Preview Newsletter
ACC July 17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Phasing Out Microplastics, But Pa Lawmakers Want A Ban Anyhow
|
-
52 Senators Now Co-Sponsor TSCA-Reform Bill
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
More than half the Senate, 52 senators representing 33 states, are co-sponsoring the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), Sen. Thomas Udall (D-N.M.) announced July 16. “I'm overwhelmed by the strong support for comprehensive chemical safety reform, which keeps growing every day. -
TSCA Bill Likely To Hit Senate Floor Before Recess -- Inhofe
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
The Senate is likely to take up a bill to update federal management of chemicals just before lawmakers leave for their summer recess, Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said in an interview yesterday. Inhofe's committee approved the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" ... -
Some Toxics Data to be Released Week of July 20
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Insight into which pollution prevention activities companies found to be most effective will be available as part of the preliminary Toxics Release Inventory data the Environmental Protection Agency will soon release, an agency official said July 14. The TRI data also will identify barriers companies said they experienced... -
Do We Need To Rethink What We Call Carcinogens?
Jul 16, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
More than one in three Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. While diet, lifestyle, viruses and genetics clearly play a role in this epidemic, toxic chemical exposures are known to contribute as well. This means that it is critical that we get the science and regulation surrounding carcinogens right. -
Kicking Toxic Chemicals Out of the Office
Jul 16, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Alex Feitel
Great news! Our coalition partners at the Center for Environmental Health just released an amazing report on flame retardants in the office and easy ways to avoid them. We figured you might have some questions, so we have provided an easy guide to understanding the report with some help from the characters from NBC’s hit TV show The Office. -
Scientists to Discuss New Ways to Look at Chemicals
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Scientists will discuss a new approach to examining how chemicals in the environment and workplace may contribute to cancer at a symposium the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences will host in August. The NIEHS is convening the Aug. 25 Halifax Project: Low Dose Theory Symposium to explore a hypothesis that low... -
TTIP Talks Must Not Include REACH, Says European Parliament
Jul 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
The European Parliament has asked the European Commission not to negotiate on issues related to REACH and its implementation in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US. The Commission should “recognise that, where the EU and the US have very different rules, there will be no agreement... -
EPA Should Improve Oversight of Diesel Use in Fracking
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee may mark up comprehensive energy legislation as soon as July 21, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters. Potential committee action on the bill comes as negotiations between Murkowski and her democratic counterpart on the committee Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) wind down. -
Watchdog: EPA Should Do More On Fracking Chemicals
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The EPA’s internal watchdog recommended Thursday that it improve oversight of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Specifically, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) said the agency needs to crack down on the unlicensed use of diesel fuel in fracking and figure out whether to mandate public disclosure of fracking chemicals. -
Merkley Unveils Bill To Block Oil And Gas Drilling
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced legislation today that would block oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean, adding another potential obstacle to Royal Dutch Shell PLC's drilling plans in the region. Merkley's bill, the "Stop Arctic Drilling Act of 2015," would block the renewal of new and existing fossil fuel drilling... -
BLM Fracking Rule Set To Stay In Limbo Until Sept.
Jul 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Bureau of Land Management’s fracking regulations, placed on hold by a federal judge weighing a challenge by four states and two industry groups, are on course to stay frozen for weeks longer than anticipated. The new delay was triggered by an extension the court gave BLM to file an administrative record that had been due next... -
Gore Knocks Obama Over 'Insane' Arctic Drilling Plan
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama’s approval of a Royal Dutch Shell plan to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean is “insane,” former Vice President Al Gore said. “I think Arctic drilling is insane,” Gore told The Guardian on Thursday. “I think that countries around the world would be very well advised to put restrictions on drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean.” -
Will Natural Gas Pipelines Crowd Out Renewables?
Jul 16, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dan Upham
In the 1989 classic Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner’s character hears a voice in a cornfield whispering, “If you build it, they will come.” Befitting a family movie, he did build a baseball field and spectators did indeed come. Applying this vintage pop culture expression to the natural gas infrastructure landscape of today is more appropriate... -
Keystone Measure May be Attached to Highway Bill
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) may seek to attach legislation on the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline to transportation legislation expected on the Senate floor next week. “It's certainly a possibility,” Hoeven told Bloomberg BNA. “I may but not for sure. It might help bring votes to it.” -
Inhofe: Senate Highway Bill to Include Strategic Petroleum Reserve Sales
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Anthony Adragna
Senate legislation to fund highways and other transportation programs will be partially funded by selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters July 16. The bill, which has yet to be released, seeks $10 billion from a sale of crude oil... -
Senate Committee May Mark Up Energy Bill Next Week as Negotiations Wind Down
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee may mark up comprehensive energy legislation as soon as July 21, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters. Potential committee action on the bill comes as negotiations between Murkowski and her democratic counterpart on the committee Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) wind down. -
Protesters Heckle Clinton Over Climate Change
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of protesters demanded Hillary Clinton take a strong stance on climate change on Thursday, chanting to interrupt the Democratic presidential candidate during a town hall event in New Hampshire. Clinton was asked about her stance on banning fossil fuel extraction on public land, something she said she couldn’t support “until we get.... -
Clinton Interrupted By Green Protesters
Jul 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Demonstrators calling for action on climate change interrupted a Hillary Clinton town hall in New Hampshire today after the Democratic frontrunner diverged from one of her challengers on whether to ban fossil fuel development on public lands. Asked if she would block drilling and mining on public lands, Clinton answered plainly... -
Spending Bills Still Moving -- To Uncertain Future
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
House and Senate appropriators are closing in on a key milestone by completing nearly all of the annual spending bills before the August recess. With yesterday's passage of the $20.51 billion fiscal 2016 Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies spending bill, the Senate Appropriations panel has just one... -
Senate Climate Amendment Falls in Floor Vote
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA
By Dean Scott and Anthony Adragna
An amendment by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to have the Senate agree that carbon pollution is raising global temperatures enough to pose “a significant threat to the economy and security of the United States” was defeated late July 15 during debate on a broad education bill. Markey's amendment—which also said the scientific evidence... -
White House Vows ‘Rigorous Review' of Ozone Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not yet received the revised ozone standard from the Environmental Protection Agency, but expects to complete a “rigorous review” of the new rule before an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked OIRA Administrator Howard Shelanski... -
6th Circuit Backs Strict RACT Mandate In NAAQS Plans But Allows Trading
Jul 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in a new ruling has agreed with environmentalists that states crafting plans to demonstrate attainment of EPA national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) must include reasonably available control technology (RACT) even if RACT is not “strictly necessary” to meet the NAAQS. -
Attorneys Expect Mercury Standards to Stay in Place
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Two attorneys predicted that a federal appeals court will leave the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants in place while the agency addresses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Andrew Grossman, an attorney with BakerHostetler and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and Richard Revesz... -
Obama Unveils New Coal Mining Rules
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration Thursday unveiled new standards meant to better protect streams in Appalachia from the controversial mountaintop removal coal mining process. The proposed rule, from the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM), would update three-decade-old... -
EPA Chief Vows To Streamline CWA Jurisdiction Rule Implementation
Jul 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is vowing that the agency will do “everything possible” to streamline implementation of its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, including establishment of a database aimed at making public any implementing decisions and a new joint memo with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure consistency. -
EPA Touts CWA Rulings As Bolstering Authority For Novel Nutrients Policies
Jul 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is touting recent federal appellate rulings that deferred to the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) approach to curbing nutrients and other pollutants as bolstering its legal standing for future similar plans despite potential objection from industry or advocates, though it remains unclear to which other waters EPA might apply that power. -
Better Training Needed for Water Jurisdiction Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency needs better training for its field staff as they begin implementation of a federal rule clarifying the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, Administrator Gina McCarthy said July 16. Farmers at the National Corn Growers Association's Corn Congress told the administrator July 16 that agency staff... -
Final Waste Fuel Exclusion Rule Heads to White House
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency has sent a final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget that is expected to permit construction and demolition wood, paper recycling residuals and creosote-treated railroad ties to be regulated under less strict air pollution rules when burned in boilers or solid waste incinerators. -
Crude Oil Train Derails In Montana, Prompting Evacuations
Jul 17, 2015 | AP (in the Huffington Post)
An oil train derailed Thursday in rural northeastern Montana, prompting the evacuation of some homes and leaving at least two of the cars leaking crude, authorities said. There were no immediate reports of injury or fire, but of the 21 cars that derailed only two remained upright, Roosevelt County Sheriff Jason Frederick said.
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) Industry Phasing Out Microplastics, But Pa Lawmakers Want A Ban Anyhow
|
-
52 Senators Now Co-Sponsor TSCA-Reform Bill
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
More than half the Senate, 52 senators representing 33 states, are co-sponsoring the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), Sen. Thomas Udall (D-N.M.) announced July 16. “I'm overwhelmed by the strong support for comprehensive chemical safety reform, which keeps growing every day. We have a unique opportunity to pass major environmental legislation overhauling a law that has been broken for 40 years,” Udall said in the announcement. The bill, which Udall introduced, would substantially update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which governs chemicals in commerce. Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) are the latest co-sponsors of S. 697. Supporters have been pressing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for a vote on S. 697 before the August recess, but the window of opportunity for floor time is closing (136 DEN A-3, 7/16/15).
-
TSCA Bill Likely To Hit Senate Floor Before Recess -- Inhofe
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
The Senate is likely to take up a bill to update federal management of chemicals just before lawmakers leave for their summer recess, Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said in an interview yesterday.
Inhofe's committee approved the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" -- a proposed update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act -- in a 15-5 vote in April. The comfortable margin of passage in the markup suggests the bill stands a good chance on the floor, the Oklahoma Republican said.
The bill picked up Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) as co-sponsors yesterday, which gives the bill at least 52 backers.
In a statement, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who introduced the bill earlier this year with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), said he was "overwhelmed by the strong support for comprehensive chemical safety reform, which keeps growing every day."
The bill, S. 697, could hit the floor "probably with three days, four days left" after the Senate takes up a bill for funding transportation projects, before recess, Inhofe said.
"TSCA could very easily happen within that period of time," he said.
Differences between the Senate bill and House legislation, H.R. 2576, could be worked out in tandem with a Senate floor debate, Inhofe said.
"I have every reason to believe that will be next in line right after" the Senate deals with other priority bills, Inhofe said.
Inhofe's comments were the latest on the timing of possible floor action on the Senate TSCA bill. The House passed its measure by a 398-1 margin last month (E&E Daily, June 24).
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in an email that the Kentucky Republican had not finalized the legislative schedule beyond planned action on a long-term transportation funding bill.
The Senate is scheduled to stay in session through Aug. 7; House lawmakers are scheduled to leave Washington on July 30.
The full Senate has never voted on a TSCA rewrite, as previous reform efforts fizzled out amid partisan disagreements.
-
Some Toxics Data to be Released Week of July 20
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Insight into which pollution prevention activities companies found to be most effective will be available as part of the preliminary Toxics Release Inventory data the Environmental Protection Agency will soon release, an agency official said July 14.
The TRI data also will identify barriers companies said they experienced as they tried in 2014 to reduce their TRI releases, Daniel Teitelbaum, an environmental policy analyst working in EPA's Toxics Release Inventory program said. He spoke during the 19th annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Conference sponsored by the American Chemical Society.
The EPA is working to make the 2014 TRI preliminary dataset public on July 21, an agency spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA July 15.
The release of the preliminary data set will provide access to initially available 2014 information some 20,000 facilities reported concerning their air, water and land releases of 675 chemicals. The agency's detailed analysis of the full final data will be released in coming months, typically by December.
P2 Reports Up; Corporate Name Searches
Teitelbaum offered insights into initial trends the agency already has observed in the pollution prevention data companies have reported for 2014.
The percentage of companies reporting pollution prevention, or P2, data has increased from 2 percent in 2010 to 11 percent in 2013, Teitelbaum said.
He also described updates to TRI's pollution prevention website that allow users to search by hundreds of small and large corporate, or “parent company,” names.
Individual plants, or facilities, owned by companies in the manufacturing, metal mining, electric power generation, chemical manufacturing, hazardous waste treatment and other industrial sectors report TRI data. These include well-known corporations such as the Archer Daniels Midland Co., a global agricultural processor; the Lockheed Martin Corp., a global aerospace, defense, security and advanced technologies company; and the Exxon Mobil Corp.
The TRI program, implements Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). Under the program, facilities making or processing more than specific thresholds of TRI-listed chemicals, must provide the EPA a variety of information about their air, water or land releases of those chemicals.
New Information Helps Identify Effective Changes
New types of information available from the 2014 reports can help companies identify specific activities—for example raw material modifications, spill and leak prevention efforts and inventory control programs—that facilities found to be more or less effective at “source reduction,” meaning effective in reducing chemical waste, Teitelbaum said.
Beginning in their 2014 reports, facilities had the option of estimating the extent to which they were able to reduce chemical waste generation—compared with the previous year—as a result of P2 activities they undertook, he said.
Previously, facilities simply reported whether or not they had P2 activities, he said. Now they can show what those efforts accomplished, he said.
The information can help corporations, individual facilities, state officials and other interested parties identify the types of activities that contributed to their chemical waste reduction, Teitelbaum said.
The TRI program's initial analysis shows, for example, that changing raw materials is among the most effective means companies have found to reduce their releases of TRI chemicals, he said.
Changing cleaning and degreasing activities also contributes significantly to source reduction, Teitelbaum said. Changing cleaning and degreasing can mean, for example, using aqueous cleaners instead of a solvent such as trichloroethylene.
Matthew Ranson, an analyst with Abt Associates, a public policy and business research and consulting company examining TRI data on behalf of the EPA, said his firm is completing the most comprehensive retrospective study conducted to date on the impact of pollution prevention activities companies have undertaken over the last 22 years.
A paper summarizing the study's results is under review, Ranson said.
Barriers Identified
Teitelbaum said barriers preventing companies from implementing P2 activities are another new type of information facilities reported in their 2014 submissions.
The TRI program's initial analysis showed that the most commonly reported barrier is finding no known substitute or alternative technology that could allow a company to reduce or eliminate a TRI-listed chemical, he said.
The second biggest barrier reported in 2014 is that facilities say their P2 activities already have reduced releases as much as feasible, Teitelbaum said.
Ranson said facilities typically achieve a 9 percent to 16 percent drop in their chemical releases and wastes in the first year they implement a P2 program.
-
Do We Need To Rethink What We Call Carcinogens?
Jul 16, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
More than one in three Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes.
While diet, lifestyle, viruses and genetics clearly play a role in this epidemic, toxic chemical exposures are known to contribute as well. This means that it is critical that we get the science and regulation surrounding carcinogens right.
But what if our thinking about how chemicals cause cancer is incomplete? That’s what a group of scientists comprising the Halifax Project suggests in a groundbreaking series of papers recently published in a special issue of the scientific journal Carcinogenesis.
Current regulatory policy focuses on identifying “complete carcinogens”– chemicals that can cause cancer all by themselves. Consider for a moment this alternative scenario: What if some chemicals can’t induce cancer alone but can alter normal cells in ways that make them more prone to turn into cancer cells? Could exposures to mixtures of such chemicals actually cause cancer?
This is the simple yet profound hypothesis put forth by the Halifax Project, a collaboration of researchers from around the world brought together by the non-profit organization Getting to Know Cancer. The project’s aim is to investigate the relationships between low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures and cancer. And its findings may fundamentally shift the way we think about carcinogens.
Learn more here.
The idea that mixtures of chemicals that are not individually carcinogenic could cause cancer is based on two well-accepted scientific concepts: The development of cancer is a multistep process – the “multiple-hits” model; There are a set of aggressive characteristics and processes, called “hallmarks of cancer,” that distinguish cancer cells from normal cells.
The “hallmarks” describe the changes to a normal cell that allow it to divide and grow uncontrollably, eventually developing into cancer. These hallmarks include such factors as the ability of a cell to replicate without limit and avoid programmed cell death.
The Halifax Project team examined toxicity data on 85 chemicals and found that 59 percent of them can interfere with cancer-related hallmark processes at low doses we typically encounter in our day-to-day lives. These are all chemicals we commonly encounter in the environment. Among them: phthalates, which are common plasticizers, and several pesticides.
Although only a small number of chemicals were explored in the study, the findings suggest many of the thousands of chemicals to which people are exposed may be capable of affecting cancer-related processes at levels that are already present in the environment.
What are the risks associated with chemical mixtures? Questions remain, but if we consider the multi-hit model of cancer as the accumulation of hallmark processes then it suggests exposure to combinations of chemicals that act on multiple cancer-relevant pathways in the body are likely to cause cancer.
It’s time to expand our definition of carcinogens from the idea of single chemicals acting alone. We must begin to consider combinations of chemicals that – working in concert with each other – may cause cancer.
As the President’s Cancer Panel pointed out in its 2008-2009 annual report, not only do federal environmental laws leave many known carcinogens completely unregulated but they also “fail to address the potential hazards of being exposed to combinations of chemicals.”
This situation needs to change if we as a society truly have an interest in cancer prevention, especially given the Halifax Project’s important findings. Learn more with EWG's new analysis, Rethinking Carcinogens.
-
Kicking Toxic Chemicals Out of the Office
Jul 16, 2015 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Alex Feitel
Great news! Our coalition partners at the Center for Environmental Health just released an amazing report on flame retardants in the office and easy ways to avoid them. We figured you might have some questions, so we have provided an easy guide to understanding the report with some help from the characters from NBC’s hit TV show The Office. It’s time to get toxic chemicals out of the office.
What are flame retardants?Flame retardants are chemicals that come in two primary categories—halogenated and organophosphorous. Halogenated flame retardants consist of chlorine or bromine atoms bonded to carbon atoms, while organophosphorous flame retardants are phosphorous atoms bonded to carbon atoms. They are used in numerous common household and office products including electronics, insulation, foam, wire, and cable intended to decrease the products’ flammability. However, recent studies have shown that flame retardants may do more harm than good.
How did they get into furniture in the first place?In the 1970’s, house fires caused by cigarettes were a major concern. To prevent this, legislators pressured the tobacco industry to manufacture self-extinguishing cigarettes. Instead, the tobacco industry and chemical manufacturers convinced government officials that it was not the cigarettes, but the household furniture that was the problem. The legislators were convinced, and thus, flame retardants were incorporated into consumer products used in the home and the office. Recent tests say that a whopping “85% of couches tested contained toxic or untested flame retardants.”
But aren’t flame retardants a good thing?No! The problem with flame retardants is that they do not chemically bind to the materials they are incorporated in. Because of this, they can easily leach out of products and be ingested or inhaled. Flame retardants have been linked to many “serious health problems including cancer, reduced IQ, developmental delays, obesity, and reproductive difficulties…and have been found in 97% of all Americans tested.”
Those are scary statistics—especially because flame retardant chemicals do not even fulfill their purpose of preventing fires in furniture. The Consumer Product Safety Commission found that products with flame retardants “did not offer a practically significantly greater level of open flame safety” than untreated products. In fact, they can even make fires harder to survive. When furniture with these chemicals catches fire, the furniture emits toxics such as carbon monoxide, soot, and smoke. Exposure to any of these can lead to unconsciousness and death.
Has anything been done about flame retardants in our office products?Fortunately, a new law went into effect in California in January 2014, so manufacturers are no longer required to include flame retardants in their products. Additionally, in January 2015, labels on furniture became required in California so that consumers could identify whether the products they were purchasing contained flame retardants. However, more legislative action across the nation must be taken against flame retardants in order to ensure more comprehensive public health and safety.
What are the incentives for eliminating flame retardants?Flame retardant-free furniture is cost neutral or may even be less expensive and provides adequate fire safety.Flame retardants are associated with serious health.Flame retardant-free furniture is more durable and comfortable.It should be consistent with your job’s commitment to safety, health, and sustainability.It can demonstrate your company/business/organization’s leadership and puts your company in the same league of forward-thinking companies such as Facebook, Genentech, Kaiser Permanente, and more.
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!
How do I reduce my own risk of exposure at the office?To immediately reduce your risk of exposure to flame retardants in the office, minimize contact with dust. You can easily do this by washing your hands, cleaning surfaces, and opening windows frequently. You can also purchase and replace your old home or office furniture with flame retardant-free products.
How can I help kick flame retardants out of the office for good?Request a free webinarSpread the word—forward this guide to your colleagues, partners, vendors, and friends. -
Scientists to Discuss New Ways to Look at Chemicals
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Scientists will discuss a new approach to examining how chemicals in the environment and workplace may contribute to cancer at a symposium the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences will host in August.
The NIEHS is convening the Aug. 25 Halifax Project: Low Dose Theory Symposium to explore a hypothesis that low, environmentally relevant concentrations of many different chemicals may collectively cause various biological responses that ultimately cause cancers.
The Halifax Project convened 174 scientists from 26 countries and a wide variety of biological disciplines. They examined toxicity data on 85 chemicals that haven't been classified as human carcinogens.
The researchers found low doses of 59 percent of the 85 chemicals could cause a variety of biological changes that, in combination, could lead to cancer.
“Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies,” the research team consisting of more than 100 scientists wrote.
The scientific journal, Carcinogenesis, published a special edition containing a series of papers summarizing the results of studies supporting that hypothesis. Oxford Journals, which published the special edition in June, has released it for open access online.
The research suggests tests of chemicals need to examine the carcinogenic potential of substances from a much broader perspective, William Goodson, lead author of the study, said. Goodson, a physician, also is a senior scientist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. Goodson spoke July 16 during a press briefing organized by the Environmental Working Group.
‘Lot of Little Switches.'
The research says that different chemicals can be like a “lot of little switches” that turn cells into cancer, Goodson said.
Some chemicals might cause cells to become genetically unstable. Others would trigger inflammation, which can contribute to cancer risk.
Additional chemicals could prompt a cell to grow uncontrollably, while others still would block one of the body's repair mechanisms, which is to stop such growth, Goodson said.
Chemicals that cause blood vessel growth, which would feed the tumor cells, also would contribute to the cancers, he said.
“That's not the way science has been looking at things,” Goodson said.
Paradigm Shift Needed
Margaret Kripke, chief scientific officer at the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, said the results of the Halifax Project call for a paradigm shift in thinking about the environmental causes of cancer.
Traditionally, scientists have thought of cancer as a sequential process in which one biological change triggers another and another ultimately resulting in cancer, she said.
The Halifax Project results suggest that many different chemicals cause a wide variety of biological changes leading to cancer, she said.
Some of these changes may need to occur sequentially, but others may not, Kripke said.
Multiple changes could be occurring because of the mixtures of chemicals to which people are constantly exposed, she said.
Kripke served on the President's Cancer Panel, which in 2010 published a report that concluded the extent of Americans' exposures to unregulated cancer-causing chemicals and other carcinogenic substances such as radon have been “grossly underestimated” (87 DEN A-14, 5/7/10).
“Continuing to identify and regulate only complete carcinogens ignores the serious threat that chemical mixtures can pose to public health,” the Environmental Working Group said in a report it issued July 16. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
TTIP Talks Must Not Include REACH, Says European Parliament
Jul 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
The European Parliament has asked the European Commission not to negotiate on issues related to REACH and its implementation in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US.
The Commission should “recognise that, where the EU and the US have very different rules, there will be no agreement, such as on public healthcare services, GMOs, the use of hormones in the bovine sector, REACH and its implementation, and the cloning of animals for farming purposes, and, therefore, not to negotiate on these issues,” said the Parliament in a non-binding Resolution adopted last week.
The Parliament also wants the Commission to ensure that any resulting trade agreement between the EU and the US will not affect existing rules or standards that still have to be set in areas where there are major differences between the two sides. These include the implementation of existing legislation, such as REACH, or future definitions affecting the level of protection, such as the criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The Resolution also says the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to be included in TTIP should be based on a system run by publicly appointed judges and subject to scrutiny and transparency rules.
This would replace the private arbitration tribunals, under which foreign investors can sue governments at the moment, if they believe their investments in a country have been affected by unjustified government decisions (CW 14 January 2015).
The Commission negotiates TTIP on behalf of the EU on the basis of a mandate set by the member states in 2013 (CW 10 October 2014).
The European Parliament can only vote for or against the agreement, once negotiations are concluded between the EU and US.
Chemicals and food rules are among the controversial issues under discussion (CW 19 May 2015). The EU chief TTIP negotiator Ignacio Garcia Bercero has already ruled out excluding chemicals from the trade negotiations (CW 28 April 2015).
In a meeting with TTIP interest groups, held yesterday in Brussels, Fernando Perreau de Pinninck of the Commission’s Trade Directorate said the Commission's negotiating approach is in line with Parliament's Resolution. “REACH and its implementation are not up for negotiation; what we are doing is promoting exchanges of information and cooperation among the regulators.”
He was responding to a call at the meeting by Baskut Tuncak, staff attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), that “the US should respect the opinion of publicly elected officials” and that the Resolution “explicitly calls to exclude chemicals from the scope of TTIP”.
The tenth round of TTIP negotiations is taking place in Brussels this week.
-
EPA Should Improve Oversight of Diesel Use in Fracking
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee may mark up comprehensive energy legislation as soon as July 21, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters.
Potential committee action on the bill comes as negotiations between Murkowski and her democratic counterpart on the committee Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) wind down. Only five outstanding areas of disagreement remain, Murkowski said without elaborating.
“My hope is we will be able to do it for next week,” Murkowski told reporters.
Bill Within Days
The legislation is expected to be unveiled within “the next couple of days,” Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski and other committee Republicans, told Bloomberg BNA.
Murkowski is considering measures ranging from a bill to expedite the federal permitting process for future cross-border energy projects such as oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines to legislation that would give states instead of the federal government the lead role for regulating hydraulic fracturing as she crafts the bill.
But the political reality of writing a bill that can obtain enough democratic support to pass the Senate and avoid a veto by the White House will likely limit the inclusion of controversial measures in the base text of the bill, such as lifting the 40-year-old ban on the export of crude oil which is opposed by Cantwell.
Export Ban Discussions
“I am continuing to look for avenues and opportunities to change this outdated wrong-headed policy,” Murkowski said when asked about the measure's inclusion in the bill. “We are certainly in discussions.”
The trade restriction was put in place in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, but opponents of the ban, which include major oil companies such as Hess Corp., Marathon Oil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, said it no longer makes sense in the face of booming domestic oil production. Opponents include refiners such as Alon USA, Monroe Energy LLC, PBF Energy and Philadelphia Energy Solutions, who argue it will increase costs. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
Watchdog: EPA Should Do More On Fracking Chemicals
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The EPA’s internal watchdog recommended Thursday that it improve oversight of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
Specifically, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) said the agency needs to crack down on the unlicensed use of diesel fuel in fracking and figure out whether to mandate public disclosure of fracking chemicals.A 2005 federal law greatly limits the EPA’s authority over fracking, but the OIG’s report focuses on two areas where it says the agency can do more under the Safe Drinking Water Act: regulating the use of diesel fuel and considering mandating chemical disclosure.
The EPA lets some states regulate diesel use if their programs are up to federal standards.
“There is evidence that the EPA and primacy states have not been fully successful in their efforts to effectively control the use of diesel fuels for well stimulation,” the OIG said in its Thursday report.
Hundreds of wells have been fracked with diesel fuel, often without the proper permitting, the OIG said, although the EPA has taken steps to crack down.
The EPA has also taken action to allay public fears about chemicals used in fracking, but the OIG said it should do more, including following up on its pledge last year to determine whether it should mandate disclosure of chemicals.
The agency received hundreds of thousands of comments on its public notice last year saying it would look into the issue.
“To date, however, the agency has not addressed the comments or developed a plan of action for the next steps,” the report said, adding that the EPA “needs to develop an action plan with a timeline to address the public comments and determine whether to propose a rule to obtain information on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing.”
In response to the report, Ken Kopocis, who heads the EPA’s water pollution office, said the agency would release a report by March 2017 on diesel permitting.
As for chemical disclosures, Kopocis said the EPA is still reviewing last year’s public comments to determine the next step.
In a report last month, the EPA concluded that it found some instances of harms to drinking water from fracking, but they were neither “widespread” nor “systemic.”
-
Merkley Unveils Bill To Block Oil And Gas Drilling
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Daniel Bush
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced legislation today that would block oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean, adding another potential obstacle to Royal Dutch Shell PLC's drilling plans in the region.
Merkley's bill, the "Stop Arctic Drilling Act of 2015," would block the renewal of new and existing fossil fuel drilling permits in the Arctic Ocean. It would also amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to give the Interior Department more control over energy development in the Arctic Ocean.
Merkley said drilling in the Arctic would be a "crime against the environment" because it could lead to more oil spills like the Exxon Valdez spill that dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989.
"Though the oil disappeared from view eventually, many Alaskan beaches are still polluted to this day with crude oil" from the Exxon Valdez disaster, Merkley said on a call with reporters.
"The Arctic is too remote, too fragile and too harsh to safely drill there," he added.
The legislation does not take direct aim at Shell's exploratory drilling plans in the Arctic, which suffered a setback last week when a Shell-owned ice management vessel headed to the company's Chukchi Sea oil leases was forced to turn back after a leak was discovered in the ship's hull (E&ENews PM, July 7).
Merkley said the bill would not revoke existing oil leases in the Arctic. But if the legislation were to advance through the GOP-controlled Congress -- a highly unlikely prospect -- it could complicate Shell's future drilling plans in the U.S.-owned waters off the coast of Alaska.
Whatever its prospects, Merkley urged Shell to abandon its Arctic Ocean drilling plans.
"As time passes, there will be mistakes, there will be spills, and those spills will be absolutely devastating," Merkley said. "I would call on Shell as a corporate citizen not to return to the Arctic."
Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The oil giant has secured most of the federal permits it needs to move forward with its multibillion-dollar drilling program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Shell had said before its latest setback earlier this month that it planned to start drilling in the Arctic Ocean by mid-July.
Merkley said he would seek to build support for his legislation among Senate lawmakers opposed to the Obama administration's decision earlier this year to approve Shell's drilling plans in the Arctic. So far, Democratic Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Al Franken of Minnesota and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have signed on as co-sponsors.
Environmental organizations also backed the proposal.
The bill "would keep oil from spilling in our fragile Arctic Ocean, while helping to ensure our nation is pursuing policies aimed at avoiding the worst effects of climate change," Alaska Wilderness League Executive Director Cindy Shogan said in a statement.
But President Obama has repeatedly supported Shell's Arctic oil development plans.
The president in May argued that company officials have given regulators "assurances that we have not seen before, taking account of the extraordinary challenges if, in fact, there was a leak that far north and in that kind of an environment, which would be much more difficult to deal with than in the Gulf" (Greenwire, May 15).
"Shell had to go back to the drawing board, revamp its approach, and the experts at this point have concluded that they have met those standards," Obama said.
-
BLM Fracking Rule Set To Stay In Limbo Until Sept.
Jul 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Bureau of Land Management’s fracking regulations, placed on hold by a federal judge weighing a challenge by four states and two industry groups, are on course to stay frozen for weeks longer than anticipated.
The new delay was triggered by an extension the court gave BLM to file an administrative record that had been due next week. The agency will now have until Aug. 28 to file, according to a spokesman for the Western Energy Alliance, one of the industry-backed plaintiffs in the suit against the regulations.
Those plaintiffs are expected to have about a week to file separately, teeing up a decision on whether to grant a preliminary injunction against the rules around mid-September, WEA spokesman Aaron Johnson added. -
Gore Knocks Obama Over 'Insane' Arctic Drilling Plan
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama’s approval of a Royal Dutch Shell plan to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean is “insane,” former Vice President Al Gore said.
“I think Arctic drilling is insane,” Gore told The Guardian on Thursday. “I think that countries around the world would be very well advised to put restrictions on drilling for oil in the Arctic Ocean.”
Gore has spent his post-political life advocating for action on climate change, and has been a big proponent of the work Obama has done on that front.
In his interview with The Guardian, Gore endorsed most of what Obama has done on environmental issues, but he said the May 11 decision to allow Shell to drill in the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska was a mistake.
“I think the Deepwater Horizon spill [in the Gulf of Mexico] was warning enough,” Gore said. “The conditions are so hostile for human activity there. I think it’s a mistake to drill for oil in the Arctic. I think that ought to be banned.”
Gore's film “An Inconvenient Truth” came out in 2006 and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental activism in 2007. Today he’s focused on training climate advocates in eight major carbon-emitting countries ahead of an international climate summit in Paris this year, according to The Guardian.
Gore has previously credited Obama for his work on climate issues. Gore told The Guardian that, except for his administration’s drilling and coal mining policies, he’s on board with what Obama has done.
“I think he is doing essentially a very good job, but on the fossil fuel side I would certainly be happier if he was not allowing so much activity like the Arctic drilling permit and the large amounts of coal extracted from public lands,” Gore said.
-
Will Natural Gas Pipelines Crowd Out Renewables?
Jul 16, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Dan Upham
In the 1989 classic Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner’s character hears a voice in a cornfield whispering, “If you build it, they will come.” Befitting a family movie, he did build a baseball field and spectators did indeed come.
Applying this vintage pop culture expression to the natural gas infrastructure landscape of today is more appropriate than you may think.
Because of the variability of renewable energy sources, natural gas-fired power plants can serve an important role as a back-up source that can be quickly ramped up when the sun is down or the wind stops blowing.
The question is, will natural gas pipelines and power plants we designed for that role - or will the massive build-out of the nation’s gas infrastructure system, to the tune of $150 billion, make us rely on fossil fuels for decades to come?
It’s a pertinent query, considering that 46 percent of the pipeline that exists today sits idle, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
So before we rush to build more at great upfront expense and greater long-term environmental cost, we should remove regulatory and market barriers that keep us from taking full advantage of the massive infrastructure we already have.
“If we don’t, then billions of dollars of capital sunk into new pipelines will fall needlessly on ratepayer shoulders, and potentially constrain the ongoing expansion of clean, low-cost renewable technologies,” writes my colleague Jonathan Peress.
46 percent of the pipeline that exists today sits idle.
This takes us back to the “If you build it, they will come,” analogy.
If we build out our natural gas infrastructure properly, more renewables will indeed come. If we build it out the wrong way, it may stunt the renewable industry’s booming growth.
This is because an overbuilt regional gas pipeline system may, in effect, lock in fossil fuels for a long time and crowd out investments in clean energy.
Just like in Field of Dreams, we need to pay close attention to how we design the thing we build – and make sure we have a long-term strategy that gradually moves us away from dirty power sources and toward a more sustainable future.
-
Keystone Measure May be Attached to Highway Bill
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) may seek to attach legislation on the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline to transportation legislation expected on the Senate floor next week.
“It's certainly a possibility,” Hoeven told Bloomberg BNA. “I may but not for sure. It might help bring votes to it.”
Hoeven was the author of legislation (S. 1) that would have circumvented an ongoing Obama administration review of the $8 billion Canada-to-Texas pipeline that was vetoed by the White House earlier this year. A Senate vote in March fell five votes short of the 67 needed to override the veto (43 DEN A-16, 3/5/15).
The Obama administration is reviewing the proposed 1,700 mile pipeline, which must receive U.S. approval because it would cross an international boundary. Proponents of the project, which include the American Petroleum Institute, have said that after seven years, the project is being delayed in red tape for political reasons.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline being developed by TransCanada Corp. would carry crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Neb., where it would link up with other sections of the Keystone system.
Hoeven has long said he would consider attaching the legislation to a “must-pass” bill, including the highway measure needed to reauthorize funding for surface transportation programs.
“I think our best bet is to hook it onto something else,” Hoeven said earlier this year.
The Senate is expected to move to the yet-to-be released surface transportation reauthorization bill with a cloture vote July 21.
House members passed a five-month extension of highway programs July 15 on a 312-119 vote.
-
Inhofe: Senate Highway Bill to Include Strategic Petroleum Reserve Sales
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Anthony Adragna
Senate legislation to fund highways and other transportation programs will be partially funded by selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters July 16.
The bill, which has yet to be released, seeks $10 billion from a sale of crude oil from the stockpile, though that could change, a committee aide told Bloomberg BNA.
“If you look at the whole package, that's a relatively small part of it,” Inhofe said.
The concept of using the SPR to fund part of the bill, said to total between $80 billion and $90 billion over six years, has support from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, but critics of the idea include Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Reserve No ATM
“I have made very clear it is a wrong-headed approach and bad policy to use our safety net as some kind of an ATM,” Murkowski said. “That's not what it's designed for.”
The SPR—the largest stockpile of government-owned emergency crude oil in the world—holds nearly 700 million barrels of crude oil in four storage locations in Louisiana and along the Texas Gulf Coast. Established in the aftermath of the 1970s Arab oil embargo, the SPR is made available in case a disruption in commercial oil supplies threatens the U.S. economy, according to the Energy Department.
The reserve is getting a second look from both lawmakers and the Obama administration as increased domestic oil production has called into question its need.
House Bill Tapped SPR
House legislation (H.R. 6) passed earlier in the month, intended to speed up the approval of innovative drugs and medical devices, included a provision to allow the sale of 80 million barrels of oil from the SPR to help pay for the $98 billion legislation, drawing a rebuke from the White House.
“The Administration reiterates the critical importance of making the investments necessary to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and ensure it continues to support U.S. energy security,” the administration said in a statement of administration policy.
The Senate is expected to move onto the surface transportation reauthorization bill with a cloture vote the week of July 20.
-
Senate Committee May Mark Up Energy Bill Next Week as Negotiations Wind Down
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee may mark up comprehensive energy legislation as soon as July 21, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters.
Potential committee action on the bill comes as negotiations between Murkowski and her democratic counterpart on the committee Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) wind down. Only five outstanding areas of disagreement remain, Murkowski said without elaborating.
“My hope is we will be able to do it for next week,” Murkowski told reporters.
Bill Within Days
The legislation is expected to be unveiled within “the next couple of days,” Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski and other committee Republicans, told Bloomberg BNA.
Murkowski is considering measures ranging from a bill to expedite the federal permitting process for future cross-border energy projects such as oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines to legislation that would give states instead of the federal government the lead role for regulating hydraulic fracturing as she crafts the bill.
But the political reality of writing a bill that can obtain enough democratic support to pass the Senate and avoid a veto by the White House will likely limit the inclusion of controversial measures in the base text of the bill, such as lifting the 40-year-old ban on the export of crude oil which is opposed by Cantwell.
Export Ban Discussions
“I am continuing to look for avenues and opportunities to change this outdated wrong-headed policy,” Murkowski said when asked about the measure's inclusion in the bill. “We are certainly in discussions.”
The trade restriction was put in place in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, but opponents of the ban, which include major oil companies such as Hess Corp., Marathon Oil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, said it no longer makes sense in the face of booming domestic oil production. Opponents include refiners such as Alon USA, Monroe Energy LLC, PBF Energy and Philadelphia Energy Solutions, who argue it will increase costs.
-
Protesters Heckle Clinton Over Climate Change
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of protesters demanded Hillary Clinton take a strong stance on climate change on Thursday, chanting to interrupt the Democratic presidential candidate during a town hall event in New Hampshire.
Clinton was asked about her stance on banning fossil fuel extraction on public land, something she said she couldn’t support “until we get alternatives into place,” according to CNN.
An audience member followed up, saying she was disappointed by the answer and asking if it was because of campaign contributions Clinton has received from the fossil fuel industry.
“No. No, it is not,” Clinton said, adding that the more politically appealing answer — that “you bet I will ban extraction on public lands” — would have been infeasible as a policy position.
“We have to change our energy policy, I have been clear about that,” she said.
“I have been repeatedly clear about that, and we also have to do it in a way that doesn’t disrupt our economy. It’s really easy to say, let’s ban all of these fossil fuel extractions and forget about all the people who are employed, who have jobs, who rely on the energy.”
Clinton said she is “a strong believer in tackling climate change in the very strongest way we can, to have that transition away from it, into clean, renewable energy, solar and wind and advanced biofuels and the like.”
The answer wasn’t enough for some in the audience, who stood and began chanting, “Act on climate, act on climate.”
As the group chanted, Clinton replied: "That's OK, that's OK, that’s OK. I am all in favor of acting on climate.”
Clinton’s opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination have criticized her over what they contend is a lack of details about her climate change agenda.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on her to take a stand against the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline when she visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
“I have helped lead the opposition against the Keystone pipeline,” he said. “I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue.”
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another Democratic contender, has introduced an aggressive climate change platform, calling for phasing out fossil fuels by 2050. Billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer endorsed the plan as “real, concrete solutions to climate change” when O’Malley pitched it in June.
-
Clinton Interrupted By Green Protesters
Jul 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
Demonstrators calling for action on climate change interrupted a Hillary Clinton town hall in New Hampshire today after the Democratic frontrunner diverged from one of her challengers on whether to ban fossil fuel development on public lands.
Asked if she would block drilling and mining on public lands, Clinton answered plainly: “Not until we’ve got the alternatives in place.” She called global warming an “existential threat” and declared herself “100 percent in favor of accelerating development of solar, wind, advanced biofuels, energy efficiency, everything we can do” in the service of “cutting back over time and phasing out the extraction of fossil fuels.”
“But I will say this,” Clinton added. “We still have to run our economy, we still have to turn on the lights.”
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, battling Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, last week vowed to go further than the former secretary of State and block fossil-fuel extraction on public lands. -
Spending Bills Still Moving -- To Uncertain Future
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
House and Senate appropriators are closing in on a key milestone by completing nearly all of the annual spending bills before the August recess.
With yesterday's passage of the $20.51 billion fiscal 2016 Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies spending bill, the Senate Appropriations panel has just one bill left -- the financial services bill -- to clear its roster, which is anticipated to happen next week (Greenwire, July 16).
Their House counterparts cleared the decks earlier this week by passing the fiscal 2016 Homeland Security measure, prompting Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) to declare that the panel "has done its job."
In another era, that might have left plenty of time for passing the bills on the floor through regular order and beat the Sept. 30 deadline that marks the end of the fiscal year.
But the conclusion to the appropriations process in the 114th Congress promises to be yet another messy affair, with a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government open a near certainty.
Senate Democrats aren't backing down from their threat to filibuster spending measures in order to force Republicans into budget talks, and the majority shows no signs of taking them up on the offer.
"There's no interest on the Republican Senate side for initiating this conversation on the Budget Control Act, which means that we are setting ourselves up for a last-minute CR at the end of September," Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told E&E Daily this week. "The alternative is shutting down the government, and I'm sure the Republicans don't want to see that happen again on their watch. So we're faced with a CR because of this refusal to sit down and talk quietly by Senate Republicans."
On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders are struggling with the spending bills due to the bizarre debacle over Confederate flag amendments that prompted leaders to pull the Interior-Environment bill from the floor last week (E&ENews PM, July 9).
"It was really quite stunning," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who as chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee has labored for years to bring that particularly difficult measure along through regular order.
She broke that streak this year by moving the bill through committee, but conceded that its prospects for floor debate are dismal.
"We haven't been able to even have an Interior approps bill come before the subcommittee for discussion," she said this week. "We made it pretty far, with the fact that we made it out of subcommittee and had a vote in full committee. But still having said that, it doesn't look entirely encouraging right now that we're going to see it on the floor."
A House leadership aide said this week that discussions continue on how to move the spending bills forward, although many lawmakers think the flag flap spells the end of regular order for this year.
Assuming a short-term CR is put in place, Congress will buy some time to try to assemble an omnibus package, which would allow appropriators to salvage their hard work by incorporating at least some of the provisions from the individual bills.
The spending stalemate also makes it tougher for Republicans to press hot-button environmental policy riders in omnibus negotiations, given that there's little way to demonstrate the levels of support in each chamber for the provisions. "It's hard," Murkowski said.
But the path to an omnibus won't be easy, either. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on Appropriations, signaled yesterday that Democrats aren't going to stand down from their demands to replace the sequestration cuts they so oppose in omnibus talks with Republicans.
"I can work with them, but they have to work with us," she told E&E Daily. "We're ready to work with them. I'm ready to postpone part of my August recess or whatever if we're going to get budget talks going."
She argued that the higher funding levels that Democrats have pushed in Appropriations markups would merely restore spending to 2010 levels and are perfectly reasonable.
"We're not going for lavish funding, budget busting," Mikulski said. "So the answer is that the other party is still pretty dug in. And we're looking now at the other ways to move this."
If the impasse drags on, the worst-case scenario for appropriators is a yearlong CR, which basically means months of hearings and hard work was all for naught.
"To know that we would just kind of roll into a CR without acknowledging all of the efforts that have been made is discouraging," Murkowski said. "But I'm not ready to give up on it yet. It's still only July."
-
Senate Climate Amendment Falls in Floor Vote
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA
By Dean Scott and Anthony Adragna
An amendment by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to have the Senate agree that carbon pollution is raising global temperatures enough to pose “a significant threat to the economy and security of the United States” was defeated late July 15 during debate on a broad education bill.
Markey's amendment—which also said the scientific evidence linking human activity to climate change “is overwhelming and undeniable”—fell by a vote of 44-53.
It would have amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize a new climate-related education grant program—coordinated by the departments of education and energy, NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency—to boost the understanding of climate science for grades kindergarten through 12.
In floor debate before the vote, Markey said his proposal was a “simple” one that would support development and improvement of educational materials as well as teacher training on climate change science and solutions.
“The children of our country deserve the best scientific education they can get on this topic,” Markey said. “We must ensure that we provide the best science training available for this next generation—the green generation,” who he said are “are going to have to confront this problem.”
“They should have the best scientific evidence available,” the Democrat said.
Three Democrats voted against Markey's amendment: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.). Two Republicans—Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.)—voted yes.
Among those not voting were Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) as well as two senators seeking the Republican presidential nomination: Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Ted Cruz (Texas).
The Massachusetts Democrat also offered two other climate-related amendments; neither were accepted for floor debate.
Politicized Science?
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said that while he recognized climate change is occurring and “that human activity is a major contributor to that problem,” he opposed Markey's amendment as additional federal intrusion into local education matters. He also warned that such climate curriculum proposals could potentially politicize the science of climate change.
“If you love Washington getting involved in Common Core, you will [favor] this amendment because it gets the federal government involved in creating a curriculum for climate change in your local high schools,” Alexander said. “Based upon what we know about the U.S. Department of Education, as soon as we authorize this, it will begin to write regulations [specifying] what we mean by climate change, and we would have to change textbooks in 100,000 public schools every time we have a presidential election,” the Tennessee Republican said.
“Just imagine what the curriculum on climate change would be if we shifted from President Obama to President Cruz and then back to President Sanders and then to President Trump. There would be a lot of wasted paper, writing and rewriting textbooks,” Alexander said.
The Senate ultimately passed the education reauthorization bill (S. 1177) July 16 by a vote of 81-17 without taking up another climate amendment readied last week by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). His amendment would have directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide local and state educational agencies “balanced, objective resources” on climate science, including materials that would recognize the “natural cycles” of climate change as well as “uncertainties inherent” in climate modeling (132 DEN A-4, 7/10/15).
-
White House Vows ‘Rigorous Review' of Ozone Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not yet received the revised ozone standard from the Environmental Protection Agency, but expects to complete a “rigorous review” of the new rule before an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked OIRA Administrator Howard Shelanski during a Senate hearing July 16 whether there will be adequate time to sufficiently review the ozone rule and its economic impact. Shelanski said OIRA and the EPA have been coordinating to ensure there would be enough time.
Shelanski testified about the role of OIRA in the rulemaking process at a hearing by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management.
OIRA has 90 days to review a rule, although extensions are allowed under certain circumstances. But there is no minimum amount of time a review must take.
“The time it takes us to review a rule is often very dependent on how high a priority the rule is for the agency,” Shelanski said.
Fast Responses Expected
OIRA will review the comments and do its own analysis of EPA's underlying rule, Shelanski said. However, when agencies are under court order, OIRA tends to get fairly fast responses to its questions and nothing sits for long periods of time, he said.
“So I would expect that we would be able to conduct a high-quality and rigorous review of both the rule and the underlying evidence in the time that we have under the court order,” Shelanski said.
The EPA is working to complete its revisions to the current ozone national standards of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The EPA in December proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the national standards to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. The agency estimated the proposal could cost as much as $16.6 billion annually in 2025 (114 DEN A-6, 6/15/15).
The largest area of OIRA's work is the review of regulations issued by executive branch departments and agencies, Shelanski said. Once an agency submits a rule for review, OIRA first circulates the rule to other affected agencies across the federal government and coordinates an interagency review.
OIRA also reviews the rule itself to ensure it complies with the principles in Executive Order No. 12,866, such as minimizing burdens on small businesses, and the accompanying regulatory impact analyses and cost-benefit analyses.
-
6th Circuit Backs Strict RACT Mandate In NAAQS Plans But Allows Trading
Jul 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in a new ruling has agreed with environmentalists that states crafting plans to demonstrate attainment of EPA national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) must include reasonably available control technology (RACT) even if RACT is not “strictly necessary” to meet the NAAQS.
As a result, the court in its unanimous July 14 ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al. vacated EPA's decision to redesignate parts of Ohio and Indiana in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from nonattainment to attainment. The state implementation plans (SIPs) -- blueprints for NAAQS compliance -- that EPA approved for both states were in error because they failed to include RACT emissions controls on industrial sources as a prerequisite, the court ruled.
While the decision is a win for environmentalists on the RACT issue, Sierra Club failed with a related argument that states cannot rely on emissions cap-and-trade programs to satisfy a Clean Air Act mandate that SIP emissions controls be permanent and enforceable as the air law mandates.
Instead, the three-judge panel that heard the case says that the law gives EPA enough discretion to determine that pollution trading can satisfy the requirement.
The ruling highlights important requirements that the 6th Circuit states -- Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee -- will have to follow when crafting plans for attaining EPA's six NAAQS criteria pollutants.
In the Sierra Club case, the environmental group challenged EPA direct final rules in 2011 that approved requests from Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky to redesignate their respective portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as attaining the agency's 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
Sierra Club faulted what it said was inadequate RACT or reasonably available control measure (RACM) pollution controls on industry in the plans.
The court notes that Sierra Club never raised the RACT/RACM issue in comments on Kentucky's request, so focuses its ruling on that issue to faulting the lack of the measures in the requests from Ohio and Indiana.
The decision creates a split with a 7th Circuit decision from 2004, also known as Sierra Club v. EPA, in which that court had said that the applicable SIP might not have to be the plans submitted for agency approval prior to attainment. The 6th Circuit says EPA attempted to cite the competing decision to justify its redesignation decision, by claiming that it only had to approve the parts of the plan that were vital for the areas to achieve compliance with the NAAQS.
EPA had also argued that it need only approve a SIP to the extent a plan satisfies all the air law's “applicable requirements” including RACT as necessary, rather than always mandating RACT at all times.
The 6th Circuit says however that its own 2001 decision in Wall v. EPA -- a suit over the agency's approval of requests from Kentucky and Ohio to redesignate the Cincinnati area to attainment for the ozone NAAQS -- precludes EPA's arguments in the current suit.
The court says it held in Wall “that the Act unambiguously requires RACT in the area's SIP as a prerequisite to redesignation,” and must take the same approach in Sierra Club. “In sum, a State seeking redesignation 'shall provide for the implementation' of RACT/RACM, even if those measures are not strictly necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS. If the State has not done so, EPA cannot 'fully approve' the area's SIP, and redesignation to attainment status is improper,” the court says.
As a result, the court vacated the redesignations of the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. But it leaves in place the redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the area that Sierra Club sued over.
Trading Programs
In the same suit, Sierra Club had argued that EPA erred with its redesignation decisions because it allowed the SIPs to rely in part on emissions reductions expected from air pollution cap-and-trade programs.
EPA has developed several regulations to use trading to cut emissions, through which industrial sources of emissions can either install pollution controls and earn credits to comply or purchase credits as an alternative compliance option. Sierra Club and other critics of reliance on these programs in SIPs say that the use of credits means they cannot satisfy an air law mandate that SIP air pollution controls be “permanent and enforceable.”
But the 6th Circuit opinion written by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons on behalf of fellow Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Judge Robert Dow, sitting by designation, rejected the attacks on the use of trading programs and defends the agency's reliance on such programs that include EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that the Supreme Court upheld in an April 2014 ruling.
The court in Sierra Club says that the “heart of this dispute is really where the sources that reduce their emissions must be located,” noting that environmentalists are trying to win a ruling that says the Cincinnati area could only ever prove NAAQS attainment “solely” because sources within the strict confines of the nonattainment area have reduced their emissions -- a position that would preclude cuts achieved from a broader-reaching trading program.
EPA and groups that intervened on the agency's behalf had argued in the litigation that the Clean Air Act is silent on the location of the emissions reductions, and that a wider regional focus is necessary given that reducing air pollution is a regional problem.
“In other words,” the court says, EPA and its supporters say states “can show an improvement in Cincinnati air quality due to less inflow of particulate matter from sources outside the nonattainment area.” The court says that the statute is ambiguous enough to defer to the agency on this issue.
By relying on the broader geographic area involved in a regional trading program, EPA can satisfy the air law's requirement for permanent emissions reductions in a SIP, the court says.
The court also rejected Sierra Club's claim that trading programs fall short of the “enforceable” requirement under the Clean Air Act. The judges note that the law requires “enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques,” which it says can including trading programs.
EPA or the state of Ohio and the Ohio Utility Group that intervened on the agency's behalf could potentially now ask the court to rehear the decision, or seek Supreme Court review.
-
Attorneys Expect Mercury Standards to Stay in Place
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Two attorneys predicted that a federal appeals court will leave the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants in place while the agency addresses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Andrew Grossman, an attorney with BakerHostetler and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and Richard Revesz, Lawrence King Professor of Law and dean emeritus of the New York University School of Law, both said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will likely remand the mercury standards back to the EPA for further consideration without vacating the standards. Grossman and Revesz spoke during a July 16 teleconference hosted by the American Bar Association.
The future of the mercury and air toxics standards is unclear in the wake of a June decision by the Supreme Court that the EPA was required to consider compliance costs when deciding it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions from power plants.
The court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, reversed a 2014 D.C. Circuit decision that had upheld the mercury standards and remanded the issue back to that court, which will decide whether the standards remain in place (Michigan v. EPA, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (U.S. 2015); 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15).
Grossman, who filed an amicus brief in Michigan v. EPA on behalf of the Cato Institute, said it's unlikely that many parties involved in the litigation will ask the D.C. Circuit to vacate the standards because the power industry has already committed about 90 percent of the capital spending required for compliance.
Most power plants were required to comply with the mercury standards by April 16, and several major power companies told Bloomberg BNA that the Supreme Court's review of the standards would have little practical effect on them because long-term investments in pollution controls and decisions to retire coal-fired power plants had already been made (71 DEN A-1, 4/14/15).
‘Strong Argument' for No Vacatur
Revesz, who filed an amicus brief in Michigan v. EPA on behalf of the Institute for Policy Integrity, noted that the D.C. Circuit has remanded environmental regulations back to the EPA without vacating the rules “with some frequency” in the past.
The EPA has an argument that is “quite strong” in favor of leaving the standards in place because the agency already has completed a cost-benefit analysis of the mercury standards, which found that the benefits “vastly exceeded” the compliance costs, Revesz said.
The agency's cost-benefit analysis identified as much as $90 billion in estimated benefits that could be attributed to the mercury and air toxics standards, compared to annual compliance costs of $9.6 billion.
Revesz said that one option for the EPA on remand would be to say that the cost-benefit analysis that it already did for the mercury and air toxics standards is relevant to the “appropriate and necessary” determination.
Revesz predicted that after a public comment opportunity, the EPA will again find that regulating mercury emissions from power plants is appropriate and necessary.
EPA Will ‘Fix' Remand Determination
Grossman also predicted that the EPA will “fix” its determination on remand, likely using a “tapestry approach” that calculates both direct and indirect costs and benefits. When the rule is released, the central legal question will be whether the EPA is legally allowed to consider indirect benefits of regulating mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
In the EPA's cost-benefit analysis for the mercury and air toxics standards, the agency only quantified between $4 million and $6 million in benefits associated with reduction of hazardous air pollutant emissions. The rest of the quantified benefits were attributed to “co-benefits” from the reduction of fine particulate matter and other pollutants.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was critical of the use of co-benefits during March oral argument in Michigan v. EPA, but the court's opinion didn't weigh in on the use of co-benefits.
Grossman said that while the co-benefits issue has yet to be decided, it's possible that there may be no parties with standing interested in continuing litigation on the mercury rule once it's reissued. Utilities that are regulated by the standards may not be interested in litigating since they have already made the investments needed to comply with the standards, he said.
-
Obama Unveils New Coal Mining Rules
Jul 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration Thursday unveiled new standards meant to better protect streams in Appalachia from the controversial mountaintop removal coal mining process.
The proposed rule, from the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM), would update three-decade-old standards that create a buffer zone around streams, prohibiting mining activities and waste from getting near them and harming the ecosystem.Administration officials characterized the rule as a common-sense approach that uses the best available science to protect streams and groundwater from the effects of mining.
But Republicans and industry leaders immediately blasted the rule as part of President Obama’s “war on coal” and challenged the idea that the 1983 standards need updating.“These regulations are meant to protect human health and welfare by protecting our environment, while helping to meet the nation’s economic needs and supporting economic opportunity,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told reporters Thursday. “That’s what what Americans expect from their government — a modern and balanced approach to energy development that safeguards our environment, protects water quality, supports the energy needs of the nation, and makes coalfield communities more resilient for a diversified economic future.” Janice Schneider, Interior’s assistant secretary for land and minerals management, called the proposal “commonsense and straightforward reforms that revise a set of regulations that are now more than three decades old,” and added that they are guided by the best science and technology available. Schneider said the rules provide certainty to miners, with new specificity on which streams are covered and which are not.
The rule is part of a years-long battle the Obama administration has fought against mountaintop removal, in which miners blast away large parts of mountains and often put the waste in valleys.
In addition to avoiding streams, mining companies would have to improve their standards for testing streams for possible pollution, and the rule would require them to restore streams that get mined over.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, immediately criticized the rule and said the Interior Department did not fulfill its responsibilities to consult with states.
“The Obama administration has proven to be the bully regulation machine once again,” he said in a statement.
“Nine out of ten states have rejected the dog and pony show of inclusion OSM has put forward,” he said. “I am afraid that their concerns with the impacts of the rule on Americans will be cast aside.”
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) compared the rule to the Environmental Protection Agency’s mercury and air toxics rules, which the Supreme Court said last month were not properly written.
“It’s outrageous that less than a month after being rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court for ignoring the costs of its regulations, the administration is doing it again with this job-crushing, anti-coal rule,” he said in a statement.
“It’s no secret that this overreaching rule is designed to help put coal country out of business. Less coal production means more Americans will be out of work and families will be forced to pay more just to keep the lights on.”The National Mining Association urged Congress to act to overturn the rule immediately. “This is a rule in search of a problem,” Hal Quinn, the group’s chief executive officer, said in a statement. “It has nothing to do with new science and everything to do with an old and troubling agenda for separating more coal miners from their jobs. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, applauded the rule and said it is long overdue, mostly because of Republican efforts to block it. “Republicans threw everything but the kitchen sink at this rule, and then they threw the sink,” he said in a statement. “I congratulate everyone at OSMRE who jumped uncountable hurdles on the way to today’s announcement.” The House has voted repeatedly to block the Obama administration from updating the regulation. Freshman Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) has taken the lead on legislative efforts. His Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Action in Mining Act seeks to delay or prevent the rule by requiring various studies and analyses before it can be made final.
-
EPA Chief Vows To Streamline CWA Jurisdiction Rule Implementation
Jul 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is vowing that the agency will do “everything possible” to streamline implementation of its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, including establishment of a database aimed at making public any implementing decisions and a new joint memo with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure consistency.
McCarthy, speaking at a National Corn Growers Association conference July 16, said EPA and Corps staff will “actually develop a database that is transparent so that we can have online for you decisions that are being made” on the rule's implementation.
The agencies jointly published the final rule in the June 29 Federal Register, and a handful of lawsuits by states and industry have already been filed across multiple federal district and appellate courts challenging the rule's provisions as overly broad and unconstitutional.
The rule is aimed at clarifying the scope of the water law in the wake of Supreme Court rulings that created confusion on when smaller waters that may affect downstream water quality are subject to federal requirements.
A major question on the rule has been on how the agencies will implement its provisions. McCarthy told the July 16 conference that a database will help by ensuring that “you see we are doing it consistently and to make sure you have the advantage of seeing decisions that are being made, permits are being issued, so you can hopefully be assured that we are doing everything possible to streamline the implementation of this rule and to make sure that when permits are necessary, that they are being delivered in a timely way.”
McCarthy said the agencies will work with industry to make sure the rule is implemented in a way that is consistent and “as streamlined as possible” in the interim while the database is being developed.
In response to remarks from conference attendees that field staff have not been clear on their plans to implement the rule, McCarthy responded that she would be willing to work with corn growers to address the concerns. She also referenced a memo issued by EPA and the Corps, saying the memo made clear that “we have to have consistent implementation” and the agencies plan to develop a question-and-answer webpage.
“So that when you are asking a question, you get exactly the same answer as the next person and it doesn't need to be translated by an intermediary,” McCarthy said. She acknowledged the need to train field staff, but said “the broader responsibility is when one person asked the question they should get an answer, and everybody else should hear it.”
McCarthy urged industry to gather their questions, and said EPA staff have been instructed to do the same. “I'm not waiting for a 350 page manual to come out six months from now,” she said. “This thing is going to be ready soon. You know, it is going to be in force.”
-
EPA Touts CWA Rulings As Bolstering Authority For Novel Nutrients Policies
Jul 16, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is touting recent federal appellate rulings that deferred to the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) approach to curbing nutrients and other pollutants as bolstering its legal standing for future similar plans despite potential objection from industry or advocates, though it remains unclear to which other waters EPA might apply that power.
The rulings, which backed EPA's Chesapeake Bay multi-state nutrient and sediment cleanup plan and its approval of Florida's nutrient standards, "can only help" clarify EPA's ability to work with states to craft novel CWA strategies, EPA Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin said during a July 8 phone interview with Inside EPA. The rulings are a "recognition of the CWA, the importance of state and federal EPA collaboration in facing challenges," he said.
Environmentalist and industry attorneys say the decisions appear to give EPA more freedom to apply its methods elsewhere -- such as in the Mississippi River basin, where the agency is resisting environmentalists' petition to impose federal nutrient limits on state governments, or in the Great Lakes where federal officials are working with states on controlling nutrient-fueled algal blooms through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
"There are lots of multi-state problems. We have Lake Champlain, we have the Long Island Sound, the Gulf of Mexico. There are lots of places where nutrient pollution needs to be looked at by multiple states, and the [Chesapeake] ruling seems to leave EPA with more freedom to do that," an environmentalist attorney says.
In the Chesapeake Bay ruling in American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), et al. v. EPA, et al., a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on June 6 backed the agency's landmark interstate total maximum daily load (TMDL) cleanup plan for the Bay. That ruling paves the way for the Chesapeake TMDL to proceed, and potentially serve as a model for other interstate water cleanup efforts.
Separately, in a July 7 per curiam ruling, a unanimous 11th Circuit panel rejected environmentalists' attempt to block EPA approval of state-crafted nutrient standards for Florida that the advocates say are too lax, in Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF), et al. v. EPA, et al. The 11th Circuit decision upheld the agency's decision to work with the state rather than imposing strict federally-crafted rules as the environmental community has sought.
Garvin said that the AFBF ruling in particular could be an important precedent moving forward because of how many waters that are designated "impaired" under the CWA -- the requirement for crafting a TMDL -- cross state boundaries or otherwise require interagency efforts to address.
"There are a lot of TMDLs out there . . . The [Chesapeake] Bay is the very large one, others may be smaller but cross jurisdictional lines," Garvin said.
Water Quality
However, an industry attorney says the agency should not be overly confident in applying the Chesapeake model elsewhere since the CWA specifically calls for an interstate effort to improve water quality in the bay. That language gives EPA broader authority than it might enjoy in other regions, the source says.
"There are a number of elements that make this case unique, and EPA should be cautious in terms of how much they read into it for their federal TMDL authority in other waterbodies," the industry attorney continues.
Industry charged in the AFBF suit that EPA had unlawfully "usurped" implementation of the Chesapeake TMDL, and that it was using the plan to dictate states' land-use decisions, but the 3rd Circuit rejected those claims, giving EPA a favorable precedent it could invoke if it seeks to use a similar process elsewhere.
"The 3rd Circuit decision is certainly a pretty resounding measure of support for that process -- especially when it's a cooperative one where EPA is working with the states to set limits," the environmentalist attorney says.
The industry and environmentalist sources say EPA "has not tipped its hand" on where it could seek to implement another multi-state TMDL, but the environmentalist says the Great Lakes appear to be a likely candidate.
EPA and other agencies are generally seeking to lower nutrient levels in the Great Lakes in order to prvent a repeat of 2014's drinking water crisis in Toledo, OH. There, high levels of cyanotoxins, produced by nutrient-fueled harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie, left 500,000 residents in and around the northwest Ohio city without drinking water for several days.
"I haven't heard anything from the agency, but it's just kind of obvious, . . . especially because there are predictions that we're going to have another big algae bloom this summer," the attorney says of the potential that EPA might use its reinforced CWA authority to target those waters.
EPA Deference
EPA could also invoke the courts' deference to its nutrient policies in a still-pending case over nutrient rules in the Mississippi basin, Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), et al. v. EPA.
The case is ongoing in a Louisiana federal district court after a unanimous 5th Circuit panel April 7 struck down a district judge's 2013 order that would have forced the agency to craft a substantive response to GRN's petition seeking strict federal nutrient standards in the basin.
An interagency task force, including EPA, is working to address high nutrient levels in the basin that have led to algae blooms that created a large hypoxic "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, but GRN and other environmentalists have sought to accelerate the timeline for doing so, especially after the task force extended its deadline by 20 years -- until 2035. Advocates say even the longer timeline is likely unachievable without radically stricter nutrient policies.
EPA in its 2012 response to the GRN Mississippi nutrient petition said that even if water rules in the Mississippi basin are inadequate, federal requirements would be an inefficient way to fix the problem, as they would be difficult to implement and lead to years of litigation.
It said that exact situation had played out in the FWF case, where the agency enacted federal standards in Florida, only to face prolonged challenges from industry and state officials and eventually withdraw the federal rules in favor of the state-crafted standards -- which environmentalists fought.
Although the 5th Circuit did not back EPA's position that it cannot be forced to substantively weigh GRN's request, the ruling set a test that is highly deferential to the agency for deciding whether the decision not to substantively respond is lawful. The decision says such decisions are allowable as long as they are based on existing statutory authority.
Now the district court is set to apply that test to EPA's petition response; and the agency and GRN are scheduled to propose a litigation schedule July 17.
-
Better Training Needed for Water Jurisdiction Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency needs better training for its field staff as they begin implementation of a federal rule clarifying the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, Administrator Gina McCarthy said July 16.
Farmers at the National Corn Growers Association's Corn Congress told the administrator July 16 that agency staff hasn't been able to provide clear direction on how the jurisdictional rule applies when they have asked about National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for spraying pesticides at or near water.
McCarthy told the farmers the rule is meant to provide clarity about how and where the Clean Water Act applies.
“We have to have consistent implementation,” she said. “I read every word in this clean water rule in the preamble because I heard criticism of the proposal, so the final rule I wanted to make sure it was written in English. If I can read it, then I don't need to ask a lot of questions.”
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a rule (RIN 2040–AF30) June 29 that seeks to clarify the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over waters and wetlands (80 Fed. Reg. 37,054).
Pesticide spraying at or near jurisdictional waters already is subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting requirements under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Farmers in the past have expressed concerns that the rule doesn't make clear which waters and wetlands on their lands will be subject to Clean Water Act protections, thereby subject to NPDES permits for spraying.
McCarthy invited scrutiny of the rule. Despite farmers’ concerns, McCarthy said the rule won't add any new permitting requirements.
“We spell it out in black and white to hopefully bring needed clarity that everybody's asking for,” she said.
Several lawsuits, including challenges from 28 states, have been filed opposing the rule (134 DEN A-1, 7/14/15).
Renewable Fuels Called Priority
McCarthy said the EPA remains committed to growing production and consumption of biofuels despite a proposal that would reduce the annual blending mandates below the statutory requirements for the first time.
McCarthy said the agency plans to set aggressive standards that will drive investment in the infrastructure necessary to bring even more biofuels to the market. However, changing patterns in fuel consumption make it difficult to achieve some of the renewable fuel volumes Congress set out in the statute, she said.
“You might have heard we're trying to shrink or kill this program, but we're trying to grow it,” McCarthy told the corn growers.
The EPA for the first time has proposed (RIN 2060-AS2) reducing the overall renewable fuel blending mandates below statutory levels as part of a proposal setting renewable fuel standard requirements for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (104 DEN A-19, 6/1/15).
McCarthy acknowledged the EPA's failure to get the 2014 standards completed within the calendar year was “disruptive to say the least.”
“I apologize for that,” she said.
The EPA's final rule is expected by Nov. 30 as part of a settlement with petroleum refiners.
-
Final Waste Fuel Exclusion Rule Heads to White House
Jul 17, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Environmental Protection Agency has sent a final rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget that is expected to permit construction and demolition wood, paper recycling residuals and creosote-treated railroad ties to be regulated under less strict air pollution rules when burned in boilers or solid waste incinerators.
In a March 2014 proposed rule (RIN 2050-AG74), the agency called for granting categorical exclusions to those materials, enabling them to be burned as fuels rather than solid wastes. Materials burned as fuels are subject to regulations under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, whereas solid wastes are regulated more strictly under Section 129 (50 DEN A-6, 3/14/14).
Those proposed categorical exclusions (79 Fed. Reg. 21,006) would join several others already granted by the EPA under its February 2013 nonhazardous secondary materials rule. That earlier regulation established a process through which entities could expand the list of materials that could be regulated less strictly when burned after demonstrating they meet the criteria in 40 C.F.R. 241.4(b)(5).
Under the proposed rule, certain management standards would still have to be met for each material, according to the rule sent to OMB July 15.
Another petition from the Treated Wood Council asking for all “non-hazardous treated wood” to be categorically excluded from the stricter air pollution regulation remains under review by the EPA, and will be addressed in another proposed rule expected out this summer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously severed legal challenges related to the likely new categorical exclusions from a broader challenge to the nonhazardous secondary materials rule. That federal appeals court threw out all challenges to the broader rule in a four-page judgment in June (Solvay USA Inc. v. EPA, 2015 BL 175759, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1189, 6/3/15).
-
Crude Oil Train Derails In Montana, Prompting Evacuations
Jul 17, 2015 | AP (in the Huffington Post)
An oil train derailed Thursday in rural northeastern Montana, prompting the evacuation of some homes and leaving at least two of the cars leaking crude, authorities said.
There were no immediate reports of injury or fire, but of the 21 cars that derailed only two remained upright, Roosevelt County Sheriff Jason Frederick said.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe spokesman Michael Trevino said the train was pulling 106 loaded crude oil cars when it derailed near Culbertson near the North Dakota border just after 6 p.m. MDT.
Police, fire and other emergency responders were at the site of the derailment, which forced the closure of federal Highway 2, the region's main artery.
Frederick told The Associated Press that crews are not going too close to the leaking cars until a BNSF hazardous materials team, enroute from Texas, reaches the scene.
But he said that there was no immediate threat to public safety.
The sheriff didn't know how many homes were evacuated but described area as a rural setting with ranch homes spread apart.
The Billing Gazette reported that the derailment came only about six hours after traffic started moving again after another BNSF derailment further west near Fort Kipp on Tuesday.
Rail officials declined to specify if the train was hauling crude from North Dakota's Bakken oil patch, where growing numbers of shipments that have increasingly drawn safety concerns.
Trains hauling crude from the Bakken region have been involved in multiple derailments in recent years, some causing fires.
U.S. transportation officials recently extended an order for railroads to notify states about shipments of hazardous crude oil shipments.
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