Preview Newsletter
ACC July 2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Revolution Accelerates Chemicals Industry
Jul 1, 2015 | The Wall St. Daily
By Tim Maverick
It certainly is a good time for the $800-billion U.S. chemicals industry. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), U.S. chemical production will continue to expand this year and next. The ACC forecast year-over-year output growth of 3.2% for 2015 and 3% for 2016, and foresees even better times ahead. It expects the domestic chemical... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases EDSP Tier 1 Screening Results
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
After years of delay, the US EPA has released the first results for itsndocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP). The results are for tier 1 screening assays for the first 52 chemicals in its endocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP). Tier 1 screening is used to determine if a chemical has the potential to interact with the the endocrine... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Extends Comment Deadline For Nano Reporting Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is extending by 30 days -- from July 6 to Aug. 5 -- the deadline for public comment on its proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule for nanoscale materials, a controversial plan expected to provide data that will guide the agency's future policies on potentially regulating the novel substances. -
(ACC Mentioned) United Airlines Wants To Fuel Jets With Your Leftover Dinner
Jul 2, 2015 | The Huffington Post
By Jenny Che
Your food scraps could soon be powering your next flight. United Airlines announced Tuesday that it is investing $30 million in Fulcrum BioEnergy, a California-based company that converts household waste into renewable jet fuel. That means fuel made from food scraps, farm waste and animal fat will be mixed in with traditional fuel. It marks the first... -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: OSHA Not Doing Enough To Protect Workers From Chemical Hazards
Jul 1, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
A new report blames an "epidemic" of job-related diseases in the U.S. on workplace safety standards that fall far short of protections for the general public. The investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that chemical exposure limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency are up to 1,000 times stronger than those set by the... -
(ACC Mentioned) What Chemicals Are Hiding In Your Mattress?
Jul 1, 2015 | ABC 7 - Eyewitness News
By Jason Knowles
Industry spokespeople say materials used in mattresses pose no risk to consumers, but the ABC7 I- Team found government agencies are re-evaluating the materials in your mattress. You spend one-third of your life on your mattress. But federal law doesn't require manufacturers to list what chemicals may be in it, like boric acid, antimony... -
(ACC Mentioned) Oregon Senators Pass Bill Tracking Toxic Chemicals In Toys
Jul 1, 2015 | Albany Democrat-Herald
By Sheila V Kumar
Oregon senators took steps to regulate toxic chemicals in children's products and toys when they approved legislation Wednesday requiring a state agency to build a list of chemicals, such as arsenic, mercury and formaldehyde, found in items made for kids under the age of 12. Under the bill, companies manufacturing children's... -
Regulate Carbon Dioxide With Chemicals Law, Environmental Group Tells EPA in Petition
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Carbon dioxide should be determined to be a chemical posing an unreasonable risk and regulated under authorities Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act, an environmental group told the agency in a rulemaking petition. “The first-of-its-kind petition under the toxics act seeks... -
Restrictions for 21 Chemicals Eased Under Final EPA Changes to New Use Rules
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Restrictions the Environmental Protection Agency previously imposed on 21 chemicals would officially be lifted to allow uses the agency already has deemed acceptable under a final rule. The EPA eased restrictions include allowing 1-propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, more commonly known as HFO-1234yf (CAS No. 754-12-1), to be used as a refrigerant... -
Oregon Chemicals Of Concern Bill Clears Senate
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Oregon Senate voted 18-11 in favour of the Toxic-Free Kids Act (SB 478), which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, require the registration of products containing listed substances, and call for the phase-out of listed chemicals in certain children's products (CW 4 March 2015). If passed by the House, the legislation will ... -
High-Profile Pesticides Subjected to Testing Cleared by EPA Endocrine Screening Program
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
In a major step forward for its long-running endocrine screening program, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced the names of more than a dozen pesticides it will subject to a higher level of scrutiny to determine their effects on the hormonal system. As part of the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program... -
Chemicals California Adds Substances to List for Biomonitoring
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
California has added the entire class of fluorinated organic chemicals, known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), to the state's list of designated chemicals for its biomonitoring program. Updated June 30, the designated chemicals list is used to select priority substances for biomonitoring studies. -
Wisconsin Becomes Eighth State to Ban Microbeads From Consumer Products
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed legislation July 1 making Wisconsin the eighth state to ban the manufacture and sale of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads found in facial scrubs, body washes, toothpastes and cosmetics. Walker signed Senate Bill 15, which creates new requirements in state environmental statutes... -
Experts Endorse Parma Consensus On ‘Metabolic Disruptors’
Jul 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Over 30, mainly US and Italian, experts have drawn up a consensus statement on environmental chemicals which disrupt metabolism, and are associated with “epidemics” of obesity and metabolic syndrome. The consensus draws its name from a workshop, last year, in the Italian city of Parma, which reviewed the evidence for ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Yuck! Your Favorite Swim Spot Is a Lot Grosser Than You Realize
Jul 1, 2015 | Yahoo! Health
By Cassie Shortsleeve
Water is supposed to purify: Taking a shower, washing your face, and staying properly hydrated promote good hygiene and health. But sometimes water is the one that gets dirty. That’s why since 1972, when The Clean Water Act was passed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated both water pollution and quality standards... -
House Energy Panel To Hold Crude Oil Exports Hearing
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The House Energy and Power subcommittee will hold a July 9 hearing on Rep. Joe Barton’s bill that would lift the U.S. crude oil export ban, a committee spokesman told POLITICO. Witnesses haven’t been finalized, the spokesman said. The hearing on Barton’s bill will come ahead of a likely panel markup the following week on a broader energy package. -
State Issues Toughest-In-The-Nation Fracking Rules
Jul 1, 2015 | LA Times
By Julie Cart
State officials on Wednesday formally adopted new rules governing hydraulic fracturing in California, setting in motion some of the toughest guidelines in the nation for the controversial oil extraction practice. The oil and gas agency also released its environmental impact report that concluded fracking could have “significant and unavoidable impacts”... -
House To Take Up Energy Package In July
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
House lawmakers this month will debate a four-part energy strategy, according to a July floor agenda released today by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Energy and Commerce Republicans in February released a draft outline of an energy package that was intended to appeal to Democrats in part by building off of bipartisan ideas, including... -
SCOTUS Says EPA Must Now Consider Costs. Are Benefits Next?
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Stuart Shapiro
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in Michigan v. EPA that statutory language directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider "appropriate and necessary" factors when regulating power plant mercury emissions included costs to the power plants. The short-term effect of the ruling may be minimal, as power plants have... -
How Can States Respond To EPA's Power Plant Carbon Reduction Goals?
Jul 2, 2015 | The Hill - Contributors
By Deborah D. Stine, contributor, Paul S. Fischbeck, Haibo Zhai and Jeffrey Anderson
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan is built on states proposing mitigation actions in each of the four building blocks pictured below. Once this plan finishes the approval process, expected in August, the challenges with developing a compliance plan and the related political battles will shift to state governments. -
Ceres Backs Administration's Plans For Methane Reductions in Investor Statement
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Robust federal regulations for methane emissions are necessary to ensure business certainty and reduce legal risks for investors, an advocacy sustainability group said in a July 1 investor statement. Ceres, which represents investors with $1.5 trillion in assets, said company-by-company measures to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas... -
Oklahoma Sues to Block EPA Energy Plan as Illegal Power Grab
Jul 2, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Andrew M Harris
Oklahoma sued to block a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plan that state Attorney General Scott Pruitt called an illegal move to close coal-fired plants. “The Clean Power Plan is an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other... -
Oklahoma Sues To Stop Obama’s Climate Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Oklahoma’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Wednesday to stop the Obama administration’s signature proposed climate change regulation. The federal lawsuit from Attorney General Scott Pruitt is comes less than a month after the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out two challenges to the same regulation, saying they... -
EPA Finds 24 States Failed to Submit Transport Plans for Ozone Precursors
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Twenty-four states have failed to submit plans that adequately address emissions of ozone precursors that cross state lines, impairing downwind air quality, the Environmental Protection Agency found. The finding of failure to submit, signed June 30 by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, will trigger a two-year deadline for the agency either... -
IEA: Reducing Oil & Gas Methane Key to Curbing Climate Change
Jul 1, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Drew Nelson
Last Friday, the incoming head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Faith Birol, provided a briefing to U.S. stakeholders about IEA’s new special report on climate change, which found that global emissions could peak by the end of this decade without reducing economic growth. The report outlines five key pillars for turning the emissions... -
Utilities Push Ahead With MACT Suits After High Court's Remand Decision
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Electric utilities have filed new lawsuits over key parts of EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for power plants just as the Supreme Court remanded the rule to a lower court for further review after faulting the agency for not considering costs when it decided to regulate utilities with a MACT. -
More Groups Sue Over MATS Reconsideration
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Four environmental groups challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's rejection of a reconsideration request for the mercury and air toxics standards for power plants (Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1192, 6/29/15). The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Clean Air Council, Downwinders at Risk, and... -
Senate Committees Cry Foul Following EPA Responses to Water Rule Influence Probe
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency has not adequately responded to congressional concerns surrounding its Clean Water Act jurisdiction rulemaking, prompting questions about how it handles information requests from lawmakers, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a letter. Three separate congressional committees have alleged the agency improperly... -
4th Circuit Orders New Hearings In Suit Testing CWA 'Shield' Under RCRA
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is ordering new proceedings in a suit testing when compliance with a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit can “shield” dischargers from separate Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) mandates, an order that will give environmentalists a fresh chance to argue for narrowing the shield. -
Murray Energy Sues Over EPA Water Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
Coal producer Murray Energy has joined the legal battle over EPA’s Waters of the United States jurisdictional rule. Murray filed a lawsuit this week over the rule in federal court in West Virginia, and plans to file a second suit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company. The West Virginia suit claims the rule “expands the... -
Union Pacific Railroad, Scenic Hudson Challenge Crude-by-Rail Rule in D.C. Circuit
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Two more challenges have been filed by a major railroad company and an environmental group against the Transportation Department over its final rule governing movement of crude oil by rail (Scenic Hudson v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01195, 6/30/15; Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. PHMSA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01194, 6/29/15). -
Regulators Seek Faster Pipeline Spill Notifications
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal regulators want operators of pipelines for oil and other materials to notify federal officials within an hour after breaches and leaks. The Wednesday proposal came weeks after an oil pipeline was breached along the Pacific Ocean coast in Santa Barbara County, Calif., leaking over 100,000 gallons into the ocean and coating beaches. -
DOT Moves To Tighten Pipeline Leak Notification Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Department of Transportation proposed a new rule on Wednesday that would force pipeline companies to alert federal emergency responders of oil and gas leaks more quickly. The proposed rule from DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also would require pipeline operators to notify the regulator when... -
Notification, Cost Recovery Requirements Would Be Added in PHMSA Pipe Proposal
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Hazardous liquid and gas pipeline operators would be required to notify certain federal officials of pipeline accidents within one hour—adding for the first time an accident notification deadline—under a proposed rule released July 1. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed rule (RIN 2137-AE94) also would add...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Revolution Accelerates Chemicals Industry
Jul 1, 2015 | The Wall St. Daily
By Tim Maverick
It certainly is a good time for the $800-billion U.S. chemicals industry.
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), U.S. chemical production will continue to expand this year and next. The ACC forecast year-over-year output growth of 3.2% for 2015 and 3% for 2016, and foresees even better times ahead. It expects the domestic chemical industry’s growth to exceed that of the nation as a whole in the years to come.
The ACC sees the industry becoming a growth engine for the economy, forecasting a rise in the 5% range in the 2017-to-2019 period. It also expects record trade surpluses for the industry by 2020.
The chemicals industry owes most of its recent success to one crucial factor. Shale Revolution = Chemical Renaissance
The game-changing innovation of fracking has unlocked reserves trapped in shale formations across the United States. Fracking has released abundant and cheap natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL), such as ethane, which have revived the U.S. chemicals industry.
You see, U.S. companies now enjoy a huge advantage over foreign competitors that use naphtha as a feedstock. Naphtha is derived from crude oil, and is still expensive relative to NGLs.
The shale gas revolution has literally turned the global chemicals industry on its head.
Less than a decade ago, the outlook for producers of domestic bulk chemicals, such as ethylene, was grim, with production capabilities being shipped overseas.
But now, more and more investment in U.S. production capacity is either underway or in various stages of planning. An Investment Catalyst
According to the ACC, 238 U.S. chemicals companies have announced investment projects worth a total of $145 billion.
That’s up from $90 billion in announced projects as of mid-2014.
Capital spending in the industry soared 64% from 2010 to 2014, to $33.4 billion. The ACC expects spending to jump another 37% to $45.8 billion by 2018.
Note that about 61% of the announced investment in U.S. chemicals production is coming from foreign companies.
That’s not to say, however, that U.S. companies are standing on the sidelines.
U.S. companies spending big to ramp up production include Du Pont (DD), Dow Chemical (DOW), Eastman Chemical (EMN), Westlake Chemical (WLK), Celanese (CE), and LyondellBasell Industries (LYB). Major oil companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM) are also boosting their chemicals capacity.
Dow Chemical, for example, is spending $6 billion on expanding its Gulf Coast facilities, including a new “cracker” plant to produce ethylene. This hydrocarbon is a basic building block for other industrial chemicals.
LyondellBasell CEO Bob Patel, who succeeded longtime leader Jim Gallogly in January 2015, recently told the Financial Times that he expects the oil-to-gas price ratio to remain favorable for U.S. companies. And he continues to see the United States as the most favorable location for ethylene production. Positive Reaction
The recent performance of LyondellBasell’s stock indicates that investors can make a lot of money from a well-run chemical company.
LyondellBasell listed on the New York Stock Exchange in October 2010. Since then the share price has nearly quadrupled.
And the company is enjoying strong operating momentum, with management reporting record earnings per share for the first quarter of 2015.
With the shale boom showing few signs of petering out, U.S. chemicals producers are set to benefit from low natural gas and NGLs prices for the foreseeable future.
Are these – dare we say it – the best of times for the industry?
And the chase continues.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases EDSP Tier 1 Screening Results
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
After years of delay, the US EPA has released the first results for itsndocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP).
The results are for tier 1 screening assays for the first 52 chemicals in its endocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP). Tier 1 screening is used to determine if a chemical has the potential to interact with the the endocrine system and requires more testing under tier 2.
The screening tests showed that for 20 of the 52 chemicals there was no evidence for potential interaction with any of the endocrine pathways. Fourteen showed potential to interact with one or more pathways, but the agency has “enough evidence to conclude that they do not pose risks”. All the remaining 18 chemicals showed potential interaction with the thyroid pathway, 17 of them with the androgen pathway and 14 also potentially interacted with the estrogen pathway.
The EPA made clear that a tier 1 test result indicating potential to interact with the endocrine system “should not be construed as meaning that EPA has concluded that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor”.
The agency plans to do tier 2 testing for chemicals that have shown potential to interact with the endocrine system. It is recommending a comparative thyroid assay for four chemicals that showed interaction with the thyroid pathway, in mammals, a medaka one-generation reproductive test for 13 that showed interaction with the estrogen or androgen pathways in wildlife, and a larval amphibian growth and development assay for five chemicals that showed interaction with the thyroid pathway in wildlife. This, it said, would help it "better understand the potential of these chemicals to cause adverse effects through interaction with the endocrine system”.
The EPA also noted that endocrine disruptor screening is just one category of testing it does on chemicals to determine their health and environmental impacts. Substances that did not require further testing in the first EDSP screening could still require other testing as part of the risk assessment done by the EPA.
For Tier 2 testing, the agency will allow four years for data generation and one year for data review (CW 24 February 2014).
The agency recently initiated a consutation on three draft test guidelines for Tier 2. The tests - the Japanese quail two-generation reproduction test, the Medaka fish extended one-generation reproduction test, and the larval amphibian growth and development assay - are designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects, caused by a chemical, and to establish a dose-response relationship (CW 3 February 2015).
Over the years the programme, which was established back in 1999, has been strongly critcised by animal welfare NGOs and by government watchdogs. For example, the EPA's own Office of Inspector General said in 2011it had has made little progress in identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals over the 12 years since the programme was set up (CW 6 May 2011). However, progress has been faster in recent years and recently the agency announced plans to use using automated screening methods to test for endocrine activity in tier 1 - something that will up the rate of testing significantly (CW 23 June 2015)
The American Chemistry Council called the release of the tier 1 weight-of-evidence test results a “significant milestone” in the programme. “The agency’s risk- and exposure-based approach to the EDSP acknowledges that current exposure levels and exposure frequencies are essential elements of risk assessment,” it said. “This methodology provides welcome clarity to the process and will provide EPA with the information needed to make decisions on whether further testing may be needed for the List 1 substances.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Extends Comment Deadline For Nano Reporting Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is extending by 30 days -- from July 6 to Aug. 5 -- the deadline for public comment on its proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule for nanoscale materials, a controversial plan expected to provide data that will guide the agency's future policies on potentially regulating the novel substances.
The agency announced the extension in a notice slated for publication in the July 2 Federal Register, saying a commenter on the proposed rule had asked for more time to provide input.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Environmental Defense Fund, in separate requests, sought a 30-day extension of the deadline to allow for further review of the complex proposal.
ACC has already urged EPA to scrap and re-propose the rule, saying the existing proposal is unclear on which substances must be reported and arguing that certain requirements lack sufficient scientific backing.
The proposal released April 6 would impose reporting and record-keeping requirements on manufacturers and processors of nanomaterials, substances EPA has long wrestled with how to regulate given their novel properties, which advance technology, may also pose risks to human health or the environment.
The proposal would require a one-time data submission to EPA six months after issuance of the final rule. EPA is also proposing that any company that intends to manufacture a substance that would have been subject to the one-off rule but does not do so until after the effective date of the regulation would have to report to EPA at least 135 days before commencing manufacturing.
During a June 11 public meeting at EPA headquarters, ACC officials argued the proposed rule is unclear on which substances must be reported and that certain requirements lack sufficient scientific backing. The industry coalition also said the provision for notifying EPA in advance of future manufacturing risks stigmatizing nanomaterials as a class, which the agency has said it does not intend.
-
(ACC Mentioned) United Airlines Wants To Fuel Jets With Your Leftover Dinner
Jul 2, 2015 | The Huffington Post
By Jenny Che
Your food scraps could soon be powering your next flight.
United Airlines announced Tuesday that it is investing $30 million in Fulcrum BioEnergy, a California-based company that converts household waste into renewable jet fuel. That means fuel made from food scraps, farm waste and animal fat will be mixed in with traditional fuel. It marks the first time that an American airline will run passenger flights on this technology, The New York Times reports.
The environmental benefits could be huge: Fulcrum anticipates its alternative fuel can reduce an airline's greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent. And it believes it can do this while remaining competitive with traditional fuel companies: CEO E. James Macias told the Times its biofuel could cost "a lot less than" $1 a gallon.
The carbon footprint of flying is pretty serious: Airlines are responsible for around 3 percent of the country's total CO2 emissions. When that's broken down more, it means a round-trip flight from New York to San Francisco produces about 3 tons of CO2 per person. Americans also generate on average nearly double the amount of CO2 that Europeans do.
Food waste is also a major problem, and it's getting worse. The American Chemistry Council recently found that each American household throws away $640 worth of food each year. And food represents one-fifth of landfill waste and contributes significantly to methane, a greenhouse gas, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
An EPA finding last month concluded that airlines' emissions posed a significant health risk, and by 2016 the Obama administration may adopt environmental standards outlined by the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization, Reuters reports. Still, the requirement is likely to only apply to planes certified in and after 2020.
United first invested in greener fuel two years ago, when it made a deal with AltAir Fuels to buy 15 million gallons of the producer's biofuels, made from nonedible natural oils and farm waste, over a period of three years.
Around five flights between Los Angeles and San Francisco will run on AltAir biofuel every day, starting later this summer. After two weeks, the fuel will become part of the airline’s general supply. United expects to receive Fulcrum biofuel as early as 2018, spokeswoman Mary Ryan told The Huffington Post.
United and Fulcrum also plan to run up to five locations near United's airport hubs that could produce as much as 180 million gallons of fuel a year.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: OSHA Not Doing Enough To Protect Workers From Chemical Hazards
Jul 1, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
A new report blames an "epidemic" of job-related diseases in the U.S. on workplace safety standards that fall far short of protections for the general public.
The investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that chemical exposure limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency are up to 1,000 times stronger than those set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
In addition, only 470 of the estimated 84,000 chemicals used in U.S. workplaces received OSHA evaluations at all, and agency officials conceded that many of those restrictions are outdated and insufficient.
“With a few exceptions, OSHA’s standards to protect workers from chemical exposures are weak and out of date, or simply non-existent,” OSHA chief David Michaels told CPI.
The agency blames work-related diseases for 50,000 annual deaths and 190,000 illnesses each year. A study by the University of California-Davis put the totals considerably higher; 2007 estimates showed 53,000 deaths and 400,000 illnesses.
Although OSHA acknowledged the problems with current workplace standards, officials said changes remained extremely difficult.
Congress has yet to update the 1970 law that created the agency and the White House's budget office rarely moves forward with the complex process of enacting rules changes.
“It takes many years and millions of dollars in studies to issue one standard, and that’s why we’ve got only a few dozen standards" Michaels said.
Meanwhile, industry groups frequently oppose federal efforts to alter business regulations.
The American Foundry Society, American Chemistry Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce each testified against proposed rules for silica exposure that threatens millions of construction workers.
The foundry group said the rule, first proposed in 2011 and cleared by the White House in 2013, would account for 10 percent of industry revenue and “threaten the viability of foundries across the country.”
Labor Department officials nonetheless expect to publish a final rule on silica by the end of the Obama administration, CPI reported, but the proposal could still run into hiccups in Congress or the courts. -
(ACC Mentioned) What Chemicals Are Hiding In Your Mattress?
Jul 1, 2015 | ABC 7 - Eyewitness News
By Jason Knowles
Industry spokespeople say materials used in mattresses pose no risk to consumers, but the ABC7 I- Team found government agencies are re-evaluating the materials in your mattress.
You spend one-third of your life on your mattress. But federal law doesn't require manufacturers to list what chemicals may be in it, like boric acid, antimony and polyurethane foam. Some are used to hold the mattress together, others could be used to help repel fire.
Law does not require chemical flame retardants be used in mattresses, however, they must withstand rigorous, open flame testing. Most mattresses use a barrier of special fibers - some may be reinforced with chemicals.
"There are about 80,000 chemicals being used in products we use in chemicals every day," said Sen. Dick Durbin.
Durbin is studying a bill that could limit the chemicals used in furniture and mattresses - it's a revamp of a 1976 law critics call ineffective. Companies are currently not required to prove a chemical's safety or impact on health.
"Whether it is your pillow or mattress, there are some basic questions that should be answered - just how clean is it? How safe is it? And some of the chemicals that are supposed to keep us safe, in fact, just may do the opposite," Durbin said.
Spokespeople from the International Sleep Products Association say a 2006 analysis done by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found flame retardant barriers and chemicals used in mattresses were "...not expected to present any appreciable risk of health effects to consumers..."
"Our objective here is to produce a product that will give consumers a safe and restful night sleep and we want to work with the agency to make sure that happens," said Ryan Trainer, International Sleep Products Association.
The president of the ISPA says the industry supports "toxic reform" but also maintains that current materials are safe.
ABC7's Jason Knowles: "Are there too many chemicals in mattresses?"
"Well I am not in a position, I am not a chemist, but the world is full of chemicals, water is a chemical," Trainer said.
But the National Institutes of Health tells the I-Team it is doing research on chemicals in mattresses and furniture. The Consumer Product Safety Commission also says it's studying potential effects. Even now, the CPSC says it strongly discourages the use of all chemical flame retardants, which the organization says have been found to be ineffective.
The American Chemistry Council says all chemicals are safe - subject to review by the EPA and they "... are used in products that help make modern life possible... " and that they "...can stop or delay the spread of fire and help save lives..."
Tim Masters says his 8-year-old daughter Emily had eczema and allergies, so he started making organic mattresses at his mattress store in west suburban LaGrange.
"What we are building here is a pocketed-coil spring mattress with organic cotton," said Masters, of My Green Mattress.
"I really had a lot of allergies and I had a hard time but once I got the mattress, I felt a lot better," said Masters' daughter.
Masters says with the right type of stitching, he can create a naturally fire retardant mattress without any chemicals.
"Now we use a lot of natural wool in a lot of our products. Wool is a natural fire barrier. Years ago firemen's coats were made out of wool. It's a nice natural alternative," Masters said.
California leads the nation in laws that discourage manufacturers from using flame retardant chemicals and requiring manufacturers to include labels listing chemicals - but that does not include mattresses, only other furniture which uses a different flame retardant process.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission says it's currently is conducting a mattress-specific research project. -
(ACC Mentioned) Oregon Senators Pass Bill Tracking Toxic Chemicals In Toys
Jul 1, 2015 | Albany Democrat-Herald
By Sheila V Kumar
Oregon senators took steps to regulate toxic chemicals in children's products and toys when they approved legislation Wednesday requiring a state agency to build a list of chemicals, such as arsenic, mercury and formaldehyde, found in items made for kids under the age of 12.
Under the bill, companies manufacturing children's toys and products, such as pacifiers, clothes and car seats, would have to inform the Oregon Health Authority they're made with ingredients that fall on the "list of high priority chemicals." Some large manufacturers could have to phase out those chemicals from their products after six years.
Lawmakers have been trying to pass legislation monitoring chemicals in children's products for years, and a similar measure was shelved in 2013 by senators after it passed the House. That bill would have set up a database to track the use of 19 chemicals shown to be harmful to children and phased them out after five years.
The bill is modeled after a 2008 Washington law requiring manufacturers of children's products to report whether their items contained harmful chemicals.
Supporters of the proposal, which include environmental groups, the Oregon Nurses Association and the Oregon Medical Association, have been arguing it will protect children from being exposed to harmful chemicals linked to developmental disorders and illnesses.
"For those of us that have experienced development disabilities in our life and have children affected by conditions like autism, we know that a lot of these chemicals are neurotoxic," said Eugene Democrat Sen. Chris Edwards, whose son has autism.
But opponents argued the bill was overreaching and oversight should happen at the federal level. Oregon's bill has also drawn pushback from industry groups, such as the American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association who say regulation should come from federal authorities.
"Government is supposed to do certain things. But government isn't supposed to control every facet of everyone's life. And this is a step in that direction," said Sen. Jeff Kruse, a Roseburg Republican.
Congress is considering reforming the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates more than 80,000 chemicals that have been introduced on the market and are used in products ranging from cellphones to water bottles.
In June, the U.S. House approved a bipartisan bill updating the safety standards for tens of thousands of chemicals that are currently unregulated. A similar version is also in the U.S. Senate, but lawmakers are grappling with language that allows both strong state regulations of dangerous chemicals while avoiding a different set of rules in each state.
Senators cleared the bill in an 18-11 vote. It now heads to the House.
-
Regulate Carbon Dioxide With Chemicals Law, Environmental Group Tells EPA in Petition
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Carbon dioxide should be determined to be a chemical posing an unreasonable risk and regulated under authorities Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act, an environmental group told the agency in a rulemaking petition.
“The first-of-its-kind petition under the toxics act seeks widespread reduction of CO2 because it contributes to ocean acidification, driving the destruction of coral reefs and threatening nearly every form of sea life, from tiny plankton to fish, whales and sea otters,” the Center for Biological Diversity said in announcing the petition it filed under Section 21 of TSCA.
The EPA is required to reply to Section 21 petitions within 90 days.
The center's petition asked the EPA to ban, restrict or require emissions and other testing of carbon dioxide because the ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide emissions poses a severe threat, and thus unreasonable risk, to the marine environment and the health of people who depend on oceans and coasts. Under TSCA, chemicals in commerce should not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
Carbon dioxide is primarily a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, but the chemical meets TSCA's definition of a chemical in commerce, the center's petition said.
Energy suppliers, agricultural production, wastewater treatment and other industrial sectors generate carbon dioxide as part of their commercial efforts to stay competitive, the center said.
“Therefore, incidental production of CO2 is manufactured or produced ‘for a commercial purpose,’ and is found ‘in commerce’ pursuant to TSCA regulations,” the center said.
The petition detailed marine ecosystem damage it said results from ocean acidification and said those harms warrant a ban or restriction of carbon dioxide or at least a rule requiring companies to gather additional emissions and other data.
-
Restrictions for 21 Chemicals Eased Under Final EPA Changes to New Use Rules
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Restrictions the Environmental Protection Agency previously imposed on 21 chemicals would officially be lifted to allow uses the agency already has deemed acceptable under a final rule.
The EPA eased restrictions include allowing 1-propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, more commonly known as HFO-1234yf (CAS No. 754-12-1), to be used as a refrigerant in stationary equipment as well as motor vehicle air conditioning systems for new passenger cars and vehicles, which already was permitted.
DuPont, Honeywell International Inc. and Ingersoll Rand encouraged the EPA to allow HFO-1234yf to be used in stationary equipment such as retail food, cold storage, transport, and industrial refrigeration units; commercial refrigeration; ice machines, and refrigerated vending machines.
“HFO-1234yf has a low-[Global Warming Potential], breaks down quickly in the environment, and is less hazardous overall than substances currently used in two stationary applications,” Honeywell wrote in comments submitted on the proposed rule the EPA issued in April.
Michael Parr, DuPont's North American regulatory advocacy manager, wrote: “The more quickly this proposed [rule] modification is finalized and published the more quickly those environmental benefits will be realized.”
The EPA announced its intent to lift these restrictions through a proposed rule (RIN 2070-AB27) that would have covered 24 chemicals that it issued April 9 (68 DEN A-14, 4/9/15; 80 Fed. Reg. 19,037).
Separate Action Will Address Three Chemicals
The agency's final rule said, due to public comments, it will address through a separate action the three chemicals not included in the final rule. Those three are:
• oxirane, 2,2′-(1,6-hexanediylbis(oxymethylene))bis-, CAS No. 16096-31-4, which is used in coatings and to dilute other chemicals;
• titanate [Ti6O13 (2-)], dipotassium, CAS No. 12056-51-8, which the proposed rule said is a “friction material;”
• partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols, four related chemicals used as surface active agents, which the proposed rule identified through a generic name without a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number.
The agency's final rule modifies significant new use rules (SNURs) that the agency has issued over many years. SNURs restrict new uses of chemicals to allow the agency to oversee the proposed applications and ensure the new use would not pose an unreasonable risk.
The agency's modifications allow any chemical manufacturer or processor to use the 21 chemicals in ways the EPA has reviewed and approved for specific companies who sought the EPA's approval by filing significant new use notifications (SNUNs).
The final rules are effective Aug. 31.
-
Oregon Chemicals Of Concern Bill Clears Senate
Jul 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Oregon Senate voted 18-11 in favour of the Toxic-Free Kids Act (SB 478), which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, require the registration of products containing listed substances, and call for the phase-out of listed chemicals in certain children's products (CW 4 March 2015).
If passed by the House, the legislation will establish an Oregon list of “high priority chemicals of concern for children's health.” This would mirror Washington state's list of 66 chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC), which includes known or suspected developmental and reproductive toxicants, endocrine disrupting chemicals, and carcinogens.
Several substance types represented on the list include: Flame retardants;Phthalates;Parabens; andSolvents.
Manufacturers of children's products would be required to submit biennial reports to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) or to the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse, detailing the function and volume of listed chemicals present in each product sold into the state. Contaminents, such as unintended chemical by-products or trace impurities, present at concentrations of 100ppm or more must also be reported.
Reported data would be available to the public on a website housed by the OHA.
The scope of the bill encompasses products made for or marketed to children under the age of the 12, and includes: toys;children's jewellery, footwear, and apparel;car seats; andchildren's cosmetics.
Unlike the Washington Children's Safe Products Act (CPSA), the Oregon legislation would go beyond reporting requirements. Manufacturers would be required to remove or replace any listed chemical on or before the third biennial reporting in those products that are “mouthable,” applied to the skin, or manufactured for use by children under the age of three.
Under the proposed legislation, a manufacturer may apply for a waiver from the phase-out mandates if they can show through an alternatives assessment that removal of the chemical is not technically or financially feasible, or if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the chemical is not reasonably anticipated to result in exposure given its use in the product.
The bill received its first reading in the House on 1 July.
Oregon took up similar measures in 2013 (CW 11 July 2013) and in 2014 (CW 7 February 2014), that both failed in the Senate.
-
High-Profile Pesticides Subjected to Testing Cleared by EPA Endocrine Screening Program
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
In a major step forward for its long-running endocrine screening program, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced the names of more than a dozen pesticides it will subject to a higher level of scrutiny to determine their effects on the hormonal system.
As part of the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, the agency subjected 52 pesticides to extensive chemical testing over the course of several years to determine whether they could potentially have an effect on the estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormonal pathways of humans and animals.
The EPA released the results of this Tier 1 testing regimen on June 30. Agency scientists found that the majority of these 52 pesticides either do not have the potential for interacting with the endocrine system or only affect it in an insignificant way.
These pesticides will not be subject to any further screening through the EDSP. They include blockbuster chemical properties such as:
• glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's weedkiller Roundup,
• 2,4-D, one of the active ingredients in Dow AgroSciences's new weedkiller Enlist Duo,
• imidacloprid, a widely used neonicotinoid insecticide developed by Bayer CropScience and
• atrazine, the second most widely used pesticide on the market, behind glyphosate.
More Screening for Some
However, the EPA found that 18 of the 52 pesticides could have some effect on the endocrine system.
These pesticides will move into Tier 2 of the EDSP, in which scientists will try to determine not just whether they could affect the endocrine system but also how.
The 18 pesticides that will enter into Tier 2 screening include several niche chemicals, such as:
• carbaryl,
• propiconazole and
• chlorothalonil.
These three pesticides, among others moving on to Tier 2, are used in products produced by some of largest pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, DuPont, BASF and others.
The manufacturers of these pesticides are responsible for the costs of any EDSP screening. Some Tier 2 tests can cost upwards of $500,000 each, according to Ellen Mihaich, scientific coordinator of the Endocrine Policy Forum, a consortium of the companies whose products are involved in the EDSP.
The Tier 1 screening of these 18 pesticides identified specific hazards they might impose on the endocrine systems of fish and amphibians. The discovery of hormonally imbalanced aquatic life in the 1990s was one of the original factors that led Congress to pass laws that required the EPA to establish the EDSP.
-
Chemicals California Adds Substances to List for Biomonitoring
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
California has added the entire class of fluorinated organic chemicals, known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), to the state's list of designated chemicals for its biomonitoring program. Updated June 30, the designated chemicals list is used to select priority substances for biomonitoring studies. A scientific advisory panel for the program, called Biomonitoring California, recommended adding PFASs to the list in March, in part because a large number of the substances are being used to replace perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The list already included several PFASs, but others not on the list have been identified in biomonitoring studies, according to California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment documents. PFASs are used to make textiles, carpets and leather more resistant to water, dirt and grease; to create grease- and water-proof coatings on paper plates and pizza boxes; in chrome plating; and in firefighting foams. More information is needed about the exposure risks of PFASs, OEHHA said. Including the entire class of PFASs on the list allows the state to track levels of the chemicals in California residents over time, OEHHA said. Biomonitoring California's updated list of designated chemicals is available at http://biomonitoring.ca.gov/chemicals/designated-chemicals. OEHHA's document on PFASs is available at http://biomonitoring.ca.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/PotenDesigPFASs_031315.pdf.
-
Wisconsin Becomes Eighth State to Ban Microbeads From Consumer Products
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed legislation July 1 making Wisconsin the eighth state to ban the manufacture and sale of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads found in facial scrubs, body washes, toothpastes and cosmetics.
Walker signed Senate Bill 15, which creates new requirements in state environmental statutes for the elimination of synthetic microbeads in consumer products. The law bars the manufacture of personal care products containing synthetic microbeads, effective Dec. 31, 2017, and bans the sale of personal care products containing synthetic microbeads, effective Dec. 31, 2018.
S.B. 15 creates a slightly different phase-out schedule for over-the-counter drugs. The law prohibits the manufacture of over-the-counter drugs containing microbeads beginning Dec. 31, 2018, and the sale of such products beginning Dec. 31, 2019. The new law imposes no restrictions on the manufacture or sale of prescription drugs containing microbeads.
Beads May Harm Aquatic Life
The environmental advocacy group Clean Wisconsin applauded the new law. The group noted that Wisconsin annually contributes 10,000 pounds of microbead pollution to regional waterways.
Microbeads may pass through filters of wastewater treatment plants into streams and rivers where they are ingested by fish and other aquatic life. They also may absorb toxic pollutants that can bioaccumulate in aquatic life.
The Wisconsin phaseout of such beads follows similar actions by seven other states—Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana and Maryland. A day before Walker's action, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy (D) signed legislation June 30 to phase out use of microbeads in personal care products and over-the-counter drugs (see related story).
“Clean Wisconsin is proud to be part of this important movement,” Amber Meyer Smith, director of governmental relations for Clean Wisconsin, said in a statement. “Reducing microplastic pollution in our waterways not only protects our beloved waters, but our wildlife, our drinking water and the health of our families. We hope that more states will soon follow suit and pass laws addressing microplastics.”
Manufacturers Removing Beads
While bans on synthetic microbeads continue to gain traction in state legislatures, a growing number of soap and beauty product manufacturers are voluntarily removing such abrasives from their products.
According to the advocacy group Plastic Free Seas, Unilever PLC, The Body Shop, Johnson & Johnson, Beiersdorf, L'Oreal and Procter & Gamble have all agreed to discontinue their use of microbeads within a few years.
State Sen. Robert Cowles (R), who co-authored the bill, said Wisconsin is “one step closer to removing small plastic contaminants from Wisconsin's lakes and rivers. This bipartisan legislation, backed by industry and conservation groups in the state, takes necessary measures to reduce and eventually eliminate microbeads from being released into the environment.”
-
Experts Endorse Parma Consensus On ‘Metabolic Disruptors’
Jul 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Over 30, mainly US and Italian, experts have drawn up a consensus statement on environmental chemicals which disrupt metabolism, and are associated with “epidemics” of obesity and metabolic syndrome.
The consensus draws its name from a workshop, last year, in the Italian city of Parma, which reviewed the evidence for environmental chemicals in causing obesity, diabetes and other disorders, and sought to identify knowledge gaps for future research.
The ensuing “Parma statement” was recently published in the journal Environmental Health, with Jerry Heindel of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) as lead author. Other well-known signatories include Frederick vom Saal and Christopher Kassotis, both from the biology department of the University of Missouri, and Susan Nagel from the university’s department of obstetrics.
The statement says there has been a global increase in obesity, diabetes and metabolic diseases over the past four decades, and since there has been no major genetic change, this must be due to “multifactorial” environmental components which include drugs, stress, nutrition and chemical exposures, and not solely overeating, lack of exercise and poor nutrition.
The “metabolic disruptor hypothesis” has a central position in the statement. It says that environmental chemicals can act during sensitive time periods to control fat tissue development, and altering food intake and metabolism through many organ systems.
Obesity and metabolic syndrome are endocrine diseases, the statement says, which are sensitive to environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals. And susceptibility is partly pre-programmed in utero and in early life through exposure to environmental factors, including chemicals.
Development in utero and the first few years of life are the most sensitive windows for metabolic disruption, the statement affirms. Existing data also confirm that effects of metabolic disruptors will be difficult to detect at the individual level, due to variability, and they differ depending on routes of exposure and dose. There may also be non-monotonic responses to doses of disruptors.
These observations are reflected in the statement’s suggestions on future research strategies. These should focus on identifying adverse outcome pathways, windows of susceptibility, defining the role of chemicals in diabetes and assessing epigenetic markers underlying altered developmental programming of metabolism in animals and humans, it says.
Giving his personal view, Alan Poole, secretary general of the European Centre for the Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (Ecetoc), said he agreed it is necessary to identify a plausible “mode of action/adverse outcome pathway” describing how an environmental agent might produce, for example, obesity. Only then will it be possible to test it experimentally.
Epigenetics is a relatively new science, he said. “I believe I am safe in saying no one has described an adverse epigenetic event. The current position is that epigenetic change is a mode of action that might or might not result in an adverse health outcome. Current safety testing protocols will detect an adverse health outcome, whether it is caused by epigenetics or some other mode of action. However, epigenetic measurements together with other new technologies do provide the potential to predict adverse health outcomes and, thus, possibly save unnecessary animal testing.”
The NIEHS is currently funding 57 studies into chemical exposures affecting obesity and diabetes (CW 17 March 2015).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Yuck! Your Favorite Swim Spot Is a Lot Grosser Than You Realize
Jul 1, 2015 | Yahoo! Health
By Cassie Shortsleeve
Water is supposed to purify: Taking a shower, washing your face, and staying properly hydrated promote good hygiene and health. But sometimes water is the one that gets dirty. That’s why since 1972, when The Clean Water Act was passed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated both water pollution and quality standards in an attempt to keep our H2O clean.
And since summer is prime time for swimming, you may be wondering just exactly how clean the water you jump in really is. To fully understand that, you need to understand how water pollution is gauged — and how dangerous it is.
The effects of swimming in polluted water can range from mild to severe depending on the toxin or pathogen, the length of exposure, and concentration of pollutant, Rachel Silverstein, PhD, Executive Director and Waterkeeper of Miami Waterkeeper, tells Yahoo Health. You could get sick from ingesting dirty water, getting it in your eyes, or by simply letting it come into contact with your skin.
“Illness could include symptoms such as intestinal upset, infections, respiratory issues, rashes, flu-like symptoms, and in some extreme cases, death,” Silverstein says. The best thing to do? Avoid polluted water — and especially if you have open cuts or sores, she says. (But if you do think you’ve come into contact with contaminated water, rinse it off with soap and clean water and take a proper shower as soon as you can. And make sure to see a doctor if you start to feel sick.)
Understanding the Different Types of Pollution
Water pollution is broken up into two categories: point and nonpoint pollution, Monica Lee, a spokesperson for the EPA, explains to Yahoo Health. Think of point sources as single sources like pipes or ditches going directly into the water.
Meanwhile, nonpoint pollution comes from sources like rainfall or snowmelt, she says. “As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even underground sources of drinking water.”
Sources of nonpoint pollution can be harder to track — and thus, even more damaging to our water sources. The main threats to our water are fertilizer runoff (i.e. golf courses), farms (fertilizer, manure, pesticides, bacteria), energy-producing industries (i.e. coal or nuclear plants), chemical inputs from industry, stormwater (fuel, oil, feces), septic tanks, and sewage spills, among others, says Silverstein. Sewage and other fertilizer pollution can also lead to toxic algae blooms and may promote growth of pathogens (bacteria and viruses) in ponds, lakes, oceans, and rivers, she says.
When a body of water is considered clean, it’s not just absent of these pollutants — it also has an intact ecosystem that can deal with low levels of pollution through “absorption by plants and filtration through sandy bottoms or porous rock,” she says. “Wetlands can reduce nutrient pollution from sewage or fertilizer runoff, too, since aquatic plants absorb the nutrients as they grow, thereby cleaning the water.” That’s why in places like Arizona, wetlands are used in conjunction with industrial sewage treatments to help clean the water naturally and provide habitat for wildlife.
There’s no hard and fast rule as to which bodies of water are better or worse when it comes to pollution. It’s all very site-specific, Steve Fleischli, the Water Program Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), tells Yahoo Health. Some states also do a better job than others at posting about dirty beaches, closing bodies of water, and collecting samples. The NRDC’s annual Testing the Water Report keeps track of where states rank in terms of contamination, how often they close contaminated beaches, and how much they prioritize water testing. (See how your state stacks up here.)
But considering location, size, and pollution sources can help you understand what could be going on in your local watering hole.
How Dirty Are Oceans?
Runoff — particularly from urban or agricultural areas — is one of the biggest sources of pollution of oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. When it rains, pollution from city streets or agricultural areas can make its way toward the water. So if there are no large agriculture sources or urban outputs near the area, you’re more likely to see clean water in nearby rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Of course, there are exceptions. Take Venice Beach in California. Fleischli says it’s a fairly clean beach even though it’s in an urban area. That could be because the area of land that drains to this beach is small. (The larger the area that drains to a beach, the dirtier it is.)
Sewage overflows — either from aging systems, leaking pipes, or malfunctioning plants or pumps — can also pollute ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches. A malfunctioning wastewater plant “can quickly spill millions of gallons of partially treated sewage into coastal waters and result in no-swimming advisories along miles of beaches,” according to the NRDC.
The size of a body of water can also be a factor in how polluted it is, particularly when it comes to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) — the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. Larger bodies of water can have higher amounts of contaminants and still meet water quality standards since the pollutant isn’t as concentrated, though some larger bodies of water (like oceans) also circulate and dilute pollution more, says Fleischli.
But better circulation is not a solution: “’Dilution is the solution to pollution’ used to be the saying. But that is very wrong. Keeping pollution away is answer,” Fleischli says. After all, even given size and circulating ability, scientists are seeing pollution issues in oceans on the rise, as oceans lose their ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution, Silverstein says.
How Dirty Are Rivers?
Agricultural pollution affects nearly 40 percent of the country’s tainted rivers and streams. Again, the idea comes back to ecosystems — and some small or stagnant bodies of water with intact ecosystems may absorb pollution better, and be cleaner as a result, than fast-moving rivers near industrial areas, says Silverstein.
The 2008/2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment found that 40 percent of rivers and streams had too-high levels of phosphorus and 28 percent or more had excess levels of nitrogen, she says. Excess phosphorus and nitrogen can signal nutrient pollution — which can cause algae to grow faster than a body of water can handle, thus harming water quality and ecosystems. This can also wind up cutting the amount of oxygen in the water, which fish need to survive.
How Dirty Are Lakes and Ponds?
While it’s hard to generalize, areas that are more sheltered or where water doesn’t move quite as much — like the Great Lakes — are more prone to elevated levels of pathogens, Jon Devine, senior attorney with the NRDC’s water team, tells Yahoo Health. “Areas located near discharges — like stormwater outfalls — are more likely to have problems, too,” he adds.
The NRDC states that “combined sewer systems, concentrated in the Great Lakes region and the northeastern United States, carry both raw sewage from homes and businesses and stormwater runoff from streets to sewage treatment plants.” Usually, that’s OK. But when rainstorms hit, combined wastewater can become too much for a treatment plant to handle. So the excess flow — which includes raw sewage, toxic industrial waste, and trash — is discharged from outfall points and into the most nearby stream or coastal waterway. This excess flow (called combined sewer overflow is a “major cause of pathogen contamination in marine and Great Lakes waters,” the NRDC says. Warmer temps in these regions can also lead to green algae called Cladophora. In a worst-case scenario, this algae can become breeding grounds for E. coli.
How to Spot Dirty Water
Figuring out if a body of water is clean or not isn’t as easy as seeing how clear it is. Silverstein says the Colorado River, for example, is supposed to be murky. That’s because some bodies of water naturally have more suspended sediments (or sand) in the water due the natural geology or ecology of the region, she says. That doesn’t mean that it’s “dirty” in terms of pollution or impacts to human health. Plus, Fleischli says that he’s seen beaches he was convinced were contaminated, but actually weren’t. Here’s what to look out for to properly ID polluted water:Look for signs. “Maybe the best sign is literally a sign,” says Fleischli. “A lot of beaches will post signs that say ‘No Swimming,’ or state that the water is contaminated. It sounds pretty simple, but if you see a sign telling you not to swim, don’t swim.”Take note of the boats. Boats can be a sign of pollution because of the inputs coming into the water, says Fleischli. “Some harbors are fairly dirty,” he says, adding that the fix could be as simple as driving a little further out to a more remote area. One boat is not a big deal, but harbors tend to have lots of boats that reside there on a permanent basis, he says. “It is the bathroom waste on those boats that might leak or that might get pumped into the water, rather than properly being disposed of, that’s the concern.” Wait the rain out. “Rain is going to wash pollutants and urban slobber down and can cause sewer overflow,” says Fleischli, who suggests waiting three days post-rainstorm to swim in an ocean, lake, or pond if large drains are nearby. Analyze beach names. Ever see beaches with names like Mother’s Beach or Kiddie Beach? These names usually hint at stagnant water and no waves, which can create a stagnant environment for pollution to sit, Fleischli says.Be in the know. Heal the Bay, a West Coast non-profit environmental group, has a rating system and daily beach reports for West Coast beaches; the Waterkeeper Alliance Swim Guide App provides the latest water quality information for East Coast beaches; and the Testing the Waters Report offers a deep history of pollution at thousands of beaches, including the Great Lakes. Look for drains. “Never go swimming in front of a sewer outfall or a pipe draining into water,” says Fleischli. Raw sewage can leak out of these pipes when it’s raining. One Heal the Bay study found that you’re safer 100 yards from a flowing drain than swimming right in front of it. Sniff around. “Your first indication of polluted water might be a bad smell,” says Silverstein. “I’ve been swimming in bodies of water that have smelled of sewage and you know right away that something is wrong.” She adds that bad algae blooms can smell, too. Some kinds might be natural, but a bad smell can be a sign of unhealthy growth.
What About Swimming Pools?
Since pools are packed with chlorine, they have to be clean, right? Not so fast. A 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found about one out of every eight public pool inspections conducted in 13 states resulted in pools being closed immediately due to serious code violations, including no measureable disinfectant, says Mary Ostrowski, Senior Director of Chlorine Issues at the American Chemistry Council, a trade association.
But your pool isn’t doomed for dirtiness. “Unlike ocean, lake, or pond water, pool water quality can be controlled rather directly,” Ostrowski tells Yahoo Health.
Good pool water quality is determined by two things: proper pool chemistry management and good hygiene, she says. Think you couldn’t possibly be contributing to a pool’s pollution? Know this: “On average, 0.14 grams of feces are washed off the skin of each swimmer who enters a pool,” says Ostrowski. That’s not just gross — it’s dangerous, considering fecal matter contains pathogens. Most of the time, disinfectants help destroy them (including Shigella, E. coli, viruses such as norovirus, and the protozoan Cryptosporidium) — but improperly chlorinated water puts you at risk for diarrhea and ear and skin infections, Ostrowski says.
Make sure you shower before getting into the pool to reduce your part in the pollution. And rather than worry about pathogens (a well-maintained pool will destroy them), check for the signs of a healthy pool, says Ostrowski. If it’s your pool, use test strips to check water pH and chlorine levels. If you’re somewhere public? Follow these guidelines:Look for clear. You should be able to see clearly through the water to the floor of the pool.Listen for pumps. If you’re near the mechanical room, you should be able to hear the pool pumps operating to circulate the pool water, says Ostrowski. “For larger pools, pumps might not be as audible. In that case, you should be able to feel water being pumped into the pool in various locations, especially near the bottom.”Chemical smells = no good. “A properly maintained pool should have no harsh chemical odor,” she says. While you may attribute a strong smell to chlorine, it’s usually the smell of substances called chloramines, which can irritate your eyes and skin, Ostrowski says. “Chloramines form when chlorine combines with impurities like perspiration and urine.” It gets worse, too: Chloramine depletes chlorine that could otherwise be working to destroy germs, she says.Slime is bad. The tiles on the sides of a pool should feel smooth and clean, not slimey, which would indicate biofilms — a group of bacteria that stick to each other on a surface, she says.
-
House Energy Panel To Hold Crude Oil Exports Hearing
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The House Energy and Power subcommittee will hold a July 9 hearing on Rep. Joe Barton’s bill that would lift the U.S. crude oil export ban, a committee spokesman told POLITICO.
Witnesses haven’t been finalized, the spokesman said.
The hearing on Barton’s bill will come ahead of a likely panel markup the following week on a broader energy package.
Republicans in February shopped a draft outline of that four-part package that didn’t include lifting the export ban or other troublesome language in order to attract Democrats.
There could still be a concerted effort in the panel or the full House to include lifting the export ban, particularly if Republicans fail to gain bipartisan support for the package in the committee and then decide to instead tee up a messaging bill. -
State Issues Toughest-In-The-Nation Fracking Rules
Jul 1, 2015 | LA Times
By Julie Cart
State officials on Wednesday formally adopted new rules governing hydraulic fracturing in California, setting in motion some of the toughest guidelines in the nation for the controversial oil extraction practice. The oil and gas agency also released its environmental impact report that concluded fracking could have “significant and unavoidable impacts” on a number of fronts, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and public safety. Caption Wastewater pits Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times An aerial view of pits containing production water from oil wells .
The regulations, which lawmakers approved in 2013, require oil companies to expand monitoring and reporting of water use and water quality, conduct broad analysis of potential engineering and seismic impacts of their operations, and comprehensively disclose chemicals used during fracking and other operations.
The full implementation of the law comes as the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources -- the agency charged with enforcing the rules -- faces increasing criticism from lawmakers over its failure to adequately oversee oil and gas operations.
The fracking regulations are the product of SB 4, authored by Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills). The landmark legislation greatly expands the volume of information about oil operations that will be publicly available. Implementation of the new law has also exposed impacts of oil production operations on air and water, drawing the attention of the state agency charged with protecting those resources.
It has particularly shed light on the intersection of California’s extensive oil industry and the state’s dwindling water supplies. Oil production generates large volumes of wastewater that contains oil and other chemicals and has been routinely injected into protected aquifers. Potentially harmful chemicals found in oil field water used for irrigation
The new rules were released by DOGGR along with its environmental impact report, which may provide ammunition to drilling opponents. The three-volume report concluded that fracking could, in a worst-case scenario, “generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.” The operations could also increase pollutants “to levels that violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation,” the report said. Transporting crude from fracking could also expose the public to potential oil spills and accidents.
Mitigation efforts could reduce the hazards in some cases, the report said.
“It is concluded that the public remains severely divided on the subject of whether well stimulation treatments should be entirely prohibited at a statewide level, or if they should remain legal practices,” the report said.Critics, including lawmakers in Sacramento, question whether the state's scandal-plagued oil regulator is up to the task of implementing the wide-ranging new rules. The agency has admittedly fallen behind in monitoring oil field wastewater injections into federally protected aquifers. It has failed to obtain required data from oil operators and has missed deadlines imposed by legislators.
“Regulations are only as good as their enforcement,” said Andrew Grinberg, California oil and gas manager for the environmental group Clean Water Action. “Unfortunately, DOGGR has already shown that they are unable to enforce existing laws.”
The agency is working to “strengthen compliance and enforcement,” said state oil and gas supervisor Steve Bohlen.
“With these strong regulations, we are confident that well stimulation can continue in California without the kind of environmental problems that have plagued other states with lesser levels of environmental protection,” Bohlen said in a written statement.
Also on Wednesday, the California Council on Science and Technology announced that its independent report on fracking risks was made available to state officials but will not be published until July 9. The multi-volume report has been kept under close wraps by those working on it and is said to take a hard look at how fracking may threaten the state's water supplies.
“Oil regulators can’t protect us from oil industry pollution if they won’t wait for experts to explain the dangers,” said Hollin Kretzmann of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The state’s weak fracking rules focus on notification and do almost nothing to safeguard California’s air, water or public health.”
Pavley said she was concerned that the state issued its environmental analysis before the science report. But she said the California Resources Agency assured her “that all pertinent findings in the scientific study will be taken into account.”
-
House To Take Up Energy Package In July
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
House lawmakers this month will debate a four-part energy strategy, according to a July floor agenda released today by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Energy and Commerce Republicans in February released a draft outline of an energy package that was intended to appeal to Democrats in part by building off of bipartisan ideas, including modernizing infrastructure and incorporating a bill from Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush to expand energy jobs. The committee has not yet announced when it will mark up the bill.
The House in July will also resume floor consideration of the 2016 Interior and EPA spending bill, which began before lawmakers left for the week-long July 4 recess.
Also on July’s floor agenda is a bill streamlining Food and Drug Administration approvals of new drugs that would raise an estimated $5.2 billion by selling 8 million barrels of oil annually for eight years from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he has “considerable concern” for doing those annual sales. And lawmakers this month will vote on the REINS Act, which would require congressional approval of any regulation that has an annual economic impact of at least $100 million and designated as a major rule by the Office of Management and Budget. -
SCOTUS Says EPA Must Now Consider Costs. Are Benefits Next?
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Stuart Shapiro
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in Michigan v. EPA that statutory language directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider "appropriate and necessary" factors when regulating power plant mercury emissions included costs to the power plants. The short-term effect of the ruling may be minimal, as power plants have been complying with the regulation since it went into effect earlier this year and are unlikely to simply stop doing so.However, the longer term implications are potentially important. A lower court will now probably order the EPA to consider costs and reexamine the regulation. The EPA, which already estimated the costs of the mercury rule at $9.6 billion, will probably turn around and quickly say that these costs are dwarfed by the benefits of the rule. They will argue that the costs have thus been considered, and the regulation should go into effect. Then things will get interesting.
The EPA estimates the benefits of the rule as ranging from $37 billion to $90 billion per year. Indeed, these numbers were cited in Justice Elena Kagan's dissent from Michigan v. EPA as a reason that the issue of considering costs was not sufficient to overturn the mercury rules. However, the plaintiffs in the case described the benefits as only $5 million per year and this number played a role in Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in the case.
Why the huge difference? It comes down to whether you count "co-benefits." The $5 million number cited by plaintiffs consists of the direct benefits of reducing exposure to mercury as measured by the EPA in their cost-benefit analysis of the regulation ($5 million is likely significantly lower than the actual benefits from reducing mercury exposure because the EPA only counted measurable impacts on people who lived near power plants, but this is not what accounts for the different numbers). The $37 billion to $90 billion estimate includes the benefits of reducing exposure to particulate emissions, which will happen as a side effect of power plants reducing their mercury emissions. Particulate matter exposure is a significant factor in heart disease and cancer.
The difference between these numbers played a significant role at oral argument in Michigan v. EPA. On the one hand, it seems clear that an agency should count all effects, costs or benefits of a regulation when they tally up its impact. Certainly, advocates for industry have long argued that indirect costs such as lost jobs or changes in market conditions should be counted.
On the other hand, the EPA has a standard for particulate matter. By statute, the EPA is required to set this standard at a level "requisite to protect the public health ... allowing an adequate margin of safety." This raises the following question: If the EPA is already protecting public health, then why are there thousands of lives saved adding up to billions of dollars in benefits, for reducing particulate emissions further? If all of these lives will be saved, shouldn't we have a lower particulate emissions standard?
This seemingly arcane accounting question has wide implications. The EPA has regularly used public health benefits from particulate emissions to justify many regulations designed to reduce other pollutants. If, upon returning to the Supreme Court to defend its mercury regulation, the EPA is told that this practice is illegitimate, the court will both reject the mercury rule and make it more challenging for the EPA to defend many of its future air pollution regulations.
Near the end of his opinion, Justice Scalia telegraphed that this question might be in the court's near future, writing: "Even if the Agency could have considered ancillary benefits when deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary — a point we need not address ... " They may need to address it soon.
-
How Can States Respond To EPA's Power Plant Carbon Reduction Goals?
Jul 2, 2015 | The Hill - Contributors
By Deborah D. Stine, contributor, Paul S. Fischbeck, Haibo Zhai and Jeffrey Anderson
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan is built on states proposing mitigation actions in each of the four building blocks pictured below. Once this plan finishes the approval process, expected in August, the challenges with developing a compliance plan and the related political battles will shift to state governments. At that point, not only governors, state legislators and state environmental agencies, but also nongovernmental organizations, utilities and the energy industry within those states will need a better understanding to determine the optimal strategy for their states.
Luckily, researchers Paul Fischbeck, Haibo Zhai and Jeffrey Anderson from Carnegie Mellon University's Scott Institute for Energy Innovation have developed an easy-to-use free model, in a gigantic Excel spreadsheet, to help both states and stakeholders determine the best strategy for their states. Called ISOMAP for "Interactive State On-Site Mitigation Analytical Policy," the tool allows users to evaluate a range of electric generating unit-specific technical options that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from each major U.S. coal-fired power plant.
Users of the tool can study difficult trade-offs between costs and carbon dioxide reduction while still complying with the EPA regulation. While the EPA proposal and guidelines are based on national and state-averaged information, the actual mitigation plans that states must create will require plant-level assessments. Therefore, for over 600 coal-fired electricity generating units, ISOMAP calculates the unique cost and effectiveness of eight different carbon dioxide-control technologies including co-firing with natural gas, upgrading the boiler technologies, fuel switching, and adding a carbon capture and storage system to allow each state to meet the EPA guidelines for each state-specific scenario.
The model allows user-specified, state-level mitigation measures to be compared and evaluated on costs and emission levels, and is completely interactive. So just as you might use Excel to manage your financial budget, it will help manage a state's pollution budget. It comes with boiler-level analysis data for each state, including a detailed emerging model of emission compliance and carbon dioxide mitigation. All data are visible and major parameters can be modified as necessary. Users can explore future scenarios of their own design, while at the same time having the historical context to understand those scenarios. So, for example, users can answer questions as to what happens to an existing coal-fired power plant if EPA forecasts are over- or under-optimistic or if the price of fuel goes higher or lower.
In developing the tool, the research team identified several concerns about the EPA's approach in the Clean Power Plan.
While EPA examines carbon dioxide emission reductions from a national level, the Carnegie Mellon team examined these emissions from an electric generating unit (EGU) level. This led to insights and results that differed from the EPA's analysis, as well as demonstrating flexibility for states beyond those outlined in the proposal. For example, an important factor in an EGU's operation is the heat rate — simply put, this is the rate at which fuel (in this case, coal) is consumed to generate a specific amount of power. While we want a plant's efficiency to be high, we want the heat rate to be low — like in golf, the less "strokes" to reach the goal, the better — so, in this case, the less coal that we use per kilowatt of electricity generated, the better. This lowers both costs and emissions. When the EPA analyzed the possible EGU heat rate improvements at a national level, they estimated that a 6 percent improvement could be achieved. When the Carnegie Mellon team analyzed it at an EGU level, only a 4 percent improvement is likely — a bad thing. This means that some EGUs might require additional mitigation measures or states must increase their electricity generation from low or zero carbon sources in order to be compliant with the Clean Power Plan. So applying 6 percent for all EGUs may be too optimistic.
In addition, the EPA identified some mitigation methods as less likely to be effective when viewed from a national-level average, while ISOMAP determined that these methods would be effective and should be considered as options for some states when examined at the EGU under various scenarios. And although non-heat rate mitigation measures were found to increase a state's levelized cost of electricity, states could balance this increased cost by taking less efficient EGUs offline and using more efficient EGUs instead.
The current version of the tool is available at no cost on the Scott Institute website at www.cmu.edu/energy/cleanpowertool. As the EPA modifies their ruling, the Carnegie Mellon research team will update the tool to meet the new requirements.
-
Ceres Backs Administration's Plans For Methane Reductions in Investor Statement
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Robust federal regulations for methane emissions are necessary to ensure business certainty and reduce legal risks for investors, an advocacy sustainability group said in a July 1 investor statement.
Ceres, which represents investors with $1.5 trillion in assets, said company-by-company measures to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas production will not provide certainty and a level playing field for all energy producers.
“In addition, the prevention of wasted methane will keep more American natural gas working for the U.S. economy,” Ceres said. “We believe that methane regulation is in the interests of long-term investors because it reduces reputational and legal risks, and in many cases generates positive economic returns.”
Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that is 28 to 36 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It accounted for nearly 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012, according to the administration. Ceres praised the White House plan to reduce methane emissions by 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2015 as part of an administration plan announced in January.
“As widely diversified, long-term investors with holdings in the oil and gas industry, we share a vested interest in the industry's long-term success,” Ceres said. “At the same time, we are investors in renewable energy and support the transition to a renewable energy economy. Therefore, consistent with our fiduciary duties, we are concerned that methane emissions pose a serious threat to climate stability, accelerating the rate of warming in the near term and threatening infrastructure and economic harm that will weaken not only the companies we invest in, but the nation as a whole.”
The White House Office off Management and Budget is currently reviewing an EPA proposal to set methane emissions limits for new oil and natural gas wells. The proposal is expected in August (122 DEN A-8, 6/25/15).
-
Oklahoma Sues to Block EPA Energy Plan as Illegal Power Grab
Jul 2, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Andrew M Harris
Oklahoma sued to block a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plan that state Attorney General Scott Pruitt called an illegal move to close coal-fired plants.
“The Clean Power Plan is an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel generated electricity,” Pruitt, a Republican, said Wednesday in a statement.
The lawsuit comes two days after the U.S. Supreme Court faulted the EPA for failing to consider costs and benefits before deciding to impose limits on emissions from coal-burning generators.
Oklahoma seeks a court order declaring the EPA measure exceeds its powers under the federal Clean Air Act and an injunction blocking the new regulations for coal-fired plants.
Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, declined to comment on Pruitt’s allegations or the lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Publicizing the Clean Power Plan last year, the EPA said it was intended as a flexible approach under which states would be treated as full partners with the U.S. in cutting pollution. The agency called it a “consistent national plan based on public input.”
The new rule was delivered to the federal Office of Management and Budget on June 3, with the EPA’s intent to take final action on it next month, according to the Oklahoma complaint.
The plan will require “wholesale restructuring of states’ energy sectors” and is already causing Oklahoma irreparable harm, the state said in its complaint.
The case is State of Oklahoma v. McCarthy, 15-cv-00369, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa).
-
Oklahoma Sues To Stop Obama’s Climate Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Oklahoma’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Wednesday to stop the Obama administration’s signature proposed climate change regulation.
The federal lawsuit from Attorney General Scott Pruitt is comes less than a month after the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out two challenges to the same regulation, saying they were premature, because federal courts cannot review rules that are not final. Oklahoma was a party to one of the lawsuits.In a statement, Pruitt said the regulation, in which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hopes to slash carbon dioxide pollution from the power sector 30 percent, violates Oklahoma’s electricity reliability and affordability.
“The EPA does not possess the authority under the Clean Air Act to accomplish what it proposes in the unlawful Clean Power Plan,” he said in the statement.
“The EPA is ignoring the authority granted by Congress to states to regulate power plant emissions at their source. The Clean Power Plan is an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel generated electricity.”
The case was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Tulsa, Okla.
Pruitt faces an uphill battle in trying to get the rule stopped in federal court.
The D.C. Circuit Court said in June that it has never overturned a proposed rule, and it was not ready to make history.
“In justiciable cases, this Court has authority to review the legality of final agency rules. We do not have authority to review proposed agency rules,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court.
“In short, we deny the petitions for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition because the complained-of agency action is not final.”
But in the complaint filed Wednesday, Pruitt argues that the court has authority because Oklahoma is already experiencing the effects of the EPA’s rule, and there is nothing that could happen, short of judicial intervention, that could stop it.
“Unless this Court intervenes, Oklahoma will have no meaningful or adequate remedy to enforce the limitations that the Clean Air Act and the Constitution place on the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator and to avoid injury to its sovereign, quasi-sovereign, fiscal, and economic interests,” Pruitt wrote in his complaint.
The state also asks the court for a preliminary injunction to immediately stop the EPA from moving forward on the rule while the court proceedings go on.
Pruitt, a Republican, has been one of the most vocal opponents of President Obama’s EPA in general and the climate rule specifically.
He told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May that “the EPA, under this administration, treats states like a vessel of federal will. The EPA believes the states exist to implement the policies the administration sees fit, regardless of whether laws like the Clean Air Act permit such action.”
The EPA has repeatedly defended the regulation has a legal and necessary exercise of its authority under the Clean Air Act.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison declined to respond directly to the lawsuit, but generally defended the regulation.
“Called for by President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, EPA’s approach is built on a time-tested state-federal partnership in the Clean Air Act, which was established by Congress, for EPA to establish public health goals and then gives states important flexibility to design plans to meet their individual and unique needs,” she said. “The plan will be affordable, will drive American innovation and American jobs, and will demonstrate our leadership in the international community.”
In addition to the legal action, Republicans in Congress are working to thwart the rule.
The House voted last week to let states opt out of complying with the rule, while delaying its effects until all court challenges are complete.
The Senate is working on a similar bill that goes even further by overturning the rule and making it very difficult for the Obama administration to re-write it.
-
EPA Finds 24 States Failed to Submit Transport Plans for Ozone Precursors
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Twenty-four states have failed to submit plans that adequately address emissions of ozone precursors that cross state lines, impairing downwind air quality, the Environmental Protection Agency found.
The finding of failure to submit, signed June 30 by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, will trigger a two-year deadline for the agency either to approve state plans or issue a federal plan that addresses those states' “good neighbor” obligations under the Clean Air Act. The deadline will not be set until the effective date of the finding, which will be 30 days after the rule's yet-to-be-scheduled publication in the Federal Register.
The good neighbor provision requires upwind states to take steps to ensure that emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, precursors to formation of ground-level ozone, won't significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with attainment in downwind states.
The states affected by the finding include California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Virginia. The EPA said in a fact sheet that the agency will work with those states to “expedite the development and submission” of their good neighbor state implementation plans.
Action Result of Citizen Suit
The EPA was required to issue the finding of failure to submit by June 30 under an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Northern District of California (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 4:14-cv-5091, judgment filed, 5/15/15; 95 DEN A-1, 5/18/15).
That judgment resolved a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians, which had sued the EPA for missing a deadline to act on states that had not submitted adequate interstate transport plans. The judgment required the EPA to act on 26 states, but Connecticut and Rhode Island submitted completed plans since that judgment was entered.
The affected states were required to submit state implementation plans addressing interstate transport by March 12, 2011, three years after the ozone standards (RIN 2060-AN24) were set.
The EPA said that many of the affected states may have submitted good neighbor plans were it not for uncertainty surrounding the agency's reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standards once President Barack Obama took office and uncertainty over litigation related to the cross-state air pollution rule. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 upheld the cross-state rule, which requires 28 states to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225, 2014 BL 118432 (2014); 83 DEN A-1, 4/30/14).
-
IEA: Reducing Oil & Gas Methane Key to Curbing Climate Change
Jul 1, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Drew Nelson
Last Friday, the incoming head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Faith Birol, provided a briefing to U.S. stakeholders about IEA’s new special report on climate change, which found that global emissions could peak by the end of this decade without reducing economic growth. The report outlines five key pillars for turning the emissions corner by 2020, and importantly, one of the pillars is reducing methane from the oil and gas sector. The report‘s finding that the scale of potential reductions from oil and gas methane is about the same as the reductions from renewable energy underscores the impact that action on methane can have.
IEA’s report is the latest in a stream of recent analyses illustrating the enormous potential for methane reductions to slow climate change. This is because methane has such a powerful short-term impact on the climate, with 84 times more warming power than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeline. And, the report also highlights the significant opportunity that exists in implementing cost-effective, commonsense measures to cut these emissions, which many governments and companies have not yet taken advantage of.
A recent report conducted by the Rhodium Group, commissioned by EDF, shows the global scale of methane leaks is staggering. In 2012, the amount of oil and gas methane leaked was equivalent to the gas production of Norway, the world’s seventh largest gas producer, representing over $30 billion of revenue that literally vanished into thin air. But this is more than just an economic and energy security issue — because of methane’s potency, that lost gas had the same short term climate impact as 40 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion.
But the good news is that reducing this overlooked source of warming can be quite cheap. A recent study looking at U.S. oil and gas operations found that methane emissions can be reduced by 40 percent for only one penny per MCF of gas using technology that is already available. In the briefing, IEA also noted that the additional investment needed by the oil and gas industry to nullify oil and gas methane emissions is less than 1 percent of current investment.
This combination of cost-effective actions that have a significant positive impact on the climate is what led IEA to include reducing oil and gas methane as one of the most important and pressing actions we can take to make a dent in climate impacts.
While we have seen some recent actions from governments and companies, much more is needed to help emissions peak. In the lead-up to Paris and beyond, policymakers and industry leaders should take note of these findings and ensure that addressing oil and gas methane emissions is included in national actions. While it is laudable that Canada, Mexico and the U.S. specifically included these emissions in their climate pledges (INDCs), each country should also issue strong regulations to ensure that they achieve these reductions as soon as possible. Doing so will provide a powerful signal to the international community regarding North America’s leadership and commitment to this important issue.
For the U.S., the administration’s recently announced goal to reduce methane emissions 40 to 45 percent by 2025 is a critical step toward cutting potent methane emissions from the country’s oil and gas industry. However, that target must be supported by effective regulation of methane emissions from both new and existing oil and gas operations. Proposals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Land Management due later this summer are expected to be a first step in this direction.
Additionally, companies in the oil and gas sector shouldn’t wait for regulations to force them to act; they should lead on containing methane emissions. Some companies are already taking action: BG Group, ENI, PEMEX, PTT, Southwestern, Statoil and Total have joined the United Nations’ Climate and Clean Air Coalition Oil & Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP), which aims to have companies report and reduce their methane emissions. There's a broad need and opportunity for all operators to measure, report, and reduce their emissions. Other leading companies like Shell and BP should also join the OGMP and add their knowledge and experience to this effort.
Research by EDF and others has provided a deeper understanding of both the methane problem and its possible solutions, so it’s gratifying to see the IEA elevate methane as a key issue for Paris. Now it’s time for countries and companies to develop actions to address emissions.
-
Utilities Push Ahead With MACT Suits After High Court's Remand Decision
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Electric utilities have filed new lawsuits over key parts of EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for power plants just as the Supreme Court remanded the rule to a lower court for further review after faulting the agency for not considering costs when it decided to regulate utilities with a MACT.
One industry source says the suits -- which challenge agency denials of petitions seeking reconsideration of various provisions in the rule -- are being filed amid major uncertainty about the impact of the high court's June 29 ruling. The source says the groups filing the new challenges are anxious that their suits are able to proceed even as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit grapples with how to address the remand.
The high court in its 5-4 decision remanded the rule over EPA's failure to conduct an assessment of implementation costs in its preliminary determination that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants' air toxics.
EPA had argued that it had deference on the issue given that the Clean Air Act is silent on whether costs must be a factor in the appropriate and necessary determination. The agency and its supporters said that EPA weighed costs when it set the actual emissions standards in the MACT, and touted the rule's health benefits.
Power companies and some states, however, sued and claimed that costs should have been considered in the initial review of whether to craft a MACT, given the billions in compliance costs for industry. That argument failed in a 2-1 D.C. Circuit ruling in April 2014, but won favor with a majority of the Supreme Court.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in June 29 remarks at an event at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., also cautioned that under the Supreme Court ruling “nothing has been vacated, the rule still stands.”
In a June 30 EPA blog post, acting agency air chief Janet McCabe said the decision is “very narrow” and noted that it only remanded the MACT to the D.C. Circuit, and did not vacate it. “The Court found that EPA should have considered costs at an earlier step in the rulemaking process than it did. The court did not question EPA’s authority to control toxic air pollution from power plants provided it considers cost in that step. It also did not question our conclusions on human health that supported the agency’s finding that regulation is needed.”
She added, “[I]ts narrow ruling does not disturb the remainder of the D.C. Circuit decision which unanimously upheld all other aspects of the [MACT] rule and rejected numerous challenges to the standards themselves.”
While the D.C. Circuit in its decision from last year White Stallion Energy Center, et al. v. EPA, et al. rejected challenges to various provisions of the MACT -- such as the stringency of emissions standards and other regulatory requirements -- several utilities are now asking it to again assess the merits of the rule.
For example, the Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. in a June 29 lawsuit asks the D.C. Circuit to review an April 30 EPA rule denying several companies' petitions to reconsider parts of the MACT.
Reconsideration Petitions
EPA denied 20 petitions for reconsideration of the MACT rule and three petitions for reconsideration of the closely-related utility new source performance standards, from industry groups, environmentalists and the state of Texas. At press time it was unclear whether advocates or Texas intended to file new lawsuits.
The Hawaiian Electric Company uses oil-fired boilers to generate power, and faults how EPA set the MACT for “non-continental” oil-fired boilers, a narrow category that includes only such boilers in Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico. According to the company's 2012 petition for reconsideration, the agency used faulty data that were uncharacteristic of oil-fired utility boilers in the state to set excessively strict emissions standards.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), an industry body representing investor-owned utilities, in a separate suit filed June 29 also asks the D.C. Circuit to review the agency's rejection of its petition for reconsideration. Although EPA has revised the MACT rule several times to correct errors identified by industry, usually related to fresh data submitted by the power sector, UARG still says there are problems with the rule.
UARG has previously expressed concerns, for example, with EPA's required procedures for periods of startup and shutdown, when air pollution controls are not yet fully operative. EPA has made allowances for industry to obey “work practice standards” to minimize emissions during the first four hours of startup, rather than meet numeric emissions limits. However, these concessions have not satisfied all of UARG's concerns.
The two new lawsuits follow a lawsuit filed June 22 by the Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association, a Pennsylvania-based group representing power generators using coal refuse as fuel. Their suit faults EPA's rejection of its petition asking it to reconsider and soften the rule's emissions limits on hydrogen chloride, and seeking changes to technical definitions within the rule in order to ease the facilities' compliance.
The fact that there are several new lawsuits pending in the D.C. Circuit might complicate how the appellate court will address the remand of the utility MACT following the Supreme Court's ruling.
Meanwhile, dozens of power plants have obtained one-year extensions to the MACT rule that had a compliance deadline of April 16 this year, and are therefore due to comply by April 16, 2016. Though much of the power sector has already taken steps to comply with the rule -- and some plants have their compliance plans well-established -- industry sources insist that the issue is not moot and some plants may opt not to close, or not to run controls, if the D.C. Circuit stays or vacates the MACT on remand.
-
More Groups Sue Over MATS Reconsideration
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Four environmental groups challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's rejection of a reconsideration request for the mercury and air toxics standards for power plants (Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1192, 6/29/15). The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Clean Air Council, Downwinders at Risk, and Environmental Integrity Project filed their lawsuit June 29 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It is the fourth petition for review filed in response to the EPA's April decision to deny all remaining reconsideration requests for the mercury and air toxics standards (126 DEN A-5, 7/1/15). The U.S. Supreme Court found the agency acted unreasonably when it did not consider cost in its decision that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions of mercury (Michigan v. EPA, 2015 BL 207163, U.S., No. 14-46, 6/29/15; 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15). The court remanded the litigation back to the D.C. Circuit for further consideration.
-
Senate Committees Cry Foul Following EPA Responses to Water Rule Influence Probe
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency has not adequately responded to congressional concerns surrounding its Clean Water Act jurisdiction rulemaking, prompting questions about how it handles information requests from lawmakers, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a letter.
Three separate congressional committees have alleged the agency improperly coordinated with environmental groups and lobbied on behalf its final waters of the U.S. rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule.
Vitter, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, both received the same form letter back from the EPA in response to their separate requests, the Louisiana Republican said in his June 30 letter.
“Your agency's form letter response to two Senate Committee Chairmen makes me question your dedication to thoroughly responding to congressional inquiries, especially when vocalized on behalf of American small businesses,” Vitter wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Vitter reiterated his earlier May request for documents, e-mails and other communications from the agency concerning its promotion of the final Clean Water Rule.
Melissa Harrison, spokeswoman for the EPA, told Bloomberg BNA July 1 that the agency had received Vitter's letter and “always strives to be responsive” to congressional inquiries.
Rule Finalized Days Ago
The final rule, formally published June 2 (80 Fed Reg. 37,054), aims to clarify what bodies of water are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (125 DEN A-15, 6/30/15).
It takes effect Aug. 25, but more than half of the states have already filed legal challenges to the regulation (RIN 2040-AF30), which was jointly published by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers (126 DEN A-14, 7/1/15).
Congress has previously voiced its displeasure with the EPA's responses to inquiries on the regulation. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), chairman of the Fisheries, Water and Wildlife Subcommittee on the Senate environment panel, has threatened to block all agency nominees until the EPA adequately responds to information requests (113 DEN A-2, 6/12/15).
House Panel Reviewing Response
Zachary Kurtz, an aide to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, told Bloomberg BNA July 1 the panel had received documents from the EPA and said the agency has committed to providing more.
Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has requested several rounds of documents related to the rulemaking, but he called the agency's initial response “wholly inadequate” in a May 18 follow up letter.
-
4th Circuit Orders New Hearings In Suit Testing CWA 'Shield' Under RCRA
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is ordering new proceedings in a suit testing when compliance with a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit can “shield” dischargers from separate Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) mandates, an order that will give environmentalists a fresh chance to argue for narrowing the shield.
In a July 1 opinion, a unanimous three-judge panel of the appellate court vacates a district court order that dismissed a citizen group's RCRA claims in Goldfarb, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., and orders the lower court to weigh the merits of the suit on remand.
The opinion gives Baltimore citizens a second chance to argue before the lower court that construction of a casino on land owned by the city should have been subject to both CWA and RCRA requirements, despite Maryland waiving RCRA mandates for the project by citing its compliance with CWA controls.
The citizens argue that the state's decision allows for practically uncontrolled contamination that should be regulated under RCRA. If environmentalists are successful with their district court case, it could narrow protections for facilities that manage contaminated sediment and other waste under CWA permits.
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Richard D. Bennett originally held in a July 16 decision that all of the advocates' claims are barred by the anti-duplication clause of RCRA, which waives RCRA mandates when they would conflict or otherwise be inconsistent with a CWA permit or other requirement.
Environmentalists then appealed that decision to the 4th Circuit, and the three-judge panel in its decision says Bennett misread that standard when he ruled against the citizen groups.
“Although the district court recited the statutory term 'inconsistent,' it undertook no analysis in its opinion to determine whether a conflict actually existed between the applicable RCRA regulations and the CWA, much less what constituted such a conflict. Instead, the district court’s analysis overstates when regulation pursuant to RCRA yields to the CWA. It is not enough that the activity or substance is already regulated under the CWA; it must also be 'incompatible, incongruous, inharmonious,'” says the appellate ruling, authored by Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee and joined by Chief Judge William Byrd Traxler, Jr. and Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King.
The ruling comes after the panel at March 25 oral arguments generally focused on procedural questions about Bennett's dismissal order, including what test he used to reject the citizens' claims and whether he properly took judicial notice of the CWA permit and other documents involved in the case.
NPDES Permit
While the 4th Circuit backed the advocates' arguments that dismissal was improper, its ruling stops short of deciding whether RCRA should apply in addition to Maryland's general CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit includes a "Response Action Plan" (RAP) for managing contaminated sediment that the city and casino argued would trigger the anti-duplication clause.
“[T]he parties vehemently disagree about the nature and scope of the NPDES permit and other exhibits, putting at issue basic factual matters relevant to interpreting what those exhibits mean and how they relate to the RCRA claims,” and those disagreements are best resolved through fact-finding in district court, Agee's opinion says.
The 4th Circuit is also reinstating separate claims targeted specifically against Baltimore, which Bennett said did not include specific allegations that would, if proven, show RCRA violations. But the appellate court rejected the city's arguments that advocates merely alleged “moving earth” and that that activity is not enough to trigger RCRA liability.
Agee in the appellate ruling says Bennett “erred” in that holding and the advocates' allegations actually would show improper disposal of contaminated materials, if substantiated. “[T]he Complaint assert[s] specific, identifiable actions attributed to the City that allegedly violated RCRA-based mandates, have gone uncorrected, and continue unabated such that the City is still 'in violation of' those mandates,” the opinion says.
If the district court again rules for Baltimore and the casino owners in its substantive ruling, it could extend the CWA permit “shield” -- under which dischargers are protected from liability when they release pollutants as long as they obey NPDES permit terms -- to RCRA via the anti-duplication clause.
But even a ruling for the city of Baltimore might create only a narrow shield for RCRA liability since the city has supported its case by pointing to the breadth of its RAP, which it says extends to every area of remediation that might be required by RCRA. A ruling that rests on the stringency of the RAP's sediment-control mandates could set a strict test for the scope of the RCRA waiver, limiting its shield only to permit holders that follow highly detailed, stringent pollution control plans.
-
Murray Energy Sues Over EPA Water Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
Coal producer Murray Energy has joined the legal battle over EPA’s Waters of the United States jurisdictional rule.
Murray filed a lawsuit this week over the rule in federal court in West Virginia, and plans to file a second suit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company.
The West Virginia suit claims the rule “expands the definition of waters of the United States in a number of significant and alarming ways” and violates the Constitution, as well as the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The company says its mining sites include a number of ditches, dry creeks and ponds that are now subject to federal jurisdiction. Those areas are frequently impacted by mining activities like being filled with earth or used for stormwater runoff, and the company would have to spend significant time and money obtaining permits.
Murray, the biggest privately-owned coal company in the U.S., has emerged as a regular source of litigation over the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.
The company led the failed early legal challenges to EPA’s proposed carbon rules for power plants, and participated in the lawsuits over EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that the Supreme Court ruled on this week. Murray is also pressing a lawsuit claiming EPA has failed to consider coal mining jobs in writing climate rules.
Murray joins 27 states that have sued EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers over the water rule, which took effect on Monday. -
Union Pacific Railroad, Scenic Hudson Challenge Crude-by-Rail Rule in D.C. Circuit
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Two more challenges have been filed by a major railroad company and an environmental group against the Transportation Department over its final rule governing movement of crude oil by rail (Scenic Hudson v. DOT, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01195, 6/30/15; Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. PHMSA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01194, 6/29/15).
Scenic Hudson and Union Pacific Railroad Co. petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit separately June 30 and June 29, respectively, to review the department's rule. While Union Pacific challenged the rule on the whole, Scenic Hudson challenged several items from speed restrictions to the phase-out timeline for certain tank cars.
Union Pacific requested the appeals court vacate and set aside the entire rule promulgated by the department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Scenic Hudson, on the other hand, requested the court remand several parts of the rule to the department and vacate and remand notification requirements within the rule.
Scenic Hudson is specifically challenging provisions related to what it considers the too-slow deadline to phase out older tank cars such as the DOT-111 cars that are considered unsafe for this type of transport, too-fast speed restrictions for trains, too limited applicability and not protective enough notification requirements.
The two lawsuits join at least four others by industry and public entities in challenging in court the rule that tightens tank car and operational requirements for some trains carrying large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids, including crude oil. The rule also is being challenged administratively by several groups, such as the Association of American Railroads (117 DEN A-15, 6/18/15).
Other lawsuits filed in the D.C. Circuit regarding this rule have been consolidated. So far, they include challenges by the American Petroleum Institute, American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association and two Illinois communities (126 DEN A-15, 7/1/15).
-
Regulators Seek Faster Pipeline Spill Notifications
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal regulators want operators of pipelines for oil and other materials to notify federal officials within an hour after breaches and leaks.
The Wednesday proposal came weeks after an oil pipeline was breached along the Pacific Ocean coast in Santa Barbara County, Calif., leaking over 100,000 gallons into the ocean and coating beaches.The owner of that pipeline, Plains All American Pipeline, did not notify the federal government until at least 90 minutes after it discovered the leak, according to The Associated Press.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is proposing to require operators to notify its National Response Center at the “earliest practicable moment” after a leak, but not within more than an hour.
It’s part of an overhaul of the rules regarding how pipeline operators respond to incidents like leaks, including personnel training, drug and alcohol testing, and assessing pipeline cracks.
“We constantly seek to raise the bar on safety,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, whose department includes the pipeline agency, said in a statement.
“This proposed rule will improve safety in a number of ways, including a notification time limit which eliminates any ambiguity about timeliness in reporting and is crucial to the ability to mitigate damage and protect people, property and the environment following an incident,” he said.
The Transportation Department said many of the provisions in Wednesday’s proposal respond directly to recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board.
“We will continue to update our regulations to positively influence pipeline operator safety programs and to address concerns related to failures, operator error and other safety risks,” Stacy Cummings, interim executive director of the pipeline agency, said in the statement.
Officials interpret the current regulations to limit pipeline operators to a one- or two-hour time frame for incident notifications, but the existing rules do not have an actual time limit.
-
DOT Moves To Tighten Pipeline Leak Notification Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Department of Transportation proposed a new rule on Wednesday that would force pipeline companies to alert federal emergency responders of oil and gas leaks more quickly.
The proposed rule from DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also would require pipeline operators to notify the regulator when they reverse the flow on a pipeline or change the type of fuel they carry.
In addition to fulfilling a leak-notification mandate Congress first issued in 2011, the PHMSA proposal would make good on a 2012 recommendation from NTSB to clarify techniques to detect cracks that were linked to the massive oil spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River five years ago this month.
The rule also comes ahead of Senate confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead PHMSA, an agency beleaguered by charges that it has slow-walked crucial elements of its mission.
“We constantly seek to raise the bar on safety,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement on the proposal, which he vowed “will improve safety in a number of ways, including a notification time limit which eliminates any ambiguity about timeliness in reporting and is crucial to the ability to mitigate damage and protect people, property and the environment following an incident.”
The most high-profile portion of PHMSA’s new proposal, first reported last week by POLITICO, would specify that companies must report spills or leaks to the National Response Center within one hour of the incidents’ “confirmed discovery.”
The agency had previously issued a non-binding advisory to the industry, but the May 19 oil gusher of 100,000-plus gallons from a failed California pipeline has reopened lingering questions about companies’ compliance during emergencies.
PHMSA is investigating why Plains All American did not notify the National Response Center for nearly 90 minutes after one of its employees confirmed the leak, which sent some oil into the Pacific Ocean and forced beach closures. That notification came three hours after the company had detected anomalies and shut down the line.
PHMSA’s proposal includes a definition of “confirmed discovery” aimed at ensuring that industry understands its burden to inform first responders: “when there is sufficient information to determine that a reportable event has occurred, even if an evaluation has not been completed.”
The proposal also incorporates new standards for testing pipelines to find potential corrosion crack defects, which NTSB determined were partly to blame for the 2010 Michigan oil spill, and it would require the pipeline operators to notify PHMSA when they reverse the lines’ direction of flow for more than 30 days or shift the makeup of the product they carry.
The latter notification requirement could bolster environmentalists’ campaign against potential modifications of existing pipelines to carry heavy Canadian oil sands crude — such as the Portland Montreal Pipeline. The possible reversal of that line became controversial enough to prompt an ordinance from the Maine city of South Portland and a resulting court battle with the pipe’s operator.
As PHMSA finalized its new proposal, the American Petroleum Institute put the finishing touches on a long-in-the-works series of best practices for pipeline safety management systems. That industry-driven consensus effort, like similar standards developed for other aspects of oil and gas transportation, ultimately could become the basis for future PHMSA regulations.
“If the government decides they want to regulate to that standard, great,” API midstream director Robin Rorick told reporters Wednesday. “If the government decides it wants to regulate beyond that standard,” he added, the industry is prepared to engage PHMSA about such a proposal.
PHMSA’s new proposal will be subject to a 60-day public comment period after its official publication in the coming days.
-
Notification, Cost Recovery Requirements Would Be Added in PHMSA Pipe Proposal
Jul 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Hazardous liquid and gas pipeline operators would be required to notify certain federal officials of pipeline accidents within one hour—adding for the first time an accident notification deadline—under a proposed rule released July 1.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposed rule (RIN 2137-AE94) also would add provisions for the federal agency to recover costs for its design review work on certain projects. Additionally, the proposal would address several National Transportation Safety Board recommendations on operator qualification programs.
The rule would cost roughly $3.1 million annually for operators to comply with and would achieve an estimated $1.6 million annually in benefits; however, preventing a single fatal incident within three years would make the proposed changes cost-effective, the proposed rule said. Additionally, cumulative environmental damages resulting from pipelines would likely be “reduced slightly,” it said.
The agency was directed to propose a rule on accident and incident notification and cost recovery for design reviews under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90), mandates Congress has chided the administration for being slow to complete.
New Notification Deadline
The proposal specifically would require pipeline operators to notify the National Response Center within one hour and again within 48 hours to revise or confirm the incident.
While operators currently must notify the center at the earliest practicable moment, which normally translates to up to two hours, there is no actual deadline listed.
It also allows PHMSA to seek costs of design reviews it conducts for new gas and hazardous liquid pipeline for projects where the overall design and construction costs at least $2.5 billion, or when projects “contain new and novel technologies.” These would not be codified in certain pipeline regulations “due to technology or design advances and innovation,” it said.
Additionally, the rule would exempt “farm taps,” or pipelines that stem from a transmission, gathering or production pipeline to move gas to a landowner or farmer, from certain integrity management requirements. However, it would add a requirement for the pipe's pressure regulating, relief and automatic shutoff devices to be inspected every three years.
The proposed rule also would require that pipeline operators report to PHMSA a reversal of flow that lasts more than 30 days or a change in product; add provisions to renew expiring special permits; and require drug and alcohol testing of any employee who may have contributed to a pipeline accident.
The Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery and Accident Notification hasn't been published in the Federal Register yet, and that date will be determined by the Federal Register, according to PHMSA. Interested entities will have 60 days from that publication date to comment on the proposed rule using Docket No. PHMSA 2013-0163.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested