Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Report Illuminates the American Chemistry Council’s Efforts to Undermine the Chemical Policies that Protect Us
Jul 15, 2015 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Gretchen Goldman
I always assumed that if chemicals were in use, they were safe. As a child, I’d play in the grass despite pesticide warning signs and never thought about my water bottle’s material. -
(ACC Mentioned) My Airborne Toxic Event
Jul 15, 2015 | Willamette Week
By Beth Slovic
Like many scary stories, this one begins with a seemingly innocuous gift. -
NGO Calls for Ban on Talc in Children's Products
Jul 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
NGO, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund, is calling for a ban on the mineral talc in children's products because asbestos contamination can occur in the ground. -
US FDA to Get Public Input for ICCR Meeting
Jul 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US FDA will hold a public meeting on 10 September in Maryland, to get input for the International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation (ICCR) meeting on 4-6 November in Brussels. -
Iowa Company to Close Country’s 200th Coal Plant
Jul 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
An Iowa utility will phase out coal at a handful of power plants in the state, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Justice announced Wednesday, marking the 200th coal plant to close nationwide in the last five years. -
Liberal Group to Obama: Delay Offshore Drilling Sale
Jul 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A liberal think tank is pushing the Obama administration to delay its next offshore drilling auction until Congress renews a key conservation law. -
Clean Power Plan Efficiency Efforts Interest Some Industries But Repel Others
Jul 15, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
At a national gathering of state utility regulators yesterday, one association of high-volume electricity users urged states to keep them in mind when crafting plans to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Midwest Utility Agrees to Reduce Emissions, Pay Penalty
Jul 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
A Midwestern utility has agreed to install pollution controls worth $620 million and pay a civil penalty to resolve allegations that it violated the Clean Air Act. -
Locomotive Rear-Ends Another Train, Derailing 18 Cars, Spilling Oil
Jul 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Eighteen cars derailed and one spilled more than 20,000 gallons of lube oil after a freight train was rear-ended by another train in western Virginia yesterday, Norfolk Southern said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
Jul 15, 2015 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Gretchen Goldman
I always assumed that if chemicals were in use, they were safe. As a child, I’d play in the grass despite pesticide warning signs and never thought about my water bottle’s material. If there was evidence that the chemicals were harmful, we wouldn’t be allowed to use them, right? This is, of course, how it should work. But the reality is that special interests can get in the way of public health protections when it comes to our chemical policies. My new report shows just how harmful that influence can be.
We need Congress to enact TSCA reform that better protects people from harmful chemicals in the products we all use. Photo: Shutterstock/Luiz Rocha
The new UCS report focuses on the American Chemistry Council—the chemical manufacturing industry’s main trade association. Though the ACC might not be a household name, its influence on chemical policy has affected millions of Americans, and many of those chemicals are undoubtedly in your household.ACC’s impact on the Toxic Substances Control Act
Primary among this influence recently has been the ACC’s work on reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was passed in 1976 and is sorely in need of an update. The well-intentioned but ineffective law was meant to regulate the safety of chemicals used in commercial products. However, today there are some 84,000 chemicals registered for commercial use, and the EPA has been able to regulate just nine—far less than one percent!
As detailed in the report, Congress is currently working on TSCA reform and the ACC has been keen to make sure the updated version promotes chemical industry interests over public health. In recent years—when TSCA has been under discussion in Congress—the trade group has poured more than $11 million dollars annually into lobbying spending, and has made generous political contributions to key members of Congress in charge of chemical reform.
The ACC has also supported versions of TSCA reform bills that include state preemption. In the absence of a strong federal policy, many states—including California, Washington, Maine, Connecticut, and New York—have passed their own chemical laws to better protect public health. The chemical industry, however, has pushed for a revised federal policy with a preemption clause that would override these state policies and replace them with a (likely weaker) federal chemical policy. If such a reform passed, the chemical industry could continue business as usual, manufacturing chemicals under few restrictions and without investing in or shifting to safer alternatives, while thousands of chemicals known to be harmful will flow into households, hiding inside new furniture, electronics or even food wrapping.
International trade
The report also shows how the ACC has sought to influence the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and European Union. As detailed by my colleague Celia, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is aimed at increasing trade between the U.S. and EU by minimizing trade barriers.
Such an agreement will need to uphold high public health and safety protections that the negotiating nations have in place currently; however, the ACC has worked to minimize the inclusion of such protections in a deal. A leaked document revealed that the ACC and its European counterpart, the European Chemical Industry Council, planned to use regulatory differences between the EU and U.S. to slow regulatory developments at all levels, prevent the regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals, and blog efforts to replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives. As TTIP negotiations continue, we can expect that the ACC will continue to attempt to influence the final agreement in a way that favors chemical manufacturers at the expense of public health.The tobacco industry playbook: from BPA to silica to flame retardants
In addition to broad chemical policy debates, the ACC also works to ensure that individual chemicals and chemical groups aren’t regulated, despite scientific evidence suggesting health concerns. The report covers ACC influence on policies that sought to protect people from bisphenol A, flame retardants, formaldehyde, silica, and spray polyurethane foam.
Unfortunately, in many of these cases, the ACC was successful in delaying or defeating proposals that would have protected more people from chemical harms. They’ve continued to use the same tactics we’ve seentime and again from industries seeking to avoid regulation.They’ve questioned the scientific basis for new rules and scientific summary reports, like ACC’s criticizing the inclusion of formaldehyde in the Report on Carcinogens;They’ve paid seemingly independent scientists to conduct studies that support industry positions, like ACC’s hiring of Matthew Blais to provide misleading studies on the safety and efficacy of flame retardant chemicals;And they’ve launched public relations campaigns to dispel consumer concerns and downplay risks of chemicals, like in ACC’s “Listen to the Science” campaign to convince consumers of BPA’s safety.A need for science-based chemical policies
Despite ACC’s efforts to prevent scientific evidence of chemical risks from influencing decision makers, science can still win the day. Public demand and better processes in place can help ensure that science effectively informs decision making on the chemicals we use every day. Congress is discussing one such discussion right now, as they debate TSCA reform this week. Please join me in asking Congress to pass a TSCA reform bill that prioritizes public health over chemical industry interests.
Posted in: Science and Democracy Tags: American Chemistry Council,BPA, chemical safety, Corporate Interference, flame retardants,formaldehyde, silica, spray polyurethane foam, TSCA
About the author: Gretchen Goldman is a lead analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. She holds a PhD and MS in environmental engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a BS in atmospheric science from Cornell University.See Gretchen's full bio. Follow her on Twitter at @GretchenTG.
Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.
-
(ACC Mentioned) My Airborne Toxic Event
Jul 15, 2015 | Willamette Week
By Beth Slovic
Like many scary stories, this one begins with a seemingly innocuous gift.
Nurses at Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital sent my family home with a small care package—diapers, a tiny yellow comb and a 1-ounce bottle of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo—after I gave birth to my first child in 2013.
Weeks later, I clicked on a Facebook link from my sister-in-law and learned that the iconic baby shampoo contained a chemical preservative called quaternium-15, a compound that releases formaldehyde. A carcinogen.
Suddenly, the gift from the hospital seemed like a hand grenade. My daughter can’t even sit up! Have I given her cancer?
I immediately tossed the bottle in the trash—and then, an hour later, fished it out, unable to part with the small memento of my daughter’s birth. The little bottle stayed in a drawer as I sought out the most natural baby soap I could find at New Seasons. I went back to Johnson & Johnson only after the company released a new version of its baby shampoo, without quaternium-15.
As a journalist, I’m trained to ask questions and think skeptically about the answers I hear. As a mom, however, I deploy skepticism selectively. If someone tells me a product has the potential to seriously harm my child, it’s out—no questions asked.
These roles collided recently when a staffer for U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) approachedWW with a chance to try out an unusual new tool that promised to answer questions about everyday chemical exposures—and possibly feed my fears.
The tool was a wristband designed by researchers at Oregon State University and marketed by a company called MyExposome that is supposed to detect as many as 1,400 industrial chemicals I might come in contact with. I was invited to take part in a weeklong trial, and in the end I’d get a list of those compounds absorbed by my wristband.
The offer from Merkley’s office created every reason for journalistic skepticism. Merkley is a co-sponsor of federal legislation to overhaul the study and regulation of industrial chemicals in household products. The project—including testing of participants’ bracelets at $2,000 a pop—would be paid for by the Environmental Defense Fund, a lobbying group helping Merkley. Wasn’t this the kind of gimmick a journalist should avoid?
The experiment also had obvious limitations: The wristband wouldn’t be tested to show my exposure levels. It also couldn’t trace how I’d been exposed to the chemicals it picked up.
And then there was the question of how I’d interpret the results. As Sonya Lunder, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, told me, “We can’t tell you exactly how much exposure is harmful, how combinations of chemicals might affect your health, or what population groups are most sensitive to these chemicals.”
The experiment promised to raise more questions than it answered, and I’d be feeding my own fears while helping a politician promote his agenda.
The journalist in me said no.
The mom in me jumped at the chance.
The silicone wristband arrived by overnight express. I unsealed it from its package and slid it on my wrist. It looked like a Livestrong bracelet in black, but its intent was the opposite. Instead of radiating anti-cancer vibes, it would soak up potential carcinogens and hormone disruptors, reminding wearers of the dread lurking in their homes.
Not that I needed any reminders.
This is Portland, after all, where moms who fear formula exchange breast milk over the Internet with women they’ve never met. A new mommy friend would bring her baby over for a play date, point to plastic toys in my living room and ask, “Where did you get that?” I knew she wasn’t asking because she wanted to buy the toy for her child. Instead, she wanted to assess the chances my child’s toys contained industrial chemicals that could lower her little boy’s sperm count.
While wearing the wristband, I tried not to change anything about my daily routine. That week, I painted my nails with polish I’d gotten for Mother’s Day—a brand that supposedly adhered to high environmental standards. I went to a hair salon and sat in a swivel chair as fumes from dyes wafted around me. And I took a shower every day, using lavender face wash from the organic aisle at Fred Meyer and Aveda shampoo.
In other words, I went about my normal business of walking around in a bubble of enlightened consumerism that is, nonetheless, a stew of hidden, potentially harmful synthetic chemicals.
After a week, I took the wristband off, sealed it back up and sent it via FedEx to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Then I waited.
My results arrived about a month later. I was one of 28 participants in this study, and at first blush my results seemed positive. The wristband detected only 11 chemicals; only one or two participants had a lower number, 10. Additionally, the analysis detected no pesticides in my wristband, although the analysis had screened for hundreds of varieties.
“Wow,” I thought. “I’m safer than I thought.”
A representative from the Environmental Defense Fund quickly popped my bubble, saying the experiment revealed only a snapshot.
“It’s one week in a moment in time,” Sarah Vogel, a health director at EDF, told me. “It’s hard to generalize.” Only a more expensive analysis of my blood or urine would probably reveal more potential hazards.
As it was, I’d been exposed to two industrial chemicals banned in kids’ toys, several phthalates or plastic softeners shown to disrupt hormones, and a flame retardant that is relatively new and little studied (see sidebar).
Where did I come into contact with those?
“It’s really hard to know,” says Vogel. “The question that we can’t answer with the wristband is, did you come into contact with those through the air or through the direct use of a product?”
I scoured labels in my bathroom. That nail polish I got for Mother’s Day? It was supposed to be “green,” meaning it had no formaldehyde or phthalates. But it did have benzophenone, one of the chemicals picked up in my bracelet that’s linked to cancer. I chucked the bottle to the back of my linen closet.
I looked for more sources but didn’t find any. Even if I had, I wouldn’t have been safe from worry. You can try to avoid certain synthetic chemicals in your own home, but try avoiding them at work or on the bus. Products with industrial chemicals, such as those sprinkled in carpets and cushions supposedly to keep them from bursting into flames, break down and are in our dust.
As the information packet for the experiment explained, “You can’t shop your way out of the problem.”
Merkley and I met in his downtown Portland office to talk about the experiment and the legislation he’s pushing, Senate Bill 697.
Merkley wanted to know whether wearing the bracelet had made me more aware of my potential exposure to synthetic chemicals. I nodded.
Then he told me he thinks about the perfluorinated chemicals in his pizza box every time he bites into a fresh pie. So-called PFASs are added to pizza boxes and other household products such as microwave popcorn bags to help them repel grease and other liquids. In January, more than 200 scientists from around the world decried the proliferation of PFASs, which are linked to testicular and kidney cancer as well as a host of other maladies.
“There are things we don’t see and think about every day,” Merkley told me. “I now think of it when I peel off the cheese.”
There’s no one agency in the United States that regulates synthetic chemicals.
The Food and Drug Administration, for example, governs sippy cups and cosmetics, including shampoo. The Consumer Product Safety Commission looks at products such as bath toys, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates industrial chemicals such as flame retardants in couches, carpets and mattresses. Many synthetic chemicals, though, pop up in products under all three umbrellas.
Merkley’s bill would look under just one umbrella—the EPA’s—and it would update a law from 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The 39-year-old law doesn’t do a very good job. Since its passage nearly 40 years ago, the EPA has been able to require study of only about 200 of the 60,000 chemicals in existence in 1976, and it’s regulated or banned only five of those, an EPA official testified in front of Congress in April.
Since then, the number of chemicals on the market has grown to 80,000.
“The Toxic Substances Control Act does not control toxic substances,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, a pediatrician in Washington, D.C., who has testified before Congress on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics for stronger oversight of industrial chemicals.
The EPA can’t require chemical manufacturers to prove their products’ safety. And manufacturers can sell their products before research has concluded.
Merkley’s bill would empower EPA to study all chemicals and require the agency to focus on the effects of chemicals on vulnerable populations—toddlers, pregnant women and the elderly.
“No matter how careful the individual is, we’re each living in a soup of chemicals,” Merkley says. “You’re exposed through living in our modern society, and that’s why it makes sense for us to tackle these toxic chemicals that are in everyday products.”
Perhaps surprisingly, the proposed legislation has the backing of the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents chemical companies. The lobbying group says a patchwork of state regulations—as well as misinformation about chemicals—has created a need for a better system.
“Consumer confidence in the safety of chemicals has declined in recent years,” says Anne Kolton, a spokeswoman. “We need a credible and strong federal regulatory program that states, manufacturers and consumers can trust.”
The council supports the bill because it would limit states from establishing their own, more stringent rules.
Earlier this month, Oregon lawmakers passed the Toxic Free Kids Act, which would require companies selling children’s products to disclose the presence of chemicals deemed concerning, then phase out the worst kinds.
That all sounds good, until you check the fine print and see that certain apparel and sporting goods are exempted.
Gov. Kate Brown is expected to sign the bill. Merkley’s federal bill, with its rules on what states can do once it’s passed, could block any Oregon attempt to phase out a chemical once the EPA launches a review.
I told Merkley that what the study really did was increase my own paranoia.
“It’s appropriate for people to be paranoid,” he said. “It’s reality that they’re exposed to toxic, disease-causing chemicals with every move that they make in life.”
Paranoia seeks company. So I turned to another mom who took part in the experiment at Merkley’s behest.
Bethany Thomas, a Northeast Portland mom of three who works for an environmental education group, was just as confused as I was. “You assume there are government protections taking care of us,” she says. “Then you find out there’s not, and you’re scared again.”
She didn’t make me feel better.
So I turned again to Dr. Jerome Paulson, the pediatrician. Surely he’d fielded questions from hundreds of worried moms like me, who swung between concern and complacency. Maybe he could help make sense of my response.
Despite his uncertainty about the legislation making its way through Congress—Merkley’s bill could come to a vote this summer—Paulson told me we needed to overhaul federal rules.
“Particularly as a parent, you can make yourself crazy,” he told me. “These are not the kinds of decisions that individuals can make on their own.”
And yet, that 1-ounce bottle of baby shampoo is never coming out of that drawer.
From eco-nail polish to pizza boxes, a mom’s worries could fill a grocery-store aisle—or maybe the whole store. Here are the 11 chemicals that showed up inWW’s wristband—more reasons to scrap your cosmetics, move into a benzophenone-free cardboard box, and start writing to your senators and reps in Washington, D.C.
Benzophenone Some people have one foot in the grave. Others have their whole bodies in benzophenone. It’s in hand soap, shampoo, sunscreen, soy milk, body spray, anti-wrinkle cream, radiance lotion and more. The chemical blocks ultraviolet rays, at a cost. It mimics estrogen, a hormone, and has been linked to skin cancer in animals.
Benzyl benzoate This compound is used to kills scabies, dust mites and ticks. It’s also a fragrance preservative in perfume, shampoo and body wash. Like benzophenone, it mimics estrogen and has been found to stimulate breast-cell growth.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate This compound showed up in 82 percent of wristbands in this study. That’s no surprise: It’s in PVC plastic containers, sealant and spray paint. “[Phthalates] are considered the poster child of endocrine-disrupting compounds,” says Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Butyl benzyl phthalate BBP was recently banned from children’s toys. But it remains just about everywhere else, including in bug spray, furniture and food packaging. BBP’s effects on humans are unclear, but tests on mice have deformed skeletons, delayed puberty and caused leukemia.
Butylated hydroxyanisole BHA, a preservative and carcinogen, shows up in skin creams, foods and lip gloss. It’s been linked with stomach tumors in animals.
Di-n-nonyl phthalate. Like the other phthalates, this one is in plastic everywhere, yet its effects on people are poorly understood, and no human hazards with it have been identified.
Di-n-octyl phthalate DNOP is used to soften plastics, including medical tubing, plastic containers and adhesives. In high amounts, it kills rats, but little is known about its effects on humans.
Galaxolide Many studies have measured the population distribution of galaxolide, a fragrance used in skin moisturizer, deodorant and cleaning products. As for its health effects, it’s known to block estrogen, a hormone, in rainbow trout.
Naphthalene Giving up cigarettes was hard enough. Try giving up air. This possible carcinogen shows up in mothballs, petroleum, toilet deodorant blocks—and the wind. Little is known about its effects on humans, but it’s been linked to cancer and reproductive problems in rats.
Tonalide Like galaxolide, tonalide is a fake musk smell used in perfumes. It caused genetic damage when tested on zebra mussels, and it’s suspected to alter human hormones.
TPP This flame retardant is in nail products like polish and enamel. Similar fire-stopping chemicals are common in electronics, foam and plastics, and often leach into food. They’ve caused kidney tumors and brain lesions in lab rats, but little is known about their effects on people. HART HORNOR.
-
NGO Calls for Ban on Talc in Children's Products
Jul 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
NGO, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund, is calling for a ban on the mineral talc in children's products because asbestos contamination can occur in the ground.
The NGO carried out tests on certain children's products and found the presence of asbestos in some crayon boxes and crime scene fingerprint kits. Asbestos and talc, which is used as a binding agent in crayons and other products, are often found in close proximity in the earth, resulting in cross contamination, according to the US FDA.
The EWG did not report the concentration of asbestos fibres found in the crayons and crime scene kits that they tested but said of its findings: “As the lab tests demonstrate, voluntary action by companies has not been enough to ensure that talc is free of asbestos.”
“It is well-established, and CPSC [the Consumer Products Safety Commission] itself recognises, that inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis, and that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure,” wrote the EWG Action Fund in a letter to CPSC chairman Elliot Kaye.
“EWG Action Fund calls on the CPSC to revisit its earlier findings and require the removal of talc, that may be contaminated with asbestos, from children's crayons.”
In 2000, the CPSC conducted a study on asbestos in certain crayons, following a study conducted by theSeattle Post-Intelligencer that found asbestos in several Crayola products. The CPSC staff report confirmed that trace amounts of anthophyllite asbestos were found in some crayons in concentrations of 0.03% and under, and that other fibres (“transitional fibres”) were found in concentrations up to 1.25%.
CPSC staff determined that “the risk a child would be exposed to the fibres, through inhalation or ingestion of crayons containing asbestos and transitional fibres, is extremely low”, given their findings that fibres were not released into the air during colouring, and that ingested fibres would remain embedded in the crayon wax and would pass through the body.
The staff, as a “precautionary” measure, recommended that these fibres be removed from crayons in the future.
“The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) is taking the Environmental Working Group's report seriously,” said Scott Wolfson, CPSC communications director. “We will need to do our own analysis. A greater degree of scientific work is required in this case, because we have to assess exposure.”
Further recommendations from the NGO included government monitoring programmes of talc imports, the development of an FDA method for detecting asbestos and asbestos-like fibres in consumer products, and the passage of the Reducing Exposure to Asbestos Database (READ) Act (HR 2030), which was introduced in the House in April.
Children's products sold into the US must meet standards outlined in the Consumer Products Safety Act (CPSA), Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). According to the EWG report, only the State of Connecticut specifically bans asbestos in children's products.
“All toys sold in the US – no matter where in the world they are made – must undergo more than 100 different safety tests to comply with strict federal standards,” said a spokesperson for the Toy Industry Association (TIA). “These requirements ensure that children’s products do not contain any substances that may be hazardous to children.”
-
US FDA to Get Public Input for ICCR Meeting
Jul 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US FDA will hold a public meeting on 10 September in Maryland, to get input for the International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation (ICCR) meeting on 4-6 November in Brussels.
The purpose of the multilateral framework on the ICCR is to pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to international trade, while maintaining global consumer protection.
The ICCR is a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities from the US, Japan, EU, Canada and Brazil. These regulators will enter into constructive dialogue with their relevant cosmetics industry trade associations and public advocacy groups.
Current members are: Health Canada; the European Commission Directorate-General for internal market, industry and subject matter experts; the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan; the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency; and the FDA.
The ICCR makes decisions by consensus but these are required to be compatible with the laws, policies, rules, regulations and directives of the respective administrations and governments, according to aFederal Register notice.
“Members will implement and/or promote actions or documents, within their own jurisdictions, and seek convergence of regulatory policies and practices. Successful implementation will need input from stakeholders,” it says.
-
Iowa Company to Close Country’s 200th Coal Plant
Jul 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
An Iowa utility will phase out coal at a handful of power plants in the state, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Justice announced Wednesday, marking the 200th coal plant to close nationwide in the last five years.
Interstate Power and Light Co., a subsidiary of Alliant Energy, has agreed to either close five of its Iowa power plants or switch from coal to natural gas as the result of a legal settlement with the EPA. The company will install pollution control technology at two other plants in the state.
Federal officials, along with the State of Iowa, Linn County, Iowa, and the Sierra Club, had alleged the company was violating the Clean Air Act by emitting more pollution than was allowed by its air permits. The company has agreed to pay $6 million on environmental mitigation projects and $1.1 million in civil fines to resolve the complaint.
“To serve the communities in which they operate, power plants must protect clean air for those living nearby,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
“This case delivers on the goals of EPA’s national enforcement initiative to reduce air pollution from the largest sources. By installing new equipment and funding mitigation projects, Interstate Power and Light can help conserve energy and cut pollution in communities across Iowa.”
The Sierra Club said the closures will mean 200 coal plants have shut down in the United States since 2010. The group has been waging a campaign against coal plants around the country, and praised the settlement on Wednesday.
“The days of coal-fired power plants putting Americans at risk are coming to an end,” Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.
“In Iowa and across the country, people are demanding clean air and clean water — and they are winning. Iowa is a leader in America’s transition from coal to renewable energy, and is providing a model for other communities as they demand and realize a 100 percent clean energy future.”
Alliant said the settlement will allow the company to focus on offering more clean energy in the future.
“The terms we negotiated in this settlement are consistent with our long-term plan for clean energy,” company president Doug Kopp said in a statement. “We settled with the EPA to avoid unnecessary delays and ongoing uncertainty associated with litigation."
-
Liberal Group to Obama: Delay Offshore Drilling Sale
Jul 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A liberal think tank is pushing the Obama administration to delay its next offshore drilling auction until Congress renews a key conservation law.
The Center for American Progress wants President Obama’s Interior Department to use offshore drilling as leverage to push Congress to renew the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
The group argued Wednesday that since the LWCF gets its funding from a portion of offshore drilling revenue, it is logical to link the fortunes of the two programs together.
“The Obama administration can save America’s best parks program, but it will need to engage in a bold fight for the basic idea that underpins the LWCF: Investment in conservation should be a condition for offshore drilling,” Matt Lee-Ashley, director of public lands for the liberal group, wrote Wednesday.
The group hopes that anger over an offshore drilling delay would lead Congress to act to renew the LWCF.
The fund, which pays for the acquisition and upkeep of conservation and recreation facilities on the national, state and local levels, will end Sept. 30 if Congress does not act to renew it.
But while it has bipartisan support, the leading lawmakers responsible for it — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) — have discussed major changes to the program, like directing funds more toward park upkeep or using them to train energy workers.
Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is planning an Aug. 19 auction to sell oil and natural gas drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico to companies.
“A delay will invariably spark howls of protest from oil companies accustomed to having an annual opportunity to buy drilling rights nearly anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico,” Lee-Ashley wrote.
“Ultimately, however, permission to drill in publicly owned waters is a privilege — not a right — that is conditional upon the fulfillment of obligations to U.S. taxpayers and communities in all 50 states.”
-
Clean Power Plan Efficiency Efforts Interest Some Industries But Repel Others
Jul 15, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
At a national gathering of state utility regulators yesterday, one association of high-volume electricity users urged states to keep them in mind when crafting plans to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Several hours later, another trade group delivered the opposite message, asking regulators to write them out of energy efficiency requirements.
The American Water Works Association's director of federal relations, Alan Roberson, told a National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners gathering that municipal water and wastewater plants could play a key role as states craft ways to reduce their power sectors' carbon footprint.
"We use a lot of power. Water is heavy. You have to move it, you have to pump it," Roberson said. "Our systems also have the potential to be more energy-efficient. We've got old pumps, we've got old motors, we've got old pipes. ... Our sector could play an important part in state implementation plans of the Clean Power Plan."
Roberson said his association is specifically interested in energy efficiency projects, which EPA has suggested as one of the "building blocks" states can use to meet their carbon reduction goals.
Estimating that water treatment facilities use between 2 and 6 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, Roberson said his group's members are eager to lower their energy consumption by investing in new pumps, motors and pipes.
"One of the challenges is connecting the wastewater sector with people who run energy efficiency programs," he said. "These are two sections that don't talk to each other."Energy-intensive industries balk at costs
To amend that, Roberson said AWWA has been engaged in an outreach campaign, meeting with national and state officials. "We're working ... to ensure that energy efficiency and water and wastewater plants are mentioned somewhere in the Clean Power Plan," he said.
And while EPA official Mike Shapiro, a principal deputy assistant administrator in the agency's Office of Water, didn't say anything about the Clean Power Plan's final language, he offered the effort a tacit endorsement at the NARUC meeting.
"Whether it's through any opportunities that are made available through climate-related regulations or through just prudent investment in our water and wastewater technology through these kinds of activities, we think there are many opportunities that will reduce energy demands of the water/wastewater sector," he said.
"We studied a number of plans, and we can pretty easily identify 20 to 30 percent reduction in energy uses through a combination of smarter use of energy at the facility, and many modest investments, as well as some long-term infrastructure," said Shapiro, adding that wastewater treatment plants should also explore generating energy on-site through methane digesters and other means.
But while water and wastewater treatment facilities urged regulators to loop them into their energy efficiency plans, a group of steel, aluminum and other energy-intensive manufacturing companies begged out of state efficiency programs.
It's not that heavy manufacturers aren't interested in efficiency, argued panelists. In fact, quite the opposite -- they're already heavily invested in efficiency and find state mandates burdensome, they said.
"Seventy percent of our production cost is electricity. Energy efficiency is very important to us -- how much electricity we use and how much we pay for it," said Larry Stalica, who heads energy and regulatory affairs at gas giant Linde LLC.'We need to survive'
"This competitive issue is very important to us," he said. "We spend a lot of money on energy efficiency, and what we don't want to do is -- I have some competitors out there who are not nearly as good ... and I certainly don't want to fund their lack of initiative to be energy-efficient."
"Large, energy-intensive industrials do a lot of energy efficiency. That's why we urge for the opt-out," said Paul Cicio, president of Industrial Energy Consumers of America. Several company representatives noted that energy use and efficiency benchmarks are tied to their managers' salaries.
The industrial panel raised many of the usual concerns that the business community has about EPA's impending regulations, which are expected to be finalized within the next month. They worried about the rise in electricity prices and threatened to uproot their plants and operations if rates rise too rapidly.
"The fact is, we need to survive. And to survive, we will shift production to states that have lower-cost electricity," warned Cicio.
"And when we do that, we shift load, shifting greenhouse gas emissions to other states. And it also increases electricity rates to the remaining electric consumers in that state. And if we cannot survive moving to another state, we will move out of the country," he said.
-
Midwest Utility Agrees to Reduce Emissions, Pay Penalty
Jul 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
A Midwestern utility has agreed to install pollution controls worth $620 million and pay a civil penalty to resolve allegations that it violated the Clean Air Act.
In the settlement agreement announced today, Alliant Energy Corp. subsidiary Interstate Power and Light Co. (IPL) has also agreed to spend $6 million on environmental mitigation projects.
According to a joint statement by U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice, the utility allegedly began construction at two of its coal-fired power plants in Iowa in violation of the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The PSD program is meant to prevent air quality from getting worse in areas that are meeting national ambient air quality standards.
EPA and DOJ said IPL will install and continuously operate pollution controls at those two plants in Lansing and Ottumwa. It has also agreed to retire or convert to natural gas its five other coal plants in Iowa.
EPA said the settlement would reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide by 32,500 tons a year and nitrogen oxide by 3,800 tons annually.
"This agreement will cover all of Interstate's coal-burning facilities in Iowa," Assistant Attorney General John Cruden for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division said in the statement, "requiring new pollution cutting technology and environmental projects to enhance air quality in surrounding communities, among other lasting benefits."
The company has agreed to launch a major solar photovoltaic power purchase agreement project and install an anaerobic digester to recover nutrients from Iowa farming operations.
IPL has also agreed to pay a penalty of $1.1 million.
The settlement agreement is subject to a 30-day comment period before becoming final. The state of Iowa; Linn County, Iowa; and the Sierra Club are co-plaintiffs in the case.
The Sierra Club today touted the settlement as representing the phaseout of the 200th coal-fired power plant in the United States.
-
Locomotive Rear-Ends Another Train, Derailing 18 Cars, Spilling Oil
Jul 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Eighteen cars derailed and one spilled more than 20,000 gallons of lube oil after a freight train was rear-ended by another train in western Virginia yesterday, Norfolk Southern said.
Two crew members were treated for injuries at a hospital and released, Norfolk Southern spokeswoman Susan Terpay said today.
Oil spilled from one of the 18 cars, which also spilled scrap metal.
The westbound train was struck from behind by a second train traveling in the same direction at around 4 p.m. yesterday near the town of Dublin.
Eight cars derailed from one train, and 10 cars derailed from the second train, along with the engine.
The oil spill has been contained on site, and no waterways have been affected, Terpay said.
"It was horribly loud, and I took off running back to the house," said Teresa Frank, who was picking green beans in her father's backyard. "I didn't know what it was, but we started seeing emergency cars show up" (Associated Press, July 15). -- AW
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested