can continue to make products critical to daily life, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said June 25 during a forum on Capitol Hill.
“I think we've got a good idea where the end product will be,” Shimkus said. “I reject the premise that it will be a contentious conference.”
“The goals and the objectives are the same. I think they [negotiations on chambers' bills] become contentious when you've got the same type of bill but their goals and objectives are in different locations,” Shimkus said.
Udall and Shimkus spoke during a briefing organized by the Bipartisan Policy Center that was established by former senators to develop solutions to policy problems.
The legislators discussed two bills: the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), which the House approved June 23 with a 398-1 vote, and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Senate (S. 697), which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA he plans to bring to the Senate floor soon (121 DEN A-1, 6/24/15).
Udall: Good For Business; Good for Americans
Updating TSCA this session will help U.S. companies do business around the world, Udall said.
Terry Medley, global director of corporate regulatory affairs and advocacy at E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., recently told Bloomberg BNA that modernizing TSCA would help U.S. manufacturers avoid lost opportunities as they deal with customers in other countries that perceive TSCA as outdated (112 DEN B-1, 6/11/15).
In addition to DuPont, 3M; the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Chemistry Council; BASF Corp.; Consumer Electronics Association; Dow Chemical Co.; International Fragrance Association, North America; the National Association of Manufacturers; and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates are among the companies and trade associations that have supported the House and Senate TSCA-reform efforts.
The public also would benefit, Udall said.
Congress Purportedly Addressing Safety Issues
The American people believe that somebody is addressing the safety of chemicals, he said.
“They believe there is a tough cop out there that is taking a look at this, addressing this, and the reality that John and I know is that really isn't true,” Udall said.
The EPA's ability to manage the risks of chemicals in commerce was crippled in 1991 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the agency's 1989 ban of asbestos, Udall said.
He referred to the court's conclusion that the EPA failed to comply with TSCA by selecting the least burdensome regulation to manage risks from asbestos (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 33 ERC 1961 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Reconciling House, Senate Bills
Shimkus discussed the next steps in updating TSCA.
“We're not done. We've still got to encourage the Senate to take it up and get it off the floor,” Shimkus said. “We'd really like to get this to the President's desk.”
The Senate has procedures that may affect whatever bill it could pass, but if the legislation is similar to S. 697, staff have ideas on how they could join the two bills together, Shimkus said.
Udall said one approach could be to have informal meetings in which staff would outline key differences between the bills and ways to resolve them.
The chambers could then meet in conference and have it be a quick process, Udall said.
Udall's Desires for Senate Bill
During the briefing, Udall highlighted three issues in the Senate bill that he would like included in a final bill. They were:
• requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to assess the safety of new chemicals before they enter the market;
• ensuring that the safety standard the EPA uses to assess chemicals focuses on public health without considering costs; and
• balancing diverse perspectives on confidential business information (CBI).
The House bill would amend fewer sections of TSCA than S. 697. For example, it wouldn't change the statute's requirements for new chemicals.
Under TSCA, unless the EPA determines that a chemical “may present an unreasonable risk,” chemical manufacturers can start manufacturing and selling a new chemical at the end of a 90-day review period established under the law.
No Affirmative Safety Decision
No affirmative safety decision is required, and the EPA's evaluations are largely based on computer models and other predictions because TSCA doesn't require manufacturers to conduct toxicity or other tests prior to asking the EPA to allow their chemical into commerce.
Once the new chemical enters commerce, it can be used in applications the EPA may not have considered as it reviewed the compound.
Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), has referred to the agency's one-time review of a new chemical as the agency's “one bite at the apple.”
Under S. 697, the EPA would be required to determine that a new chemical or new use of a chemical would meet the legislation's safety standard before allowing the substance to enter into commerce or be used in the new way (90 DEN B-1, 5/11/15).
Some 700 to 1,500 new chemicals enter commerce every year, Udall said. EPA should be able to assess their safety, he said.
Safety Standard
Udall's second issue involved the standard the EPA uses as it evaluates chemicals.
Under TSCA, chemicals must not present an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment.
The term “unreasonable risk” isn't defined in TSCA, but, according to an EPA website, the law's legislative history indicates that unreasonable risk involves the formal balancing of the probability that harm will occur against the effect a proposed regulatory action could have on the availability to society of the expected benefits of the chemical substance.
TSCA critics argue the formal balancing requirement unfairly hinders the agency's ability to protect public health because health and environmental benefits are hard to quantify while costs are easier to quantify.
Assessing ‘Unreasonable Risk.'
S. 697 would retain the term “unreasonable risk” as its safety standard but, as the bill defines the term, it would explicitly preclude the EPA from considering costs and other non-risk factors as it decided whether a chemical was safe.
Costs would be considered under the bill as the agency decided how to manage the risks of a chemical.
Like TSCA, H.R. 2576 uses the term “unreasonable risk” as its safety standard but doesn't define the term.
EDF's Denison, who attended the Bipartisan Policy Center forum, told Bloomberg BNA that H.R. 2576 has been revised several times since Shimkus circulated it earlier this year as a draft bill.
Each revision has added language to clarify that the EPA shouldn't consider costs as it evaluates the risks of chemicals, but an additional clarification would resolve concerns health groups still have, Denison said.
Confidential Business Information
Udall did not describe the specific aspects of S. 697's CBI provisions that he likes.
The key difference between H.R. 2576 and S. 697 is that the Senate bill would require the EPA to review chemical manufacturer claims that information they submit is confidential. This would include claims companies have made in the past.
H.R. 2576 does not require the EPA to conduct those reviews.
In a statement about H.R. 2576, the Breast Cancer Fund said the bill wouldn't require the EPA to evaluate the legitimacy of new confidentiality claims, and it would allow thousands of un-evaluated confidential business information claims to remain in place, “resulting in only a marginal improvement over existing law and its implementation by the EPA” (122 DEN A-6, 6/25/15).
Under both bills, chemical manufacturers—at the time they would make a claim that the EPA must keep proprietary information confidential— would be required to substantiate that claim.
CBI claims also would expire after 10 years under both bills although extensions could be sought.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US House Passes TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 for Chemical Management
Jun 25, 2015 | Energy Global
On 23 June, the US House passed the bipartisan ‘TSCA Modernization Act of 2015’, taking a significant step toward reforming the country’s outdated primary chemical management law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Commentary
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued the following statement of support:
"Today marks a pivotal moment in the years long effort to reform TSCA. By approving H.R. 2576, the 'TSCA Modernization Act of 2015', with tremendous support from both sides of the aisle, the House has sent a clear message that now is the time to update TSCA. We commend the House for what has been an unwavering commitment to this important national issue. In particular ACC appreciates the leadership of Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Pallone, Subcommittee Chairman Shimkus and Subcommittee Ranking Member Tonko.
"H.R. 2576 will build confidence in the US chemical regulatory system, protect human health and the environment, and address the commercial and competitive needs of the US chemical industry and the national economy.
"Now the Senate must act. We strongly urge Majority Leader McConnell to bring the complementary 'Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act', S. 697, to the floor for a full Senate vote right away. Through the passage of S. 697 by the Senate, and working with their colleagues in the House, Congress can deliver a much needed update to TSCA as well as a major environmental and commercial policy accomplishment to the president's desk for his signature this year."
William E. Allmond, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) Vice President of Government and Public Relations, said:
"SOCMA has long awaited significant movement in Congress to reform our nation's chemical control law and restore public confidence in our industry. And with today's passage of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 by the House of Representatives, we believe Congress is just steps away from making TSCA reform a reality.
"We commend Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Energy and Commerce Committee leadership for their bipartisan process and swift action on moving the TSCA Modernization Act forward. This is by far the most credible piece of legislation to reform TSCA since it was enacted in 1976."
For more information about the TSCA Modernization Act click here.
-
Jun 25, 2015 | Florida Coastal & Ocean Coaltion
By Natasha Geiling
Tuesday night, the House passed legislation aimed at reforming the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the 1976 law that for almost 40 years has dictated how chemicals are managed in the United States. Passed with broad bipartisan support — with the only no vote coming from Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) — the bill is a first step toward reforming TSCA, largely considered one of the most ineffective environmental laws in the country.
“Eighty-five thousand chemicals have been introduced into commerce in the United States, and what we know is that less than 1,000 have been well-tested for their human health and environmental effects,” Noah Sachs, professor of law at the University of Richmond and a scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform in Washington, D.C., told ThinkProgress. “I think there’s an assumption that the government must be watching out for these things, and if there were a dangerous chemical out there the government would remove it, but that’s not what is happening at all.”
Advocates for chemical regulation reform point to several shortcomings in the existing TSCA statute. When the TSCA passed in 1976, some 64,000 chemicals that were currently in use were exempted from testing — since then, another 22,000 have been evaluated, but few have been designated as toxic. Crude MCHM, the chemical that spilled into West Virginia’s Elk River in January 2014, for instance, is unregulated. Between 1976 and 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency generated data on just 200 chemicals.
While TSCA gave the EPA the authority to review chemicals, it never provided the agency with a mandate on how it should go about doing it. Instead, it required high burdens of proof for deeming a chemical toxic, calling for its removal, or restricting its use. Under the current TSCA, any time the EPA wants to regulate a chemical, it has to provide a cost-benefit analysis showing that the agency’s alternative chemical is the least burdensome in terms of environmental and health impacts and cost. It has to provide that analysis not just for the proposed alternative, but for every other potential alternative as well. I think there’s an assumption that … if there were a dangerous chemical out there the government would remove it, but that’s not what is happening at all
Asbestos — which is classified as a known human carcinogen and is banned in over 40 countries — is still legal in the United States due to the high burden of evidence required of the EPA under TSCA. In 1991, the Fifth Circuit found that the EPA, in trying to ban the substance, had failed to provide substantial evidence that a ban was the “least burdensome alternative” as required by TSCA, and rejected the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis. Since 1991, the EPA has not attempted to regulate an existing chemical.
The House bill removes the requirement that the EPA find the least burdensome alternative, and for the first time includes a mandate that the EPA begin testing chemicals for their safety, requiring that the EPA test 10 chemicals per year.
But some environmentalists worried that the bill still doesn’t go far enough in regulating dangerous substances.
“We commend the House for its focus on the need to overhaul chemical policy, but this piece of legislation will not do the job,” Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said in a press statement. “It tips much too far in favor of an industry in serious need of regulation.”
Though the House bill removes the requirement that the EPA provide evidence of a less burdensome alternative — placing more emphasis on scientific evidence during safety assessments — it still requires the agency to “determine whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment…will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes effect.”
It also requires that the EPA show proof of a chemical’s potential risk before testing can even begin, forcing the agency to amass a record of a chemical’s potential impacts before it can order more testing.
“I don’t see why that should be the agency’s task,” Sachs said. “I think it’s putting yet another procedural hurdle in the place of removing dangerous chemicals from the market.”
The House bill also allows chemical companies to request that the EPA test a given chemical — a provision that environmentalists worry will allow industry to dictate the EPA’s agenda.
“It’s a nice way for industry to drive the testing priorities,” Sachs said. “It’s pretty extraordinary that this bill allows industry to set the testing agenda for a government agency.”
The American Chemistry Council — the main trade association for the American chemical industry — was quick to praise the bill’s passage, calling it “a pivotal moment in the years-long effort to reform TSCA.” Whatever gets passed may be with us for another generation
The Senate is expected to vote on a similar bill before the August recess. That bill is largely considered to be more comprehensive than the House version, as it creates standards for labeling chemicals as either high or low priority for testing. But the bill — which only requires the testing of 25 chemicals over five years and strips states of their right to create their own chemical regulations — has also been criticized by environmentalists and public health officials, who claim that industry interests played too large a role in its drafting.
In March, Hearst Newspapers obtained a copy of a final draft of the bill, before it was seen by a Senate subcommittee. The draft was written in the form of a Microsoft Word Document, and by checking the documents “advanced properties” in Word, the document’s company of origin turned out to be the American Chemistry Council.
“It was clear from the computer coding that the final draft originated at the American Chemical Council itself,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said the day before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee began discussing the bill. “Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I do not believe that a regulated industry should be so intimately involved in writing a bill that regulates them.”
After the House passed its bill on Tuesday, however, Boxer expressed hope that the Senate could pass an amended version of the bill.
“While the House bill could still be improved, I feel it is the appropriate bill to take up in the United States Senate where we can work on just a few amendments to make it better,” she said in a statement.
Sachs, however, hopes that Congress build upon existing momentum to create a reform bill that addresses the gaps in current TSCA.
“Whatever gets passed may be with us for another generation,” he said. “I would like to see a much more aggressive statute, and after 40 years of working under this very weak law of TSCA, I think Congress can do a lot better to pass something more ambitious.”
-
3 Out of 4 Americans Waste Food — and Money
Jun 25, 2015 | MoneyTalks News
By Karla Bowsher
Three out of four Americans — 76 percent — say they throw out food at least once a month, and 53 percent throw away food every week.
Yet 70 percent say they are bothered by how much food goes to waste in the United States, according to a survey sponsored by the American Chemistry Council.
Government estimates confirm that food waste is a serious problem in the U.S. According to the latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 percent of the food produced in the U.S. goes uneaten every year.
That amounts to $161.6 billion in wasted food per year — about $522 per person, per year, according to the USDA.
Wasted money is the biggest reason consumers worry about their food waste, according to the American Chemistry Council survey. Reasons why the 1,000 survey respondents expressed concern about food waste include: Lost money (79 percent)Others not having enough to eat (45 percent)Adverse impacts on the environment (15 percent)
A recent separate food-waste survey conducted for Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future also found that people who try to reduce their waste do so chiefly to save money. Setting an example for their children also ranked high on the list.
Environmental concerns ranked last on the list of motivations cited in the Johns Hopkins survey.
Americans waste more food than they realize, and that may contribute significantly to the problem. The research by the Center for a Livable Future suggests that three out four Americans believe they waste less food than the average American.
That research, based on the food-waste survey of about 2,000 people, was published this month in the peer-reviewed journal Plos One.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents plastics manufacturers, suggests plastic packaging as a way to reduce food waste:
Plastic packaging helps prevent food waste by providing barriers to oxygen, light, temperatures, moisture, microbes, and other factors that lead to spoilage.
However, we suggest reading “13 Simple Ways to Stop Wasting Food — and Money” before going out and spending money on any type of container.
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Look Inside Boston's New 'Expired' Food Supermarket
Jun 26, 2015 | ABC News
By Katelyn Murphy
We’ve all been in this confusing scenario: your milk in the fridge expires the day you want to use it. But is that its sell-by date? Best by? Use by? What does that expiration date really even mean?
All the confusion is one of the factors leading Americans to throw away about $640 worth of food every year, according to a survey out Wednesday from the American Chemistry Council.
Doug Rauch wants to change that number. As the former president of Trader Joe’s, he knows the ins and outs of the grocery world and just how much good food goes to waste in the current model.
“I knew from my experience we have an abundance of food and much of it is going to waste through inefficiencies through the fact that we all want the beauty queen produce and anything that’s ugly gets left in the field,” Rauch told ABC News. “So there’s a lot of opportunity to better utilize what we’re growing.”
At the end of his career with Trader Joe’s, Rauch decided to attend the Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative, a program for experienced leaders to take on new challenges in the social sector. That’s where he hatched the idea for Daily Table, a non-profit supermarket dedicated to not only reducing America’s food waste but also addressing the problem of one in six Americans being food insecure. -
(ACC Mentioned) Food Waste is a Source of Methane Gas
Jun 25, 2015 | NYC Today
By Gloria Bradley
A novel report by American Chemistry Council has revealed a clear cut picture of how much food gets wasted every year. Annually, Americans throw away around $640 each worth of food without considering its impact on environment.
The report unveiled that many Americans do use leftovers, like many use them to make something new and many utilize them other meals. And, as many as 76% said that throw away leftovers at least a month.
The wasted food matters as there are so many people who do not have enough food to eat. Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at ACC, said that seeing the report it can be said that they have not done good enough job about raising awareness and initiating discussions about the environmental impacts of food waste.
Food waste adds to more than 20% of what is present in landfills and is considered to be main source of methane gas as it rotten. The Environmental Protection Agency said that methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas that adds to earth's warning.
Brian Wansink, author of Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life said that people are not thinking what the consequences of throwing away food are. "What bothers most people is that it makes them feel foolish ... having to admit you were wrong to prepare so much food or serve so much food if we're not eating it", said Wansink.
Main reasons behind food waste are when consumers buy too much food or they prepare a lot of it. It has been suggested to reduce the food wastage. It requires storing items correctly and making right amount of food.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Consumers Not Thinking About Environmental Impact Of Thrown Away Food
Jun 25, 2015 | Perfect Science
By Karan Gosal
American Chemistry Council has conducted a survey and its report unveiled that Americans waste around $640 each worth of food every year. It seems that Americans are not bothered about the impact of trashed leftovers on environment that pile up in landfills.
The report unveiled that many Americans do use leftovers, like many use them to make something new and many utilize them other meals. And, as many as 76% said that throw away leftovers at least a month.
The wasted food matters as there are so many people who do not have enough food to eat. Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at ACC, said that seeing the report it can be said that they have not done good enough job about raising awareness and initiating discussions about the environmental impacts of food waste.
Food waste adds to more than 20% of what is present in landfills and is considered to be main source of methane gas as it rotten. The Environmental Protection Agency said that methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas that adds to earth's warning.
Brian Wansink, author of Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life said that people are not thinking what the consequences of throwing away food are. "What bothers most people is that it makes them feel foolish ... having to admit you were wrong to prepare so much food or serve so much food if we're not eating it", said Wansink.
Main reasons behind food waste are when consumers buy too much food or they prepare a lot of it. It has been suggested to reduce the food wastage. It requires storing items correctly and making right amount of food. - See more at: http://perfscience.com/content/2142142-consumers-not-thinking-about-environmental-impact-thrown-away-food#sthash.1bVsLNmw.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) What Happens To Our Wasted Food?
Jun 25, 2015 | Picayune Item
Americans, for the most part, are blessed with the ability to obtain food most anytime.
That fact has led many people to throw food away when they feel it’s not fresh enough or they are just plain full.
The next time you go to a restaurant take look at other people’s plates once they’re done eating. Did they leave some food on their plate, or was it all consumed? Then consider how much food you may have thrown away recently. It really does add up. According to the results of a survey conducted by the American Chemistry Council, each American is said to throw away $640 worth of food annually.
Most households employ a rule that children can’t leave the dinner table until all the food on their plate has been eaten.
The practice is an effort to instill a habit of not wasting food, especially when the phrase “there are people going hungry in (insert country name here)” is added.
So what happens to all of that discarded food? Unless you compost it, the waste goes to a landfill, where as it decomposes it releases methane, a greenhouse gas that has a warming effect of the atmosphere, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
What this shows is there are repercussions greater than a hit to your bank account, wasting food also has an affect on the environment.
Certainly people don’t want to waste food, and in turn their hard earned cash. So here are some tips to avoid food waste and help make use of leftovers.
When dining out, order smaller portions if you feel you won’t be able to finish the meal or won’t eat the leftovers. If you do take home leftovers keep in mind that last night’s dinner makes for a great lunch the next day.
That rule also applies to home cooked meals.
When saving leftovers, remember that air in the container adds to the decomposition factor of that food, so use a container that allows for the removal of extra air.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Waste $640 Of Food A Year
Jun 25, 2015 | KSEE 24 - Your Central Valley
How much money do Americans waste every year throwing out uneaten food?
A new study found $640 worth of food is trashed by the average American every year. That's according to a new study by the american chemistry council. Researchers say that just 15% of those surveyed were concerned about the environmental impacts of throwing away so much food. Food waste is the single biggest item in U.S. landfills, where it rots and releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Most people, 79% were more concerned about lost money from tossing food and about half of the 1,000 surveyed say they felt bad in light of world hunger.
The results were self reported, and actual food waste may be even higher.
The Chemistry Council noted that the U.S. government puts food waste at over $900, per household. -
(ACC Mentioned) Americans Worried About Wasted Food
Jun 25, 2015 | WILX 10
A new survey shows Americans are worried about the amount of food they throw out. But most, have no idea about the negative effects is has on the environment.
The American Chemistry Council says a national survey showed 70% percent of Americans are bothered by the amount of food wasted in the U.S. Most, 79%, say money is the leading cause for concern. Nearly half are bothered by the number of hungry across the nation.
The survey of 1,000 adults showed 76% throw away leftovers at least once a month and believe they waste about $640 a year on wasted food. But U.S. government figures are closer to $900.
Only 15% of those surveyed were concerned about the environmental affects of throwing away so much food.
Food waste is the single biggest item in U.S. landfills. When it decomposes, it releases a powerful greenhouse gas called methane.
-
Jun 25, 2015 | Waste Dive
By Jonathan Barnes
Dive Brief:A new report by Fairfax, VA-based Gershman, Brickner and Bratton Inc. has found recycling rates could be substantially improved as a result of recent advances in processing technologies, including devices such as optical sensors.
"The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities 1970-Today" notes that the typical waste sent through a mixed-waste processing facility is comprised of up to 50% recyclables, and can contain even more recyclables in some cases.
Siting MWP facilities adjacent to materials recovery facilities could increase the volume of and revenues from recycling materials, the study reports. The study was commissioned by the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council.
Dive Insight:
The study’s findings are good news for the recycling industry — both for the companies that process and sell recyclables and the firms that provide equipment for the process.
The goal of diverting more materials from the waste stream to higher uses compels exploring all options, Craig Cookson, director of sustainability and recycling for ACC’s Plastics Division said. "As the waste stream continues to evolve, we must consider new strategies and innovations that could help us to meet these challenges," he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Urine Irritates Your Eyes After Swimming
Jun 25, 2015 | West Texas News
By Leah Gardiner
Researchers have found that red eyes after swimming are caused by urine, instead of what people usually think. Excess of chlorine is generally considered as a reason behind this problem. As per health experts from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Water Quality and Health Council and the National Swimming Pool Foundation (NSPF), it is needed to make people aware about the nasty effects of urine as they pee a lot in pools.
According to Michele Hlavsa, chief of CDC's Healthy Swimming Program, peeing in a pool leads to depletion of chlorine and produces an irritant, which turns people's eyes red.
As per Chris Wiant, Chair of the Water Quality and Health Council, "That 'chlorine' smell at the pool isn't actually chlorine. What you smell are chemicals that form when chlorine mixes with pee, sweat and dirt from swimmers' bodies".
The CDC and the American Chemistry Council are making people aware regarding healthy swimming in the US. Particularly, swimmers at indoor pools should take care since there can be an increase of irritants in the recycled air. Chloramines can build up in pool water as well, once the air is saturated. That means swimmers without goggles should be extra cautious to keep their eyes shut when they are underwater.
As per the CDC, people should take a shower prior to entering the pool and also ensure that their pool has adequate air flow and good water quality. It was found in a 2009 survey that 1 in 5 persons admitted that they urinate in the pool.
-
Lawmakers Weigh Options For Non-Contentious Conference On TSCA Bills
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) are weighing options to avoid a contentious conference process to reconcile the House-approved Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill with a pending Senate measure, with options including a potential “informal” conference to resolve the differences between the two bills.
The House passed its TSCA reform bill June 23 in a 398-1 floor vote. If the Senate approves its bipartisan TSCA reform measure introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Udall without major changes, lawmakers will have to hold a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two bills. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said he hopes to hold a vote on the bill by August.
Conference talks could be contentious if both pieces of legislation retain major differences, for example on their fee structures or the extent to which they should preempt state chemicals programs.
But Udall suggested at a June 25 Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) TSCA reform discussion in Washington, D.C., that lawmakers have several options to resolve differences between the bills, including an informal conference. Such a process, in which lawmakers held informal talks ahead of a formal conference and “outlined the differences” in each bill, could mean that the formal conference would go quickly and smoothly, Udall said.
Shimkus added, “I'm waiting for the Senate to get a bill passed,” noting that the Senate bill S. 697 could be subject to floor amendments, but that the two chambers have held “staff to staff meetings” to discuss the bills and options, including “informal conference, negotiating on the same bill, formal conference.”
Further complicating the process is that Senate Environment & Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is now suggesting that senators take up the House version of TSCA reform, H.R. 2576, instead of the Vitter-Udall bill -- though it is unclear how many Democrats share that position.
Both bills would overhaul the 1976 TSCA in order to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace, and eliminate legal hurdles in current law that have hindered the agency's ability to restrict dangerous chemicals, such as its 1991 failure to ban asbestos.
The House bill has narrower preemption of state toxics programs than S. 697. It would "grandfather," or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken effect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with new federal mandates. New state chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction under TSCA.
The Senate bill also contains grandfathering provisions to preserve existing laws, but preemption for new chemical rules and laws would occur when EPA launches a review of a chemical.
Despite the differences, Udall and Shimkus told the BPC event that they believe the differences can be ironed out. “We kept our bill simple for a reason, to help us move it,” Shimkus said, adding that what makes a conference contentious is when lawmakers have separate sets of objectives, which is not the case here.
Udall acknowledged that preemption may be the biggest point of negotiation, but said he believes the issues “can be worked through,” saying, “there's a lot of different ways it can be handled.”
The House approved the bill under a suspension of rules that barred amendments from being offered and provided limited debate -- but required a two-thirds majority of the House for approval, suggesting lawmakers anticipated broad backing for the bill. One Republican, Rep. Tom McClintock (CA), voted in opposition of the bill, saying it “greatly increases the burdens on low-regulatory states without easing the burdens on high-regulatory states.” Shimkus, chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel, said during the floor debate on the bill that he sought suspension of the rules because he "wanted as strong a showing of support from the House as possible" ahead of a possible conference with S. 697.
-
Jun 25, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the TSCA Modernization Act by a whopping 398 to 1 vote. (In case you’re wondering, the “no” vote was Tom McClintock of CA.) The vote is mostly good news for those of us who have been working so long for meaningful reform of our nation’s broken chemical policy. (I’ll get to why only “mostly” later.)
The sponsors were able to draw such broad support by focusing on the basics of reform – threading a needle that was limited enough to be conservative, but which also contained several of the fundamentals for public health progress. Representatives Shimkus, Pallone, Upton, and Tonko deserve credit for the achievement.
Some of the most difficult work lies ahead, however. To become law, both houses of Congress have to pass the same bill. The Senate will now either take up the House bill or will take up its own bill, S. 697 by Senators Vitter and Udall. The two bills are different in their structure, length, and style. (The House bill is much shorter and clearer.) There are also policy differences.
In general, the House bill presents a better framework for the final round of policy-making. It would be easiest if the Senate took it up and amended it in a few targeted ways. If the Senate instead took up its own bill it would still be preferable to work off of the House bill and add key provisions from the Senate in any conference. So what is in the House bill? Here are the fundamentals: The standard for EPA to act on a chemical will now be “health only” as opposed to a “cost benefit” standard.EPA is required to ensure that vulnerable populations- like pregnant women and children or heavily exposed communities- are protected when they act on a chemical.The “least burdensome” requirement in the current law – which played a major role in TSCA’s failure – has been removed.EPA can require toxicity testing on any chemical by the massively simpler process of an “order” versus the complicated process of a formal rulemaking.EPA is required to screen existing chemicals for the combined properties of persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity; publish a list of those; and then put them on a fast track for regulation.States are free to act to protect their citizens at any point until the EPA has either exonerated a chemical or taken action to restrict it. Even then, state actions that have already been taken are preserved and several categories of state regulatory activity are exempted.Rules for Confidential Business Information (CBI) are tightened going forward and the information can be shared with states, first responders, and health care providers.
That’s all good. So what has fallen short?
In my last blog I raised the proverbial “red flag” about an imbalance in the bill. On the one hand, the EPA was required to undertake an assessment whenever industry requested it and stepped forward with fees to cover EPA’s costs. On the other hand, the minimum the bill sets for EPA-prioritized chemicals – 10 per year – was qualified with the phrase “subject to the availability of appropriations.” That meant that the industry assessments were an enforceable mandate. The EPA ones were not. Our fear was that the industry priorities could quickly overwhelm public health priorities.
The version approved on Tuesday only partially fixes this problem. EPA is given the ability to defer the industry requests if staff and other resources are overly constrained. The exact mix of assessments is effectively kicked down the road to future Congressional appropriators. That’s an improvement, certainly, but the 10-per-year schedule is sufficiently modest that it should be a true mandate and EPA’s discretion on the industry assessments should also be strengthened. A small amendment here would have a big impact.
Also, the House bill lacks a mechanism for EPA to raise new money through fees for its work on the chemicals it prioritizes. The Senate bill has such a provision. It could easily be added to the House bill as it is something industry has already agreed to. Preferably, the cap on the fee provision could be raised.
There were some ambiguities introduced into the bill between the committee and the floor that would also require clarification, but those are mostly technical and should be simple to do. Basically, even though elements remain in the bill that we didn’t like, targeted changes to the House bill would make it a good final compromise.
But, you may ask, isn’t the Senate bill more “comprehensive”? Wouldn’t we be losing something if Congress worked off of the House bill?But, you may ask, isn’t the Senate bill more “comprehensive”? Wouldn’t we be losing something if Congress worked off of the House bill?
That is the claim made by the bill’s supporters, certainly. Here’s the problem: most of what is good about the Senate bill overlaps with the good in the House bill. Most of what is different about it, with some exceptions, is either bad from a public health perspective or not meaningful. Let’s examine some of these Senate provisions: The “mandate to review all chemicals” in the Senate bill is an empty promise that is not enforceable. The schedule is even slower than 10 chemicals per year. The alleged reform of the new chemicals program in the Senate bill also doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It is basically a rewording of the status quo. (Privately, industry supporters of the bill and government lawyers agree with this assessment.) So while there are reforms to the new chemicals program we would like to see, like minimum data requirements, neither bill has them. In fact, there is some weakening of EPA’s ability to require notification when a chemical of concern is used in a product in new ways. The “sustainable chemistry” provision in the bill seemed benign until the committee report on the bill was recently released. (Committee reports are official statements of legislative intent.) Remarkably, the report states that these weak provisions are intended to replace a great program at EPA called Design for the Environment (DfE). Under that program EPA currently certifies safer alternatives to problematic chemicals. It also allows companies to use a label, recently renamed “Safer Choice,” that is one of the few environmental labels that actually means something. DfE has enjoyed support from major consumer product companies and public health advocates alike. The idea that the Senate bill could be used to undermine this popular program had not even been on our radar until the committee report was released last week.
What about the “inventory update”? This is a provision in the Senate bill that requires EPA to divide chemicals into an “active” and “inactive” inventory. The point seems to be to show that there are fewer chemicals in commerce than people think. That’s not a big problem in a world where EPA has lots of time on its hands, but in the context of limited reform and very limited resources this provision will waste precious time and money on something with no public health purpose. There are four pages in the Senate bill devoted to “nomenclature.” Nobody except the authors of this provision understand what it does. I’ve heard that it involves settling a dispute a handful of companies have with EPA, but I admit it could just as easily be a secret map to Jimmy Hoffa’s final resting place. No one has ever explained the provision and yet it must be there for a reason. The Senate bill generally puts more process in front of anything EPA wants to do. EPA can’t assess a chemical unless it meets the high priority criteria, for example, which could constrain the universe of reviewed chemicals. The ability of EPA to require testing in the Senate bill –improved compared to current law – is then also caveated with new process requirements and findings. There are also new policies and guidance required, most of which aren’t necessary. Some of these provisions provide potential “attachment points” for potential litigation. Again, time and money.
Then there are the big-ticket items we’ve focused on before and which have driven much of the debate about the Senate bill. The Senate bill would preempt states when EPA begins the review of a chemical rather than when it is done. The committee added a work-around, but it’s complicated, and the provision will still clearly chill state action that may be needed to address an urgent health threat. Ask the firefighters why this is a problem. They have spearheaded state and local action on toxic flame retardant chemicals to protect their members. The “low priority” category in the Senate bill exempts chemicals from regulation based on a finding that they are “likely to meet” the safety standard. It’s an invitation to abuse at worst and at best sends a murky signal to the public and the market about whether a chemical is really safe. In fairness, there are a couple of things that the Senate bill does better: The CBI reforms are better. An EPA rule is more defensible from a lawsuit.
These provisions, in addition to the fee, should be on the table to fold into the House bill.
The simplest path, therefore, and the one that is optimal for public health and the environment would be to simply fix the House bill in these few targeted ways. The alleged “comprehensiveness” of the Senate bill has been wildly overblown. The alleged “comprehensiveness” of the Senate bill has been wildly overblown.
I don’t know how the process will unfold going forward. The Senate could take up the House bill. The Senate could pass its own bill, potentially with improvements. The two bills could be “conferenced” or both Houses could engage in “ping pong” – people really call it that – whereby they amend each other’s bills and send them back and forth until agreement is reached.
Whatever the process, our focus will be on achieving a genuine reform that makes progress for public health and the environment – even if modest – and eliminating anything that goes backwards.
-
Carcinogencity 'Gap' In Mixtures Assessment Must Be Filled
Jun 25, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Risk assessment practices should be revised to recognise that mixtures of chemicals in the environment may act together to cause cancer, according to a review by 174 cancer biologists and environmental health researchers.
“Without a way to anticipate the carcinogenicity of complex mixtures, an important gap in capability exists and it creates a significant weakness in current risk assessment practices,” they say.
Chemicals are currently tested individually to determine whether they can cause cancer but the review, by experts from 28 countries, suggests that non-carcinogenic chemicals may act with others to cause cancer.
In 2012, a US non-profit organisation called Getting to Know Cancer instigated an initiative called the Halifax Project to review studies to assess whether “biologically disruptive” chemicals may act with other “seemingly innocuous chemicals” to cause carcinogenesis at low doses.
Those who signed up split into 11 groups, each reviewing one cancer “hallmark”, from genetic instability, tumour formation and progression, to resistance to cell death (apoptosis). They then identified target sites for disruption and chose a set of chemicals commonly encountered in the environment, including bisphenol A, titanium dioxide nanoparticles, phthalates and triclosan.
Of 85 examples of environmental chemicals, reviewed for actions on key pathways linked to carcinogenesis, 50 were found to have low-dose effects, 15 in a non-linear dose-response pattern. The Halifax analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of non-carcinogenic chemicals acting on different pathways “could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies”.
In particular, the UN International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO IPCS) mode-of-action framework and OECD guidelines for risk assessment are “restrictive to the point that regulators could be underestimating the risks posed by exposures to low doses of mixtures of chemicals,” they warn. A mode-of-action approach tends to group chemicals together according to toxicity mechanisms, say the reviewers. Instead, they suggest that mixture risk assessment should “anticipate synergies” of chemicals with dissimilar biological action.
William Goodson, senior clinical research scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, led the review. “The next step is for people to look at these combinations in vitro and then try to look at them in the real world,” he says.
Dr Goodson's team has done cancer studies on parabens, phthalates, BPA and on the PET precursor, terephthalic acid. “They are strikingly different chemicals. We are now getting gearing up to see if they have a combination effect in vitro,” he says. “What we have done – which we think is different – is to focus on fresh cells straight out of patients. We're not using cells that have been grown in a laboratory for 30 years. Cancer starts in normal cells.”
Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead is published in Carcinogenesis.
-
Require Companies to Submit Mercury Data, State Officials, Nature Group Petition EPA
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies that import, produce or use 10 pounds or more of mercury a year should be required to submit mercury-use reports to the Environmental Protection Agency, state officials and the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a rulemaking petition filed June 24.
NRDC and the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA) filed a rulemaking petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which requires the EPA to grant or deny the petition within 90 days.
Mercury is a highly neurotoxic contaminant that is most harmful when methylated.
“EPA very conservatively estimates that more than 75,000 newborns each year may have increased risk of learning disabilities associated with in-utero exposure to methylmercury,” the petitioners wrote.
No Other Statute, Authority Deemed Sufficient
The EPA had begun to develop a national mercury-use database in 2005 so federal and state agencies could evaluate the effectiveness of mercury-use reduction efforts they encouraged companies to adopt, the petition said, citing the EPA's Roadmap for Mercury.
“There is still no national database on mercury supply or use,” the petitioners wrote. “The gaps in the data collected by others are worsening,” they added.
No other federal statute than TSCA and no state-managed program has the authority to gather comprehensive data about mercury production and use, the petitioners wrote.
To illustrate data gaps, the petitioners said more information is needed about mercury exposure caused by polyurethane flooring and mercury in children's toys.
U.S.-based companies that Internet searches suggest have made mercury-catalyzed polyurethane include BJB Enterprises, Development Associates Inc., Gibson-Homans Co., Huntsman Corp. and Puma Polymers LLC, according to a 2013 report issued by the Quicksilver Caucus, a coalition of state environmental association leaders.
“It is unclear whether they have ceased such production.” the caucus wrote in Status Reporton Select Products, Processes and Technologies Utilizing Mercury.
Potential Exposures Children Face
State officials contend this is a high-priority data gap that the EPA should fill because mercury-based catalysts have been extensively used in some polyurethane materials, the petition said.
“Documented exposures to children attributable to mercury releases from gym flooring and mats raise the level of concern,” the petition said.
According to the petitioners, states have documented other mercury and mercury compound applications including:
• germicidal or preservative agents in children's car seats,
• coloring agents in footwear and card games,
• stabilizers in children's jewelry, puzzles and board games,
• softening agents in paint supplies and
• manufacturing additives in children's clothing, including underwear.
NEWMOA and NRDC asked the EPA to use its authority under Section 8(a) of TSCA to collect mercury-use data.
-
Groups Petition EPA To Gather Information On Mercury Use
Jun 25, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA needs to do more to determine how mercury is used in the United States, to reduce and eventually eliminate it from products and industrial processes, the Natural Resources Defense Council and a group of state waste agencies contend in a petition filed with the agency.
The petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association asks EPA to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to propose a rule requiring companies to submit information on their use of mercury, mercury compounds and products containing mercury. The groups argue that doing so would both protect the public and meet international obligations.
Under Section 8 of TSCA, EPA has the authority to require through a rulemaking that manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances disclose data to aid the agency in regulating the substances.
This would be particularly useful to help EPA control exposure to mercury, a neurotoxin that can impair development, the groups argue in their petition.
The lack of information on the use of mercury "has been acknowledged by virtually all of the federal and state agencies involved in tracking or regulating the chemical in commerce," the petition said.
The proposed data collection is "critical to achieving further mercury reductions and protecting the health of the American people," David Lennett, a senior attorney in NRDC's health program, said in a statement.
Though some states operate the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse, the group does not currently collect data on some of the most common products that contain mercury and suffers from other "significant data gaps due to non-reporting," the petition said.
With the United States a signatory to the new Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty that was signed and ratified in 2013, the federal government faces new obligations to reduce the use of mercury, the petition noted.
The treaty aims to eliminate the commercial use of mercury within three decades by banning its use in most commercial products (Greenwire, Oct. 18, 2013).
These obligations "cannot be discharged with the current gaps in data availability," the petition said.
However, the treaty must be ratified by at least 50 nations to take effect, and only 11 of 128 signatories have ratified it so far.
An EPA spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment on the petition by publication time.
-
‘Microbead' Prohibition Among Water Bills Signed by Indiana Governor
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The manufacture and sale of synthetic plastic “microbeads” will be prohibited in Indiana under legislation signed June 25 by Gov. Mike Pence (R).
H.B. 1185 prohibits the manufacture of the beads after Dec. 31, 2017. The beads aren't biodegradable and have been cited as a source of concern for the Great Lakes, because they can be ingested by fish and wildlife and cause health problems. The sale of personal care products containing microbeads will be prohibited after Dec. 31, 2018, and the sale of over-the-counter drugs containing microbeads will be prohibited after Dec. 31, 2019.
The bill was one of several Pence approved after the close of the legislative session in April and ceremonially signed at the June 25 meeting of the Indiana chapter of the National Association of Water Companies. Among the other bills signed June 25 were:
• S.B. 312, which puts reporting requirements on owners and operators of above-ground storage tanks designed to contain more than 660 gallons of liquid, with certain exceptions. It also requires operators of public water systems that use surface water for drinking water to develop threat minimization and response plans.
• S.B. 177, which increases the amount by which a public utility may increase rates for recovery of infrastructure improvement costs to 10 percent of the utility's base revenue level from 5 percent.
• S.B. 474, which requires the Indiana finance authority to prepare an analysis of the planning and long-range needs of water utilities.
• S.B. 516, which expands requirements on water and wastewater utility distribution system improvement charges to municipally owned and not-for-profit utilities.
• H.B. 1319, which allows a public water or wastewater utility that acquires a distressed utility to petition the utility regulatory commission to include the cost differential associated with the acquisition as part of its rate base, and requires the commission to approve a petition under certain circumstances.
“Water resources are a vital component of our future economic success,” Pence said in a statement. “The bills I ceremonially signed today aim to protect water quality, incentivize water and wastewater infrastructure modernization, and improve water resource management—issues important to economic development and improving the quality of life here in Indiana.”
-
Host of PHMSA Policy Revisions Included In Committee-Approved FY 2016 Funding Bill
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a fiscal year 2016 bill June 25 that funds the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and includes a host of policy directives for the agency that go beyond crude-by-rail.
The Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes $246 million in funding for PHMSA. The Senate stacked it with policy measures for PHMSA, some of which could lead to rulemaking or fee changes that would affect the siting of certain liquefied natural gas facilities, among other pipeline and hazmat items.
This appropriations to-do list would come at a time when PHMSA's leadership is in flux, and it is mired in lawsuits over its latest rule governing crude-by-rail transportation.
The bill text and report were released after the committee markup and aren't yet available online.
The Senate would provide $49 million for the agency's hazardous materials safety program, roughly $11.5 million below the bill that passed the House June 9 and $3 million below FY 2015 enacted levels. It also recommends $28.3 million for emergency preparedness grants, in line with both the House passed and FY 2015 enacted levels.
The office's pipeline safety program would receive $146.6 million, about even with House-allocated funds and FY 2015 enacted levels.
Both the House and Senate would transfer $19.5 million of the pipeline safety funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
The bill doesn't include any funding for the National Pipeline Information Exchange, an initiative that would result in combined state and federal inspection data to better identify vulnerabilities, trends and pipeline material integrity. It also declines to implement a hazmat transport user fee the White House has repeatedly requested, saying that should go through the authorization rather than appropriations process.
The bill allocates $17.8 billion total in discretionary funds for the Transportation Department.
LNG Facilities' Rules
Included in the bill and the report are a number of policy provisions that direct PHMSA to consider rulemaking or fee changes.
Congress notably directs PHMSA to reassess the regulatory framework for liquefied natural gas facilities used to “generate and package” LNG to be used as a fuel or to deliver it via non-pipeline methods.
These small facilities are currently regulated under pipeline safety laws, but PHMSA would be required to offer an alternative risk-based compliance regime for siting these small facilities and consider alternative risk-based approaches for assessing these facilities within 60 days of the bill's enactment.
PHMSA also should “give expedited consideration” to special permit requests that seek to use such approaches for siting a facility in this category.
“The Committee believes these regulations are outdated, excessively challenging, and do not take into account the reduction in scale of these smaller facilities that provide fuel to vehicles, vessels, or other end users,” the bill's report said.
Other Policy Provisions
The agency would be required to re-evaluate its current pipeline safety user fee collection allocation across natural gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines and liquefied natural gas operators.
Under the bill, PHMSA would be directed to issue a proposed rule within 90 days of enactment that expands comprehensive oil spill response act requirements to include more rail carriers. The agency would be required to issue a final rule on the subject, a subject the agency began considering at least as early as July 2014, within one year.
Other measures would instruct the agency to conduct a number of studies and analyses comparing different transportation modes' safety records for moving crude oil and examining crude oil volatility.
The agency also should execute research and development activities on safe transportation of energy products such as crude oil, liquefied natural gas and ethanol and on potential safety and reliability technology improvements for pipelines such as advanced sensor technologies.
Could Use Leftover Funding for Training
The agency also would be authorized to use previous years' leftover funding to craft an online hazardous materials emergency response training program and to train certain public sector emergency responders.
-
Energy And Commerce Begins Bipartisan Pipeline Safety Inquiry
Jun 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The bipartisan leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today opened an inquiry into the status of federal pipeline safety mandates, as well as the recent California oil spill.
In letters to Plains All American, the company behind the 100,000-plus-gallon May 19 spill, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Chairman Fred Upton and ranking Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone raised a series of questions about Plains' response to the failure of its Line 901 pipe and to PHMSA about its pace of fulfilling multiple mandates Congress gave the agency in 2011 that have since languished in the rulemaking process. -
Pipeline Safety Agency To Propose Stronger Spill Notification Rules
Jun 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Federal regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are finalizing a proposal that would firm up the one-hour maximum time limit for companies to notify first responders of an oil or natural gas leak, according to a source familiar with the agency’s plans.
The pending rule from PHMSA also would seek to clarify the practical meaning of Congress’ reference to “confirmed discovery” of an accident in a 2012 safety law, according to the source, who spoke with POLITICO on condition of anonymity ahead of the proposal’s release.
The agency is working to clarify its expectations of the pipeline industry in the wake of last month’s California oil spill and other recent leaks where companies’ delays in notifying the National Response Center have drawn concern — and as new questions begin to swirl about the speed of the response to the May 19 spill on Santa Barbara’s Refugio Beach. -
Bipartisan E&C Lawmakers Press Obama Admin Over Meeting Statutory Mandates
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
A bipartisan group of House Energy and Commerce Committee lawmakers is pressing the Obama administration for answers about pipeline safety reforms in the wake of last month's California spill.
Last month, an on-land pipeline failure in the Santa Barbara area sent more than 100,000 barrels of oil onto the beach and about 20,000 gallons into the Pacific Ocean. The spill killed sea life including dolphins and sea lions (Greenwire, June 12).
Yesterday, panel Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and top Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, plus a number of their colleagues, penned a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the White House Office of Management and Budget about pending reforms.
The lawmakers noted that Congress passed the Pipeline Safety Act years ago. Yet implementation of more than a dozen of its mandates, including on pipeline damage prevention and automatic shut-off valves, remains incomplete.
"The mandates included in the Pipeline Safety Act are wide ranging and will have broad impacts on the safe operation and development of the nation's pipeline infrastructure," the lawmakers wrote, "and yet the Administration has not fulfilled its duty to implement these requirements."
The lawmakers fired off another letter to Plains All American Pipeline LP, the company behind the Santa Barbara incident, about two of its pipelines. Specifically, they want the Texas-based company to turn over design, maintenance and pipeline integrity records.
"We seek your assistance to understand the facts and circumstances relating to the May 19 failure of Line 901 and to review information necessary to understand the quality of integrity programs implemented by Plains Pipeline," they wrote.
Investigators have pointed to corrosion on the pipeline. The company has promised to spend tens of millions in response to the spill. A beach closed in the incident's wake was set to reopen this week.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Leading Challenge to New Smog Standards
Jun 26, 2015 | The Texas Tribune
By Neena Satija
Intent on wringing more smog from the nation's skies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is just months away from imposing new ozone standards meant to lessen pollution from the nation's cars, factories and power plants widely believed to worsen asthma, lung and heart disease.
The impending restrictions have already drawn the wrath of Republican leaders, who have trotted out studies portending economic doom. Nearly a dozen Republican governors, including Texas’ Greg Abbott, have cautioned the EPA against what they called a “power grab,” and some members in Congress are renewing efforts to revisit the decades-old Clean Air Act.
But perhaps nowhere is opposition to the new ozone standards more determined than at the agency charged with enforcing environmental laws in Texas. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — arguing that any health benefits won't be worth the cost — is paying a private company $1.65 million to challenge the science being used to set them.
“EPA’s not always about the best science,” said Michael Honeycutt, the commission's top toxicologist, who is spearheading the efforts.
The environmental consulting company Honeycutt's agency hired, Massachusetts-based Gradient Corporation, typically conducts research funded by industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute. One Harvard University epidemiologist calls its work for Texas "bullshit" science that contradicts conclusions by the vast majority of experts.
“This is a company that basically works for industry, and their job is to trash environmental studies,” said Joel Schwartz, a professor of environmental epidemiology at Harvard and director of the university’s Center for Risk Analysis.
Honeycutt said Gradient’s scientists are “eminently qualified,” including Julie Goodman, heading the project, who has a master's degree in epidemiology and a doctorate in toxicology. A former fellow at the National Cancer Institute, Goodman is a principal scientist at Gradient and an adjunct lecturer at Harvard.
Responding to criticism leveled at her recent work, Goodman said in an interview with The Texas Tribune that “we should be judging science on the methods, and not who funded it.”
Some of the company's research funded by Texas has already been published, and it argues that a lower ozone standard won’t benefit public health. Honeycutt said the peer-reviewed publications add heft to the state’s opposition, and should help the EPA make a more informed decision. “We’re extremely pleased with the work that’s been done,” he said, and more is expected later this year.
Gradient is submitting some of its research as public comment to the EPA, and says such comments have affected the agency’s decisions on environmental regulations in the past.
But leading experts in the field of air pollution science argue the work Texas is paying for lacks credibility, both because of its poor methods and who is conducting it. Gradient's scientists, they say, almost always come to the same conclusion: A chemical or pollutant isn’t as bad for you as many other scientists have argued.
"There are these external groups that do not have any financial conflicts of interest, that have reviewed the literature and come to the exact opposite conclusion” as Gradient, Schwartz said. “And those have been endorsed by the major medical associations.”
The commission and Gradient researchers took issue with those characterizations, calling their findings honest, important scientific contributions that dare to challenge the establishment view.
“I would like to think that Texas is a leader” in its work on air pollution regulations, Honeycutt said. “I think it’s incumbent upon us to … hold EPA’s feet to the fire.”
But Gradient's findings on ozone — and the commission's position — buck decades of research and consensus on environmental science, other experts said.
The prevailing argument for lowering the ozone standard "is something that’s gone through incredible peer review already,” said Richard Clapp, a professor emeritus of environmental health at the Boston University School of Public Health.
Gradient’s scientists, Clapp said, are “smart and well-trained. But they also have a bias, and they have a perspective. That is why industry comes to them to do these kinds of reviews.”
The Smog of War
Also known as smog, ozone forms when emissions from cars, coal plants and the like mix with other airborne compounds in the presence of sunlight. High ozone levels exacerbate conditions such as asthma, lung disease and heart disease, and may even lead to premature death.
A fierce battle over ozone regulations has raged since the George W. Bush administration set the allowable standard at 75 parts per billion in 2008. It was a hugely controversial step that dismissed a unanimous advisory panel of scientists and doctors who said the standard should have been far lower.
A federal court partially agreed with the scientists in 2013, but by then, it was already time to update the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which limit pollutants such as ozone and must be reviewed every few years.
Texas leaders feared a new standard as low as 60 parts per billion could cost states and businesses trillions of dollars to retrofit plants and further cut down pollution from traffic. (Already, more than 100 million people nationwide live in areas that don’t meet current ozone standards, including Dallas and Houston; a standard of 60 ppb could put Austin and El Paso out of compliance, too.)
The EPA is widely expected to announce a new ozone standard lower than 75, but it’s not clear how much lower.
“The deal is, the standards are getting lower and lower … so it’s like, do we really need to do this? Are we really getting a health benefit out of this?” Honeycutt asked.
So in early 2013, the commission sought bids from outside experts on a contract “to encourage and challenge the EPA to conduct an objective and rigorous scientific review … in order to obtain the required support for a proposed lowering of a NAAQS.” The focus would be on ozone, though it could be expanded to other air pollutants like lead.
The request for bids was widely circulated and went to universities, Honeycutt said, but there was only one applicant: Gradient, a 30-year-old environmental consulting firm based in Cambridge, Mass.
The firm had already done similar work for clients like the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and other trade and industry associations. Gradient’s work for those groups nearly always argued against further limitations on air pollution, such as particulate matter, despite contrary recommendations from many scientists.
“There is an association, a very strong association, between industry funding and results that support what the industry wants to say,” said Michael Kalichman, director of the Research Ethics Program at the University of California, San Diego.
That doesn’t mean industry-funded research is always biased or flawed, he cautioned. But he was wary of a state government enlisting scientists occupying what is clearly an outlier position.
“To protect yourself and to protect your state — that calls for casting a wider net in trying to understand what the scientific consensus is on an issue, rather than choosing one particular perspective,” Kalichman said.
Weight of Evidence
Texas initially hired Gradient for $550,000 worth of work, but after several amendments, the contract ended up being worth $1.65 million. The contract pays for Goodman's work at an hourly rate of $330.
Speaking from her Cambridge office, Goodman said she’s always been interested in understanding the risks of a particular chemical or pollutant by reviewing all of the scientific evidence available, a process some call “weight of evidence.”
“My whole career is based on this idea of weight of evidence, or systematic review,” said Goodman, who along with colleagues at Gradient has looked at dozens of different ways of conducting such reviews. In 2013, with funding from the American Petroleum Institute, she authored a paper that put forward her own method for a "weight of evidence" review.
Since then, Goodman has used a version of that method to investigate whether ozone is really linked to cardiovascular problems, mortality and decreased lung function in the ways that the EPA claims.
That research — some funded by Texas — has led Goodman to conclude that the EPA has overstated the health risks of ozone under the current standard. “It’s good that we have an ozone standard,” she said, but the science doesn’t indicate that public health will by improved by lowering it further.
Goodman knows she has critics, but said she believes the EPA takes her seriously, noting that it revised its interpretations of how nitrogen oxide pollution may lead to negative health impacts after hearing from outside commenters, including Gradient.
But leading scientists interviewed by the Tribune said they believe Goodman’s research methods have serious flaws.
“It’s all a good thing that someone is looking very carefully at these determinations. There’s nothing wrong with that,” said Michael Jerrett, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley, whose research has linked ozone exposure with premature death. But he took issue with the way Gradient evaluated the research.
When assessing "weight of evidence," for instance, Gradient gives more credence to studies that use personal air monitors than research conducted using stationary monitors that glean data from the surrounding atmosphere.
Jerrett and many other experts disagree with that approach, saying that decades of research has helped improve measurements of ozone exposure. Using Gradient’s logic, he said, “you’re essentially setting up a criterion that’s virtually impossible to meet.”
Joel Tickner, an associate professor who focuses on environmental health and risk assessment at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, likened Gradient’s research to that of the tobacco industry. For instance, he said, the firm often argues that no one knows the “mode of action” for certain pollutants: In other words, no one can point to exactly how the pollutant harms the lungs or other organs.
“We didn’t understand how smoking caused lung cancer until probably the late '80s,” Tickner said. “But we know it caused cancer.”
Skeptics on Both Sides
Among those upset that Texas hired Gradient was the Dallas County Medical Society, which has unsuccessfully petitioned the environmental commission to crack down on smog pollution from coal plants.
The 6,000-member group’s petition is mentioned in one portion of the Gradient contract, which asks for more than $700,000 worth of additional work investigating the association between ozone and asthma. That work is expected to be complete later this year.
“We are surprised and immensely disappointed to learn that they’ve done this,” said Robert Haley, a world-renowned epidemiologist and professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
Haley, a past president of the medical society who led the group’s lobbying efforts for lower coal plant emissions, said Gradient's research does not accurately reflect how ozone affects human lungs.
Some scientists do share the views of Gradient and TCEQ, or at least express more skepticism than most when it comes to the risks of ozone. Many of them attended a TCEQ-sponsored workshop on ozone science in Austin earlier this year, which the agency paid Gradient $150,000 — as part of its contract — to help put together.
“In principle, lower is always better, but does a small difference in the ozone concentration really impact public health? In my opinion, the data just aren’t convincing,” said Mark Utell, a physician and professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester who attended the workshop and spoke on a panel. He called Gradient’s TCEQ-funded research “really quite interesting.”
-
Efficiency, Crude Exports Are Sticking Points As House Prepares For July Floor Debate
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
House negotiators are closing in on a broad energy package that may be ready for floor action in the coming weeks, a key lawmaker said yesterday.
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said staff is working to finalize the bill's various titles, while discussions continue over outstanding efficiency disputes and whether to include a repeal of the ban on crude oil exports.
"I think we'll have that on the floor for a vote before the August break," he told E&E Daily in an interview yesterday.
Based on the "Architecture of Abundance" framework by Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the measure aims to expand energy supplies, boost related infrastructure, promote efficiency and overhaul existing energy programs.
Unlike his controversial bill (H.R. 2042) to allow states to opt out of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, which passed the House this week on a 247-180 vote, Whitfield said the "big" energy package largely avoids major hot-button energy fights.
"The contentious areas are really not that big, truthfully," he said.
Nonetheless, Whitfield said two sticking points remain in the efficiency title. The first deals with a long-standing dispute over a provision from a 2007 energy law that would require a phaseout of fossil fuel energy from new and majorly renovated federal buildings by 2030.
"We're going to try to eliminate that" to maintain the option of future use of fossil fuel energy, Whitfield said.
A committee draft bill that would outright repeal the provision -- which Whitfield noted was authored by former Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) -- has hit a nerve with the panel's minority. "The Democrats are flipping out over that," Whitfield said.
A broad coalition of interest groups yesterday penned a letter urging House members to back a compromise provision, contained in a bipartisan House efficiency bill (H.R. 2177), sponsored by Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), that would pair a repeal with stronger future efficiency targets. That bill is based on a compromise hashed out by Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that has strong backing among stakeholders.
A second bone of contention is the Energy Department's recent proposal to raise efficiency standards for certain gas-fired furnaces, which has sparked pushback from the American Gas Association and other groups that question the economic and technical justifications the department used. A variety of stakeholders have been engaged in tough negotiations to reach a compromise position on the rule (E&E Daily, June 2).
Whitfield said he hopes a compromise can be reached with Democrats on areas of disagreement but suggested the majority isn't going to sit on the bill forever awaiting a deal.
"There are, like, 5 percent of the whole bill that are controversial, and we don't intend to give them everything that they want," he said. "So we'll see what happens."
Another wild card remains whether to address the decades-old ban on exporting crude oil from the United States, said Whitfield, who cited a flurry of recent analyses he said shows that the effect of doing so would be "beneficial."
He noted the opposition of some refiners to repealing the ban but said he's seen a groundswell of support for it in recent months.
"It's kind of amazing, but there doesn't seem to be that big organized opposition that I thought," he said. Senate deliberations
In the Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) conceded yesterday that her committee has a ways to go before its bill could be ready by her goal of a pre-August-recess markup.
"We're not quite there yet," she said in an interview. "People have really been working hard to get through some of these issues, and you start with the things that are just a little bit easier and say, 'You can put them aside, and we can move on this.' But as you get to those issues where there's more divergency in the positions, it's just going to take a little bit longer time. So I can't say that what we're going to have is a 95 percent consensus, because I just don't know at this point."
However, she signaled her upcoming bill will hew to the Hoeven-Manchin compromise on the 2007 phaseout of fossil fuel use in federal buildings. "I think we're pretty good with our efficiency" title, she said.
Murkowski also acknowledged the intense debate over DOE's furnace rule but said the extensive time the committee has put into energy efficiency negotiations in recent years should yield a deal.
"I think it's workable," she said. "I only say that because if we can work through some of these other efficiency things that we have done so in a way that works, I figure we can do that with furnaces, too."
Murkowski said she continues to deliberate how the crude exports ban -- a top priority for her -- fits into the committee's bill, which she plans to move with as much Democratic support as she can muster. But adding a repeal would likely cost her Democratic support in committee and on the floor.
That's almost certain to be a topic of discussion when she and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) sit down after the July 4 recess to sort out the shape of the bill.
Murkowski also reiterated that she'd like to see the energy bill be accompanied by a tax title, which she said could house a bill she co-sponsored with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would extend master limited partnership tax treatment to renewable energy projects (EnergyWire, June 25).
"It's only natural, if we're going to get something that really does work to help advance policy, you have to view what happens on the tax side through those initiatives that impact these policies," she said, adding that as a Finance Committee member, it's Cantwell who is better positioned to advance tax provisions. "So that would be my desire, but, again, I'm not leading on that right now, but Sen. Cantwell has been working her charm."
-
Even More Riders for Interior, EPA Expected to Spending Bill on House Floor
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Ari Natter
Even more policy provisions on matters ranging from off-shore drilling and endangered species listing to blocking the renewable fuel standard could be added to a bill funding the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for the 2016 fiscal year.
Republican lawmakers have been adding these types of provisions, also known as riders, to the nearly $30.2 billion spending bill at almost every step of its journey through the legislative process in the House (116 DEN A-2, 6/17/15).
Now that the bill has made it to the House floor, they are attempting to add dozens more—some of which, if adopted, would significantly curtail the executive branch's ability to develop and implement environmental regulations.
One of the more potentially significant riders that came up is a provision the conservative activist group Freedom Works said Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) is planning to offer.
The rider would block the EPA from implementing or enforcing the renewable fuel standard.
Freedom Works is urging support of the yet-to-be-offered amendment. Loudermilk's office didn't respond to a request for comment.
The standard, which requires 15 billion gallons of conventional corn ethanol and 21 billion gallons of advanced ethanol in the nation's motor fuel supply annually by 2022, is opposed by refiners such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and supported by Archer Daniels Midland Co. and other ethanol producers.
Endangered Species Restriction Offered
Republican lawmakers also introduced amendments on the House floor that would block or impede the Fish and Wildlife Service from taking measures to conserve a number of species: the lower prairie-chicken, gray wolf and greater sage grouse.
The sage grouse amendment, offered by Rep. Mark E. Amodei (R-Nev.), would prevent the Interior Department from developing any land-use plans around sage grouse habitat conservation.
A policy rider already included in the bill would prevent the department from listing the sage grouse as endangered.
The oil and gas industry opposes the listing of the sage grouse because doing so could impede drilling operations.
Other Riders
Republican lawmakers also introduced riders to the spending bill that would:
• prohibit the Interior Department from blocking approval of an offshore drilling permit,
• eliminate $20 million in targeted airshed grants, and
• prevent the enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for accidental bird killings.
Another rider, from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), would make an across-the-board 1 percent cut to all line items in the bill. Blackburn has unsuccessfully offered similar riders to the House's other spending bills.
The House also adopted on voice votes several riders that would make minor changes to funding levels.
Should these be added to the spending bill, and if the bill clears Congress and if it is signed by the president, all of these policy riders would be in effect only for the 2016 fiscal year.
Heading for Veto?
This is the first time in six years that a stand-alone bill funding these agencies has been taken up on the House floor. Since 2009, the agencies have always received their annual funding via continuing resolutions or omnibus spending packages.
Though House lawmakers offered amendments on June 25, they aren't scheduled to vote on whether to adopt the amendments or on the bill itself until after they return from their Independence Day recess, which ends the week of July 6.
The White House has already issued a veto threat for this spending bill and the other seven spending bills the House has passed so far this year, saying that their sequester-level funding is inadequate .
-
House Trims EPA In First Day Of Spending Bill Debate
Jun 25, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Nick Juliano
The House this afternoon finished its first day of debate on the fiscal 2016 Interior-EPA spending bill, adopting more than a dozen amendments via voice vote and setting up roll-call votes for when it returns to the bill after the Independence Day recess.
A full list of amendments considered today is available from the House Republican Cloakroom.
The House adopted 15 amendments via voice vote to the $30 billion Interior-EPA appropriations bill, mostly shifting sums away from EPA and toward other programs or to deficit reduction.
EPA would lose nearly $100 million among the various amendments adopted. Arizona Republican Paul Gosar secured the largest cut to EPA, trimming $61 million from its environmental programs and management account to offset a $50 million increase a Bureau of Indian Affairs
Among the amendments slated for a vote next month is one to shift funds from Interior Department offshore drilling programs to an oil spill cleanup account. California Democrat Lois Capps introduced the spill amendment, which would shift $5.4 million from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to EPA’s Inland Oil Spill Program, although it stands little chance of success in the Republican-controlled lower chamber. -
House Punts Controversial EPA-Interior Spending Questions Until July
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
The House yesterday approved several amendments to the fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA and set up votes on other contentious provisions for after the Fourth of July recess.
Among the 15 amendments approved by voice vote yesterday were provisions that would boost funding for EPA's inspector general, move funding from EPA to the Forest Service's hazardous fuels program and reduce the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement's resources.
Just after 5 p.m., lawmakers agreed to leave the bill unfinished until after the July Fourth hiatus.
The bill overall would provide the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies with $30.17 billion, or $246 million below current spending levels and $3 billion below President Obama's fiscal 2016 request for the agencies. EPA would take a hit of about 9 percent, or $718 million, under the spending plan.
The House yesterday adopted amendments that would further chip away at EPA's budget.
An approved amendment from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) would reduce funding for EPA's Office of Policy by $2 million. The House adopted another Mooney amendment to boost the funding for EPA's inspector general by $1 million but to take another $2 million out of EPA's Office of Public Affairs.
Mooney said both amendments were in response to what he termed "the administration's radical environmental agenda."
The House also adopted by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) that would take more than $12 million from EPA's environmental programs and management while diverting $10 million to the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The money would be used to help expedite approvals for pipeline infrastructure.
In offering the amendment, Flores said he hoped it would help stop EPA "from pursuing a regulatory scheme" to limit methane emissions from natural gas drilling. Democrats objected to the amendment for cutting into EPA's already reduced budget. Interior
The House also took up a handful of amendments involving federal land acquisitions, national parks and wildfire prevention.
Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) offered an amendment to increase land acquisitions under the Land and Water Conservation Fund by $16 million.
But it was opposed by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the subcommittee that wrote the Interior spending bill. Calvert and other GOP appropriators are trying to shift more LWCF money to states and away from federal land purchases, arguing that the federal estate is already too expensive to maintain.
While Guinta withdrew his amendment, his support as a Republican for land purchases is a sign of future battles over LWCF, which expires in September.
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) implored Congress to act quickly on a reauthorization, recalling the program's success when he was Interior deputy secretary during the Clinton administration. He offered, but then withdrew, an amendment that secured him floor time to air concerns over LWCF's expiration, saying, "I want all of us to pay attention to this extraordinarily important program."
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) offered a similarly symbolic amendment, taking to the floor to urge Congress to fully fund Obama's request for the National Park Service's Centennial Challenge. The program, which leverages federal investments with nonfederal matching donations to improve Park Service facilities, is funded at $20 million in the bill, short of the president's $50 million request. Tsongas' amendment was adopted by voice vote, a sign that members on both sides of the aisle recognize a need to burnish park facilities ahead of the NPS centennial in 2016.
The House also adopted by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) to shift $20 million from EPA to the Forest Service's hazardous fuels program, a move designed to reduce the threat of wildfires. That account is currently funded at $362 million in the bill, level with current funding.
"This amendment takes money from an administrative expense account at EPA and uses it to help address the most pressing environmental crisis facing the United States -- catastrophic wildfire," Tipton said.
A pair of amendments by Rep. Curt Clawson (R-Fla.) to boost funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource Management program and to increase funding for Everglades restoration would also dip into EPA's budget as an offset. An amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) would redirect certain EPA administrative funds to the Bureau of Indian Education. The House adopted all three by voice vote.
The House also adopted by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) to provide more money for the Forest Service for road upkeep. Another approved amendment, by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), would force the Bureau of Land Management to study the possibility of selling unused federal lands. Mining
An amendment to reduce the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement's regulatory spending by $2 million also passed by voice vote. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) introduced the measure as a way to "help bring spending in parity to the work" OSMRE is doing.
Critics of that agency say its budget has remained steady despite a drop in mining. They also accuse it of usurping state powers, and oppose its forthcoming stream protection rule.
The underlying bill already included a rider against the stream rule and boosted grants to states. But Johnson said lawmakers need to "restrain the resources of the agency." His amendment relocated the money for more oversight aid to states and tribes.
The House then rejected by voice vote an amendment to expand a new $30 million grant program to help clean up abandoned mines in Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, while also promoting economic development in Appalachia. Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) backs the proposal.
Virginia Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith wanted the grants to include Virginia and other states hurt by the mining downturn. But Calvert pushed for keeping the program targeted and voiced support for future discussions before the chamber voted down the Griffith measure.
Other amendments adopted: An amendment by Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) to increase funding for Obama's civil rights initiative. An amendment by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) to translate the National Park Service's comment website into Spanish. An amendment by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) to boost funding for EPA to protect coasts and estuaries. Post-recess votes
When lawmakers return from their weeklong hiatus, they'll vote on at least four amendments offered by Democrats. Their sponsors requested recorded votes.
Those amendments include one by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) that would boost funding for EPA's inland oil spill programs by $5.4 million, bringing the total for inland spill response up to Obama's full request of $23.4 million.
Capps has proposed to offset the increase by taking funding from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's leasing activities. Citing the May 19 spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Capps called drilling for and transporting oil and gas "a dirty and dangerous business."
"We should not be expanding oil drilling unless we are properly prepared for the spills that will occur," Capps said.
Calvert opposed the amendment, arguing that EPA should be reimbursed for oil spill response activities from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund -- but Congress would need to pass legislation first for that to happen.
The House will vote after the recess on an amendment by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) that would beef up funding for brownfield site reclamation by $1 million. Lawmakers will also vote on an amendment by Northern Mariana Islands Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (I) to provide more funding for U.S. territories and one by Garamendi aimed at combating invasive water species.
So far, Democrats have not offered any amendments that take aim at the most contentious policy riders in the appropriations bill, including a provision that would halt EPA's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) offered an amendment to strip a policy rider that stipulates all biomass energy is carbon-neutral but withdrew the provision.
-
Whitfield Says House Energy Bill to Get Marked Up in July, Floor Action Possible
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Broad energy legislation being crafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee will be released shortly after the Fourth of July congressional recess and marked up by the committee later that month, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, told Bloomberg BNA June 25.
The bill, which could be a vehicle for legislation requiring an expedited federal approval process for liquefied natural gas export projects and cross-border pipelines and electric transmission lines, may be brought to the House floor soon after, Whitifield said.
“We hope to have it on the floor before August break,” Whitfield said.
While negotiations with Democratic members of the committee on specifics of the bill are ongoing, “most of this stuff is agreed to,” Whitfield said.
However, four or five “sticking points” remain, including the repeal of a federal requirement that all new and significantly renovated federal buildings phase out the use of fossil energy sources by 2030, that is supported by trade groups representing Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dominion Resources and Entergy Corp. (see related story).
Other points of contention with Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to Whitfield, include a provision that would block the Energy Department from finalizing residential furnace energy efficiency standards (RIN 1904-AD20), which is estimated to cost $11.6 billion and is opposed by groups representing natural gas distributors.
Negotiations to Intensify
A similar provision was included in a draft version of the legislation and came under heavy opposition from committee Democrats who said it could lead them to withdraw their support for the bill.
Republicans on the committee have said they want to garner Democratic support for the bill and negotiations between minority and majority staffers will continue next week.
“The staffs are in discussion, and the discussion will intensify over the break,” Energy and Power Subcommittee ranking member Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said in an interview. “Up until now, there has been basically a lack of bipartisanship, but now they are in some proactive arrangements to engage with Democrats in discussions, and those negotiations are going on now.”
-
Senate Democrats to Release Bill Outlining Energy Priorities After Break, Cantwell Says
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will release their own version of a broad energy bill to emphasize their caucus's priorities, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) told Bloomberg BNA June 25.
The minority bill comes as negotiations with Republicans intensify over the shape of energy legislation being drafted by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee's chairman.
The bill, to be made public after the Fourth of July congressional recess, will include a focus on clean energy, energy efficiency and modernization of the U.S. electricity grid, Cantwell, who is the committee's ranking member, said.
Cantwell is the author of the Grid Modernization Act of 2015 (S. 1243), which would authorize $1 billion in funding over five years to build the smart grid.
“We want to move forward on a clean energy economy,” Cantwell said.
If enacted, the committee's legislation would be the first broad rewrite of energy policy since 2007. It also could be a vehicle for repealing the 40-year ban on the export of domestic crude oil, expanding offshore drilling and increasing incentives for renewables and energy efficiency.
Murkowski has said she hopes to have the bill, which has yet to be made public and is currently the subject of negotiations between minority and majority staff, marked up and reported out of committee before the August congressional recess.
In addition to releasing a Democratic bill, Cantwell said she plans to release a letter to governors outlining the priorities of Senate Democrats the week of June 29.
-
McCabe Says EPA to Address Interim Goals In ‘Mid-Summer' Clean Power Plan Release
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency still intends to finalize its proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants by “mid-summer” and be responsive to the issues raised in 4.3 million public comments, Janet McCabe, the agency's top air official, said June 25.
In particular, the agency has focused on whether to adjust interim targets for emissions reductions—many states have argued their initial goals were too aggressive—in specific cases, how it treated nuclear power, how reductions achieved through renewable energy and energy efficiency would be counted and the overall timing on the proposal, according to McCabe, acting assistant administrator for air and radiation.
“You'll see that many of those comments have led to changes in the program and that we're responding to all the various issues,” McCabe told the Association of Climate Change Officers Climate Strategies Forum in Washington.
The EPA also has begun work with states on how to implement the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) once finalized, McCabe said. The agency has already begun work on resource materials and training for interested states, she said.
“We want to make sure we are all ready to hit the ground running,” McCabe said.
As proposed, the plan would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. State regulators would determine how best to achieve that target through a combination of heat rate improvements at individual power plants, shifting generation from coal to cleaner natural gas, investing in new renewable energy or through energy efficiency programs.
The EPA recently sent its final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget to begun the typical 90-day interagency review period (106 DEN A-4, 6/3/15).
Not Seen as Climate Panacea
Though the Clean Power Plan represents a vital step in tackling the challenge of climate change because it “reflects actual regulations in the United States that will deliver real reductions,” McCabe said the regulation shouldn't be viewed as the complete solution.
“I don't think the Clean Power Plan was ever advertised as being the answer to this,” McCabe said. “It is the next step—a really important step.”
Beyond the carbon pollution rules for power plants, McCabe said her office plans to issue proposed rules governing methane emission for new or modified oil and natural gas wells “later this summer.”
Along with the rules for new and modified wells, the EPA also will issue Control Techniques Guidelines to states outlining cost-effective technologies for controlling volatile organic compound emissions from existing oil and natural gas systems as part of state plans to comply with new, more stringent air quality standards for ozone. Those controls would be expected to reduce methane emissions as well (10 DEN A-1, 1/15/15).
Congress Seeks to Delay Action
Efforts to move forward with the final rule come as Congress ramps up efforts to block the Clean Power Plan.
The House passed a bill (H.R. 2042) June 24 that would allow states to delay compliance or opt out of the standards entirely, while the Senate could consider its own bill to kill the rule this summer (122 DEN A-17, 6/25/15).
-
EPA Floats 'Short' Supplemental To Proposed Landfill Methane Air Policy
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA's draft proposed rule that it submitted for White House review earlier this week is a supplemental proposal to its previously issued new source performance standards (NSPS) to limit landfill methane, the potent greenhouse gas (GHG), a proposal that one industry source describes as “short” rather than a significant rewrite of the earlier proposal.
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) began review earlier this week of a proposed rule for revising the agency's current NSPS for new landfills, as well as a separate proposal for existing municipal landfills, following its release last year of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for existing facilities.
The NSPS proposal, also issued late last year, would require some municipal landfills to control methane via a gas collection system, and would lower the regulatory trigger to install such a system from 50 megagrams per year to 40.
But it was unclear from OMB's site what EPA had submitted for review as the agency had previously issued, and taken comment on, a proposed NSPS.
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on “any aspects” of a rule undergoing interagency review.
One industry source following rule says the proposal under review is a brief supplement. But the source was unclear what it addresses other than to say it will include changes on which EPA did not seek comment, and that the agency believes it must provide the opportunity for notice-and-comment before finalizing the rule.
“We don't know what it is. EPA has not told us” other than to say it is “short. They didn't re-propose the whole rule so it must just be a single thing or a very small number of changes.”
As far as the existing source proposal, the industry source expects it to “look very similar to the NSPS. So we tend to think that what they'll likely do is regulate existing landfills much in the same way they would regulate a brand new or modified landfill.”
This approach is acceptable, the source says, provided EPA includes additional flexibilities recommended for the NSPS such as removing barriers to early gas collection.
For example, the proposal includes well head standards that industry says conflict with gas collection in the early stages. “We talked to EPA at length and are hopeful our messages were heard,” the source says. “But we won't know until we see the rule.”
The ANPR for existing landfills sought input on whether it should include methane in its update to its current emission guidelines and whether it should change the regulatory framework for existing sources, including altering landfill size thresholds and “lag time” for compliance. It also sought input on specific technologies to reduce methane.
The source is also unclear on the exact timing of the final rules, noting that EPA continues to negotiate with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) -- as part of a legal settlement that required the agency to establish these rules -- on a deadline. However, the source notes that EPA wants to finalize the new and existing source rules at the same time.
In late April, EDF and EPA extended deadlines to comply with the settlement to July 16.
-
Progressive Activist To Lead Sierra Club's Political Operation
Jun 26, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush
The Sierra Club has tapped a veteran progressive activist and former Washington, D.C., City Council candidate to lead its political operation.
Khalid Pitts, a longtime political operative who ran for an at-large D.C. City Council seat last year, has joined the Sierra Club as its national political director, the green group announced today.
"It's an honor to join the Sierra Club's fight for clean air, clean water, clean energy and climate action," Pitts said in a statement. "I look forward to continuing and expanding our political efforts as we fight to tackle the climate crisis and grow our nation's clean energy economy."
Pitts will manage the Sierra Club's political operation at a time when environmental organizations are becoming increasingly active in national politics.
The Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate political action committee and other green groups spent a combined $85 million on the 2014 midterm elections in an effort to elect pro-environment candidates and elevate climate change as a key wedge issue.
Before joining the Sierra Club, Pitts served as an executive board member of the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority, which was established to implement a health care exchange in the District of Columbia under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Pitts also served as the president of USAction, a progressive advocacy group, and as the director of strategic campaigns for the Service Employees International Union. Pitts also served as the Virginia state director of former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt's (D-Mo.) 2004 presidential campaign.
"Khalid wears many hats and brings undeniable talent and a breadth of knowledge to our political program," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "With his skill, experience, and proven record of success, he will lead our effort to mobilize our members and supporters to elect champions for climate action and clean energy in 2016 and beyond."
-
House Could Vote on Bumped Coal Ash Legislation in July, McCarthy Aide Says
Jun 26, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House will “possibly” vote in July on a bill (H.R. 1734) to give states a greater role managing and disposing of coal ash, although no final scheduling decisions have been made yet, Matt Sparks, an aide to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Bloomberg BNA June 25.
McCarthy previously said the House would vote on the legislation from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) the week of June 22, but he removed it from the schedule after adding the $30.2 billion fiscal year 2016 Interior and Environment appropriations bill (H.R. 2822).
Aides to McKinley and the House Energy and Commerce Committee separately expressed optimism that a vote on the legislation would be secured sometime in July.
McKinley's bill would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from ever regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It would also enable states to draft, implement and enforce their own permitting programs for coal ash management and disposal using minimum federal technical requirements set out in an EPA rule finalized in April.
In that final rule, the EPA formally regulated the residue from coal-fired power plants under the nonhazardous waste provisions of RCRA (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302). Those rules will take effect Oct. 14.
The regulation (RIN 2050-AE81) establishes a number of requirements for impoundments and landfills currently receiving the material, including fugitive dust controls, inspections location restrictions and groundwater monitoring, but it contained no federal enforcement mechanism.
Houses Advanced McKinley Bill
House lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Committee advanced McKinley's bill onto the floor for consideration on a 32-19 vote April 15 (73 DEN A-15, 4/16/15)(73 DEN A-15, 4/16/15)(73 DEN A-15, 4/16/15).
State environmental regulators, coal ash recyclers and utilities have all voiced support for McKinley's bill, while environmental advocacy and public health groups have said it will endanger human health and the environment.
-
EPA To Revise Small MS4 General Permit 12 Years After Adverse Ruling
Jun 25, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is moving to revise its Clean Water Act (CWA) general permit program for small municipal stormwater systems almost 12 years after a federal appellate court ordered it to tighten and add new oversight to the program, a delay that prompted environmentalists to file a lawsuit seeking a legally binding deadline for the long-awaited revision.
According to the agency's Action Initiation List (AIL) for April, which was posted online June 15, EPA is moving forward with a rulemaking to revise its "Phase II" stormwater permit for small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). The AIL says the "MS4 General Permit Remand Rule" will bring the policy into compliance with Environmental Defense Center (EDC) v. EPA, a 2003 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
"This action will propose modifications to the regulations for municipal separate sewer systems to address a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand. . . . The provisions that are the subject of the remand include requirements affecting the use of general permits," EPA says in its AIL summary of the rule.
The 9th Circuit in EDC ordered the agency to revise its phase II general permit for small MS4s, which applies to cities with populations under 100,000 as well as small construction sites, including schools and some federal and state facilities, also known as nontraditional MS4s.
It held that because the rule did not subject MS4s' stormwater management plans to public review or approval by state or federal regulators, there was no guarantee that the plans would satisfy the CWA mandate to reduce stormwater pollution to the "maximum extent practicable." Entities must submit the plans, which detail their strategies for controlling stormwater runoff, in order to be covered by the phase II permit.
"In fact, under the Phase II Rule, in order to receive the protection of a general permit, the operator of a small MS4 needs to do nothing more than decide for itself what reduction in discharges would be the maximum practical reduction. No one will review that operator's decision to make sure that it was reasonable, or even good faith," Circuit Judge James R. Browning wrote for the three-judge panel that decided EDC.
EPA pledged in 2009 to overhaul its urban stormwater rules and in 2012, announced that it was considering options for regulating forest road runoff through the phase II program.
But the agency abandoned that rulemaking effort in 2014, and EDC, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed suit in the 9th Circuit Dec. 18 to force agency action. That suit, NRDC, et al., v. EPA, is still pending before the court with EPA's first substantive brief due July 10.
An environmentalist attorney says the agency's announcement that a rule is under development is "a promising sign," even though there has been no announcement on what the new phase II program will require of MS4s.
"The court was pretty clear that a self-regulatory system is impermissible -- there has to be oversight on which pollution control measures a permittee is implementing. There might be different ways of doing that, but the angle seems pretty clear," the source says.
The pending NRDC suit asks the 9th Circuit to set a 6-month timeline for EPA to craft a proposed rule implementing EDC, with final action due in another 6 months.
Since the AIL announcement did not include a timeline for EPA's permit remand rule, the source says environmentalists will likely continue the case in hopes that the court will set a deadline. "Permits are being issued under the old rule . . . it's essential that the rules are fixed in the way that the court required," the source says.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested