Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 20
-
Nomination Hearing
Jul 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight Hearing on "An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon"
Jul 22, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
How Tax Compliance Obligations Hinder Small Business Growth
Jul 22, 2015 | House Small Business Committee
Locaiton: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building/ 11:00 AM -
E-manifest: An Update on Implementation
Jul 24, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 9:00 AM -
The State of Positive Train Control Implementation in the United States
Jul 24, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Millions Being Spent to Develop Alternative Test Methods
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The BASF Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co. are among the chemical companies spending tens of millions of dollars to develop new methods to evaluate the safety of their products, according to speakers attending a recent international conference in New Orleans. The need for these new approaches is driven by factors including laws forbidding... -
(ACC Mentioned) More Phthalate Studies, More Confusion, ACC Says
Jul 17, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
The uphill battle to educate consumers on phthalates continues, with recent studies bringing attention — and misinformation — about plastics into the spotlight. Two studies out of New York University have researchers linking exposure to phthalates used as replacements for DEHP to both high blood pressure and insulin resistance in ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Stricter Toxic Chemical Regulations in Sight
Jul 17, 2015 | Epoch Times
By Conan Milner
Consumer products are loaded with industrial chemicals—from cosmetics to mattresses, from firearms to food. These compounds are found in 96 percent of all manufactured goods. But a growing body of evidence finds that many chemicals on the market today are linked to serious health problems. -
(ACC Mentioned) Restaurant Leftovers Find New Purpose At Soup Kitchens And Homes For The Elderly
Jul 17, 2015 | Tri-County Times
By Sally Rummel
About 40 percent of all edible food in the U.S. goes down the drain or in a landfill — from the pasta that didn’t get eaten after a big party to the huge quantity of food that is leftover after a day’s business at a restaurant. Huge portion sizes, large menus that require lots of food on hand and chain restaurants with their own rules all result in full... -
EPA to Expand Electronic Filing for New Chemicals
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers will be required to submit pre-manufacture notices and related documents to the Environmental Protection Agency using new cloud-based software under a direct final rule the EPA is scheduled to publish July 20. The rule also will expand the types of documents that manufacturers ... -
Committee To Check Progress Of EPA Tracking Initiative
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A House subcommittee is set to check in on the progress of a multiyear U.S. EPA initiative to modernize how it tracks hazardous waste shipments and save the agency money in the process. Under the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act of 2012, EPA is authorized to implement a national ... -
Time For Oversight Of Dangerous Chemicals
Jul 19, 2015 | The Washington Post
The government is failing at protecting the public from dangerous chemicals. Congress tried to regulate the various questionable substances that manufacturers and industry use to produce the products Americans buy. But the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act failed. Stuck with a lousy law, the Environmental Protection Agency moved slowly... -
Regulating Polymers
Jul 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Danny Haacke
Legislation on chemicals is constantly evolving around the globe, and polymers are at the forefront of this changing regulatory environment. Unfortunately, all countries have their own ideas of how to regulate chemicals, leading to slight modifications that are too relevant to be ignored and require national expertise to avoid rejection of... -
How New Chemicals Are Identified
Jul 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
Existing chemicals are deemed to be safer because their effects are either known or have been in circulation long enough with no significant damage. New chemicals, on the other hand, are thought to pose a risk, as their effects on human health and the environment are often not known or verified. -
Preserving and Protecting Cleveland’s Theater District Finds Success with Spray-foam Insulation
Jul 17, 2015 | Retrofit Magazine
By Peter Davis
Downtown Cleveland’s theater district, known as Playhouse Square, is a set of nine performance venues that form the second largest performing arts center in the U.S. Its impressive history dates to the opening of the first five theaters in the 1920s. Currently, the buildings and venues of the Playhouse Square district are seeing growing interest... -
Feminine Care Product Increases Women’s Exposure to Harmful Phthalates
Jul 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
new study has found that vaginal douching by American women of childbearing age may increase their exposure to hormone-disrupting phthalates and contribute to racial and ethnic differences in exposure to the chemicals. Phthalates are a widely used group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been linked to problems... -
Fostering Sustainable Chemistry
Jul 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Henning Friege, Christopher Blum and Hans-Christian Stolzenberg
The international community is aiming to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in September. At the same time, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) will hold its penultimate conference (ICCM4) before its mandate ends in 2020. -
60 Percent of Facilities Through CFATS Process
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Almost all facilities are at least halfway through the Department of Homeland Security's chemical security program and approximately 60 percent of all regulated entities have received approval for their plans to keep their facilities safe, according to a July fact sheet. According to Department of Homeland Security data, 3,121 of 3,229 facilities... -
BLM Has Until Aug. 28 for Filing in Fracking Case
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal court granted the Bureau of Land Management five extra weeks, until Aug. 28, to file a record of decision on the BLM hydraulic fracturing rule (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-00043, 7/16/15). The rule, which updates regulations for fracking-related oil and gas work on federal and Indian lands, is subject to consolidated lawsuits... -
Offshore Oil, Gas Rule Impractical, Costly, Agency Told
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The proposed federal rule on blowout preventers and other well control systems for offshore oil and natural gas exploration needs a lot of work if it's to achieve its purposes without needlessly undercutting much investment, according to industry comments. Industry representatives described the rule as far more expensive than the... -
Tightening The Screws On Fracking
Jul 17, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Margie Alt
One of the most intractable problems of fracking is the threat its toxic, radioactive wastewater poses to our environment and our health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to prevent municipal wastewater treatment plants from accepting this hazardous wastewater is one important step toward a solution. -
Gas Industry Opposes DOE's Residential Furnace Rule
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The natural gas industry says the Energy Department's proposed rule for residential furnaces has flawed analysis and is too costly, while energy standards and consumer groups support the rule's gains in energy efficiency and long-term cost savings. The American Gas Association (AGA), which represents more than 200 local energy companies... -
Okla. Boosts Scrutiny At Disposal Wells, Hints At Volume Cut
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Mike Soraghan
Oklahoma oil and gas officials have put more than 200 new disposal wells under scrutiny for the possibility they might be contributing to the state's earthquake swarms. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) announced today it is expanding its "areas of interest" to the west and east. -
Energy On Stage In 2-Week Sprint To Recess
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
Energy policy will be a central focus of the congressional agenda over the next two weeks, including a few cameo appearances in other debates as lawmakers race to finish must-pass legislation before heading home for the August recess. The House and Senate energy committees are both looking to put ... -
U.S., EU Discuss Energy Restrictions In TTIP Talks
Jul 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Doug Palmer
U.S. and European Union trade negotiators explored the possibility of lifting restrictions on U.S. energy exports to European Union as part of talks on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the chief EU negotiator said today. "It was a very broad discussion of all aspects of energy and raw materials... -
As Final Rule Nears, Meeting Records Offer Insight Into EPA Rollout Process
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Hundreds of pages of records obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of Information Act detail who U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was talking to in the runup to the Clean Power Plan announcement last year. The documents provide a window into EPA's internal process for drafting the rule last year and could provide clues... -
Judge Dismisses Oklahoma Clean Power Plan Lawsuit
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal district court said July 17 it lacks jurisdiction to hear Oklahoma's challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan (Oklahoma v. McCarthy, N.D. Okla., No. 4:15-cv-00369, 7/17/15). In her order dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma... -
Judge Tosses Oklahoma Challenge To Proposed Carbon Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A federal judge on Friday tossed out a challenge brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt challenging EPA’s proposed carbon rule for power plants. Oklahoma failed to explain why the court has jurisdiction to hear the challenge to EPA’s proposed rule, concluded Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for Northern Oklahoma. -
Pope Francis And Brown Part Ways On Cap And Trade
Jul 19, 2015 | LA Times
By George Skelton
The pope and California's governor don't agree on everything about climate change. Global warming's threat to the planet? Yes. Selling permits to pollute? Hardly. Peddling pollution permits has a euphemism. It's politely called cap and trade. And it raises a ton of money for state government, including Gov. Jerry Brown's struggling bullet train. -
Senators Introduce Companion Coal Ash Bill
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced coal ash legislation (S. 1803) that would grant states a greater role in regulating the material as the House prepares to vote on companion legislation the week of July 20. The Senate bill, long in the works, would also permanently bar the Environmental Protection Agency... -
Power, Coal Ash Reuse Sectors File Suits Over EPA's RCRA Disposal Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists, power companies, the coal ash reuse sector, and at least one municipality have filed legal challenges to EPA's final Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal rule for coal combustion residuals, with the cases likely to revive claims by critics of the rule that it is too broad, is based on faulty data, and has... -
Senators Seek Changes To EPA Coal Ash Rule
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A pair of senators introduced legislation Friday to change the federal government’s coal ash disposal standards in a way that they say would provide more certainty to utilities. The bill from Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is similar to legislation that the House is planning -
Court Dismisses Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Obama Climate Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge on Friday dismissed Oklahoma’s second lawsuit against the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants. Judge Claire Eagan of the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that the state’s attorney general cannot challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation until it is made final. -
EPA Plans To Revive 'Significant Impact Levels' For Ozone, PM2.5 Permits
Jul 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is planning rules to revive "significant impact levels" (SILs) that industry can use to avoid certain Clean Air Act permit mandates for its ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), though environmentalists who successfully sued to scrap some previous SILs continue to oppose them. -
Michigan Would Narrow Air Contaminant List
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality proposed dropping some “low-toxicity non-carcinogens” from its list of toxic air contaminants, saying a smaller list will enable it to focus on the most harmful substances when considering air permits. As part of a draft revision to air pollution control rules, the DEQ proposed... -
Senate's Next Move A Mystery Wrapped In An Enigma
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The Senate is poised to take up a transportation funding bill this week. But which one? House leaders are pressing the upper chamber to ratify H.R. 3038, the five-month extension they muscled through last week (E&E Daily, July 16). With a key procedural vote scheduled for tomorrow morning, Senate Majority... -
Senate To Vet Nominee To Lead Embattled Agency
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
A Republican-led Senate committee this week will vet President Obama's pick to lead an agency that oversees pipeline safety in the wake of multiple explosions and spills in states including California, Illinois and Michigan. Marie Therese Dominguez, Obama's nominee to lead the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration... -
Train Derailment Spills 35,000 Gallons Of Oil In Montana
Jul 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Officials said 35,000 gallons of oil leaked from a derailed train in Montana on Thursday night, The Associated Press reports. A train carrying crude oil from North Dakota derailed in Montana’s Roosevelt County and oil leaked from three of the 20 cars that fell from the track. The train consisted of 106 tank cars, each of which can haul of up to 30,000... -
Oil Train Derailment Prompts Evacuation In Montana
Jul 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
A train pulling 106 cars loaded with oil derailed Thursday evening in northeastern Montana, and at least three of the cars were leaking crude, prompting nearby homes to be evacuated, the Associated Press reports. There were no reports of injury or fire, but of the 21 cars that derailed near Culbertson, only two remained upright, Roosevelt County... -
Court Weighs Dismissal In Suit Seeking CWA Permits For Coal Train Cars
Jul 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
A financial holding company is asking a federal district court in Washington state to block environmentalists' novel suit seeking Clean Water Act (CWA) penalties for spills of loose coal from rail cars owned by the company's subsidiaries, arguing that the CWA claims are legally flawed and that the firm cannot be held liable for the cars' use.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Jul 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM
-
Oversight Hearing on "An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon"
Jul 22, 2015 | Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
How Tax Compliance Obligations Hinder Small Business Growth
Jul 22, 2015 | House Small Business Committee
Locaiton: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building/ 11:00 AM
-
E-manifest: An Update on Implementation
Jul 24, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 9:00 AM
-
The State of Positive Train Control Implementation in the United States
Jul 24, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatitves Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Location: 2167 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Millions Being Spent to Develop Alternative Test Methods
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The BASF Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co. are among the chemical companies spending tens of millions of dollars to develop new methods to evaluate the safety of their products, according to speakers attending a recent international conference in New Orleans.
The need for these new approaches is driven by factors including laws forbidding animal tests, the time-consuming and expensive nature of animal tests, new technologies that can show biological changes such as when and how genes are changed, metabolites generated and cells communicate, and by the sheer volume of chemicals that have insufficient public toxicity and exposure data.
Despite chemical manufacturers' multimillion-dollar investments, scientists are wrestling with numerous uncertainties about how they will interpret data from the new types of tests. Yet speakers remained confident that the investments will pay off.
“I believe in vitro studies can deliver the data we need,” Hennicke Kamp, a food chemist and toxicologist who directs the BASF Services Experimental Toxicology and Ecology group, said during the June 16-17 conference.
BASF already uses high-throughput, computational and other “alternative” toxicity tests as it decides which chemicals it will further research for possible development, Kamp told Bloomberg BNA.
BASF's investment in this emerging area of science has grown to more than $10 million annually, he said.
The range of applications for these technologies will continue to grow over time, he said.
Long-Range Research Initiative
Kamp was among the industry, academic and regulatory scientists who spoke at a conference organized by the Environmental Protection Agency, the International Council of Chemical Associations and its long-range research initiative or LRI.
The research initiative is implemented through three ICCA member organizations—the American Chemistry Council(ACC), European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA).
Global LRI expenditures are about $10 million annually, with the ACC spending a $5 million on research, Cefic $4 million and JCIA $1 million, said Bruno Hubesch, manager of Cefic's LRI program.
The global LRI program funds research to spur knowledge in three areas:
• innovating chemical testing,
• understanding everyday exposures to chemicals and
• translating research results for product safety.
The LRI initiative supplements investments individual chemical manufacturers provide for their own research.
Market projections for in vitro, organs-on-a-chip and other alternative tests are burgeoning, Catherine Willett, director of regulatory toxicology, risk assessment and alternatives at the Humane Society of the United States, told Bloomberg BNA after the conference.
The Human Toxicology Project Consortium, which includes the Humane Society, DuPont, Exxon Mobil Corp., the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, L'Oreal and P&G, summarized market projections for nonanimal tests. Those projections range from $4 billion in 2011 to anywhere from $10 billion to $17 billion over the next few years.
Term for Many Different Types of Tests
The term “alternative tests” refers to many different types of technologies, testing methods and software programs that are designed for purposes including:
• eliminating the need for a laboratory animal to be used (replacement alternative);
• substantially reducing the number of animals used for a particular procedure (reduction alternative) and
• improving the design or efficiency of a test, thereby lessening the stress and pain laboratory animals experience (refinement alternative).
The types of tests vary based on factors such as the duration of exposure, the specific health effects being studied and the doses being used.
The tests may expose a cell or gene to a chemical or use the chemical's structure and other information to predict its biological activity.
For example, the EPA is working to develop computer programs to simulate in utero exposures, with the goal of being able to accurately predict the potential for environmental chemicals to affect the embryo.
P&G Test Accepted by OECD
Investing in the new equipment such tests use and learning how to apply the new approaches are useful investments, speakers and conference participants said.
George Daston, a senior research fellow at P&G, told Bloomberg BNA that being able to predict whether a chemical being considered for development raises health or ecological concerns helps manufacturers select those chemicals worth submitting to regulators.
P&G has invested more than $370 million in 30 years researching new ways of testing chemicals, company spokesman Scott E. Heid told Bloomberg BNA. “We have developed over 50 alternative nonanimal testing methods,” he said.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development approved in February use of a nonanimal skin sensitization test developed by P&G. The test is called the Direct Peptide Reactivity Test. Data from OECD-approved tests can be used throughout the developed world and in many developing countries under a mutual acceptance of data policy in which many countries participate.
Internal Decisions, Product Stewardship
J. Craig Rowlands, a senior scientist at the Dow Chemical Co., described ways Dow uses data from alternative tests.
The data generated through alternative tests help the company make research and development (R&D) decisions, increasingly informs Dow's product stewardship actions and helps it answer questions that downstream customers raise, Rowlands said.
Dow uses the results of predictive toxicity tests as early as possible in the R&D stage of its chemicals to design substances that have as little hazard as possible yet perform particular functions, Rowlands said.
The results from these types of tests also can help the company's marketing and sales department when it asks Dow's chemists whether a chemical sold for one type of application could be used in another one, he said.
Customers sometimes call with questions such as whether they could combine a chemical purchased from Dow with other chemicals, Rowlands said. The alternative tests can promptly provide results to help Dow determine whether that combination of chemicals would raise potential health or environmental concerns, he said.
Grouping Together Chemicals
Alternative tests hold promise for helping chemical manufacturers group together chemicals that affect the body in similar ways, Rowlands said.
Being able to group categories of chemicals together can mean that a company could apply data from one chemical to another member of the group. That would reduce the amount of new data the company would have to generate and reduce animals used and the costs of testing.
Willett told Bloomberg BNA she has seen chemical manufacturers interests in animal testing alternatives grown driven largely by factors including:
• increasing bans on animal testing of cosmetics (starting with the European Union and being considered in major markets such as India, Brazil and the U.S.);
• promised savings in cost of these faster, higher-throughput methods; and
• the promise that the new approaches will provide more relevant and useful information for making safety determinations—both for product development and for regulatory application.
Tailored Testing
Eventually, chemical manufacturers anticipate that regulators will allow tailored testing to be conducted based on the results from alternative toxicity tests, Robert Barter, a toxicologist from ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc. told Bloomberg BNA.
Tailored testing means using information on exposure, suspected adverse effects and the biological changes—which occur and may lead to disease—to determine the tests toxicologists would conduct.
Tailored testing contrasts with the more traditional battery of tests approach in which a specific set of toxicity tests are used for a chemical evaluated for a specific purpose such as to register a pesticide or to register a chemical under the EU's REACH—registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals—regulation (EC No. 1907/2006).
BASF's Kamp told the audience the European regulatory approach, as well as that in other parts of the world, largely uses a battery or “check box” approach to generate toxicity data.
Companies making plant protection chemicals in or exporting them to the EU typically are required to conduct 40 to 45 specific tests, Kamp said.
Check Box Approach
Of these tests, only three or four provide the data upon which the chemical being evaluated will be regulated, he said.
“Eighty to 90 percent of the work is for nothing, but we do them, because beforehand we don't know which will be the important studies,” Kamp said.
Alternative tests already are and will continue to provide the information to determine which toxicity tests are necessary to determine a product's safety, he said.
BASF and other chemical manufacturers with staff presenting at the LRI conference are focusing their internal efforts on specific types of alternative tests or analytic approaches.
BASF has invested extensively in metabolomics, Kamp said. Metabolomics is the study of how chemicals break down within the body and how their metabolites affect it.
The company routinely uses its MetaMap® database, which contains detailed information on about 500 chemicals, agrochemicals and drugs, prior to testing chemicals it is considering for research and development, he said.
The database also helps BASF group chemicals based not only on similar structures, but also on similar biological changes they trigger in the body, Kamp said.
Many questions remain, however, Kamp said.
Challenge: False Positives, Negatives
Among these questions, speakers said, is determining whether an alternative test provides a false positive or false negative result.
A false positive means test results raise a concern for potential health or environmental harm, but subsequent tests show that harm does not occur.
The initial findings could mean, for example, that the chemical would be classified as posing a more serious hazard than it does, he said. The classification could limit potential uses of the substance, the toxicologist said.
A false positive is a “hassle,” a conference participant and chemical industry toxicologist said, but a false negative is a serious problems, he told Bloomberg BNA.
If a toxicity test yields a negative result, it suggests the chemical does not kill cells, bind with a receptor or cause whatever biological change the test was designed to detect.
Relying on a test that provided false negative results could mean that a harmful chemical would get into commerce, the industry scientist said.
Strategy: Multiple Assays, Models
A strategy several speakers discussed to reduce the potential of a false negative is to use multiple tests or, if dealing with computer programs that predict potential biological effects, to use multiple predictive computer models.
“Don't take one single assay's results for one chemical and start making decisions,” said Richard Judson, a bioinformatician working at the EPA National Center for Computational Toxicology. Judson's research team focuses on the development of computer models that can predict effects such as a chemical's potential to interact with the endocrine system.
As an experiment, the EPA's research team compared 17 models that predicted whether a chemical's structure meant it would bind with the estrogen receptor, Judson said. The goal was to see whether there was a best method to use.
The accuracy of each model's predictions ranged from 70 percent to 85 percent, he said. “There are unknown, unintended biases every time you build a model,” Judson said.
EPA's team, therefore, uses multiple assays and models to predict a chemical's interaction potential and then reaches a conclusion as to whether more comprehensive testing of the chemical is needed based on the entire package of these initial results, he said.
The accuracy of each model's predictions ranged from 70 percent to 85 percent, he said. “There are unknown, unintended biases every time you build a model.”
The EPA team, therefore, uses multiple models to predict a chemical's interaction potential and then reaches a conclusion based on the entire package of results, he said.
Anecdote From EU
Judson's comments followed an anecdote an audience member shared.
One EU member country, which she did not name, does not have much scientific expertise in-house to evaluate the results from alternative toxicity tests, the audience member said.
Based on the results of a single positive result from an in vitro test, the EU member, which was evaluating a REACH dossier, required the chemical manufacturer to conduct a developmental reproductive toxicity test, she said. These tests are very expensive and time consuming.
The anecdote, said BASF's Kamp, illustrated a concern chemical manufacturers have.
Companies are unsure how regulators will use the data that results from alternative tests.
“It's easy to say a chemical is bad if the test comes out positive, but what will do if out of 300 tests only one comes up positive?” he asked.
Challenge: What Changes Are Normal?
A key challenge alternative toxicity tests pose is how to interpret their results.
Alternative toxicity tests do not measure harm, such as the extent of tumors on an exposed laboratory rat or whether a chemical dropped into the eye of a rabbit causes redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging or blindness.
Alternative tests predict or measure biological changes that may indicate the beginning of a condition or disease to develop such as skin rashes or cancer.
Barbara Wetmore, a senior research investigator at the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, was among the toxicologists who presented LRI-funded research intended to address the issue of what constitutes normal biological changes within cells.
The question, she said, is whether the biological activity measured in commonly used alternative tests reflects adverse effects, outcomes or simple perturbations that occur due to normal, everyday exposures.
Strategy: Get Contextual Data
To begin answering that question, Wetmore's research team has examined the biological activity caused by fruit and vegetable juices. The team also calculated the amount of juice that someone would need to drink to generate that biological activity.
The goal, Wetmore said, is to provide context for alternative toxicity data generated through robotic and other high-throughput tests.
“Context is an extremely important, yet often overlooked component to the interpretation of high-throughput screening data,” she said.
Biological changes detected when chemicals are evaluated through alternative tests may be interpreted to indicate a health hazard, Wetmore said. But healthy fruits and vegetables in many instances cause similar—if not more potent—biological changes than do synthetic chemicals, she said.
Previously published results of tests conducted with peas, garlic and cruciferous vegetables, for example, indicated they damage genes; spinach and snow peas cause biological changes associated with developmental toxicity; and carrots and soybeans affect hormones, Wetmore said.
Those published test results don't mean that fruits and vegetables cause those health problems, she told Bloomberg BNA.
The conundrum is that similar responses for tests conducted with synthetic chemicals would be interpreted as indicating those commercial chemicals would cause gene damage, developmental toxicity and hormone disruption, Wetmore said.
Animals Tests Still Needed
Wetmore's research team made charts depicting biological changes the fruits and vegetable caused and how strong those changes were. The same chart then mapped the results from chemicals, such as bisphenol A, or pesticides, such as cyprodinil, to show the similarities and differences in the biological changes the natural or synthetic chemicals spurred.
Results so far do not provide a clear understanding of what biological changes are potentially harmful and which are not, Wetmore said. “We're not there yet.”
Laboratory animal tests are still needed to aid in identifying which alternative tests can determine whether a chemical would pose a risk, she said.
Wetmore's team also developed tables showing the amount of a chemical or pesticide that would have to be consumed to cause the measured effects and comparing that with the amount of the fruit and vegetable juices that would have to be consumed to cause the biological effects researchers measured.
Far smaller quantities of the fruits and vegetables than the tested chemicals typically caused biological changes that would flag a possible concern if the changes had been caused by synthetic chemicals, she said at the conference.
Hamner's research shows that high-throughput tests and other alternative testing strategies can compare real-world exposures to exposures causing biological changes of possible concern, Wetmore said.
The wider the gap between realistic exposures and exposures that induce biological activity, the less likely it would be that a chemical would pose a risk to human health, Wetmore said. “This is an important context to consider with any toxicity testing data.”
Global Interest in New Approaches
Government officials in Canada, China, Europe and the U.S. are among the scientists and regulators who have voiced interest in alternative test approaches since 2007, said Daniel Krewski, scientific director of the University of Ottawa's McLaughlin Center for Population Health Risk Assessment.
In 2007 the National Academies issued a report calling for fundamentally new approaches to toxicity tests so that tests could address more chemicals, chemical mixtures, health effects and life stages than traditional toxicological methods are capable of doing (113 DEN A-3, 6/13/07).
Krewski chaired the academies' National Research Council committee, which wrote the report.
Illustrating that interest, seven EPA scientists and risk assessors spoke at the conference. They described their efforts to develop and use alternative tests and the data these tests generate. Scientists and officials from the European Chemicals Agency, Health Canada and Japan's National Institute of Health Sciences also spoke.
Canada Sees Opportunities
Tara Barton-Maclaren, hazard methodology division manager in Health Canada's Risk Assessment Bureau, drew upon Canada's experience sorting through about 23,000 chemicals, which were on its Domestic Substances List. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act requires the government to categorize chemicals in commerce in Canada based on the potential risks the chemicals pose.
In 2006, Canada became the first country to complete categorizing all of its existing substances. It determined about 4,000 of the 23,000 chemicals needed further attention, and Health Canada and Environment Canada have proceeded to secure the data they need to better understand—and when needed manage—the risks those chemicals pose.
That experience, Barton-Maclaren said, has shown that alternative toxicity and exposure assessment methods provide “great opportunities” to sort, prioritize and set aside chemicals.
EPA: New Chemicals Program Ripe
Tala Henry, director of the risk assessment division of the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said: “Our new chemicals program is a perfect place to start introducing these new approaches.”
For years, the agency's new chemicals program has used computational methods to predict the toxicity and exposure potential of chemicals before they can be marketed, Henry said.
Under the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, chemical manufacturers must notify the EPA before they manufacture a new chemical. Because, with some exceptions, this notification occurs before the new chemical is introduced into commerce, manufacturers may not have sense of a new chemical's marketability.
TSCA, therefore, does not require chemical manufacturers to generate a specific minimum data set of toxicity information prior to notifying the EPA of their intent to make a new chemical.
The agency's new chemicals program, therefore, has developed many software models that staff use to predict how the new chemical could move through the environment, expose people or aquatic life and affect their health. The EPA uses these computational tools to review a proposed new chemical to determine whether staff think it may pose an unreasonable risk warranting additional information or controls.
“We use computational tools in every aspect of our program,” Henry said.
Different Audiences, Different Needs
Not every part of the EPA has that level of expertise with computational toxicity and exposure estimation techniques.
Richard Becker, a senior scientist with the ACC, said realizing the opportunities alternative tests present will require scientists to answer different questions from different audiences. These questions, he said, include:
• How do the new approaches fit into the existing regulatory framework, or do they call for a new approach to regulations?
• What added value do these new approaches offer over existing approaches?
• How does the scientific community build confidence in new approaches?
• Should scientists aim to predict toxicity and risk predict safety?
• What should be considered the “gold standard” for exposure information?
No Instant Transformation
Beyond these questions—largely directed at the scientific community—researchers, chemical companies and government officials also will have to be able to discuss the tests and their results with the general public, Becker said.
“The public also needs to have confidence in these systems. Let's not underestimate the challenge there,” Becker said.
Several speakers urged participants not to set the bar too high for alternative tests.
P&G's George Daston said: “We're trading uncertainties.”
The current toxicity tests are not better or less certain than the emerging types of tests, he said.
The traditional approaches “have kept us from having calamities. We haven't had another Thalidomide,” Daston said. He referred to a drug first sold in 1957 that, when consumed by pregnant women, caused thousands of infants to be born with missing and malformed limbs.
People hesitate to use alternative testing methods because they are not certain the tests will address all possible health hazards, Daston said.
“I feel like we are closer than most people think,” Daston said. Toxicologists and pharmacologists have decades of research they can draw upon to carefully begin applying new approaches, he said.
Plan Needed
“We don't need to change overnight. We need to have a plan for how to use the information,” Daston said.
Karen Blackburn, a P&G research fellow who oversees human safety expert teams working to improve risk assessment methods for nanomaterials, botanicals and other types of chemicals, had similar sentiments.
“We must not set a higher bar for acceptance of emerging methods than ever was set for in vivo studies,” Blackburn said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) More Phthalate Studies, More Confusion, ACC Says
Jul 17, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
The uphill battle to educate consumers on phthalates continues, with recent studies bringing attention — and misinformation — about plastics into the spotlight.
Two studies out of New York University have researchers linking exposure to phthalates used as replacements for DEHP to both high blood pressure and insulin resistance in children and teenagers.
In the first study, published in the journal Hypertension, authors Teresa Attina and Leonardo Trasande, conclude that every 10-fold increase in phthalate exposure results in a 1.1 mm of mercury increase in blood pressure. The other study, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, says one in three adolescents with the highest DINP levels had the highest insulin resistance, putting them at risk for developing Type 2 diabetes.
A third study out this month, by a team of researchers at the University of California-Riverside and published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, warns phthalates are being absorbed from the soil by plants. In cultivation experiments with lettuce, strawberries and carrots, researchers found DBP and DEHP and their primary metabolites in the plants. However, they also concluded that there was little movement of the phthalates from roots to leaves and that the phthalates were readily converted in the plant tissue to their monoesters.
In spite of ultimate conclusions or small sample populations, these studies and others like them bring out the worst and sometimes even the strangest types of “plastics panic.” Trasande , the NYU professor who studied phthalates, blood pressure and insulin, apparently offered his own “safe and simple steps” to avoid phthalates, including keeping plastic containers out of the microwave and dishwasher, discarding scratched plastic containers as their “protective coating” could be breached and expose users to phthalates and generally avoiding containers with 3, 6 or 7 resin ID codes. The “tips” were quickly picked up across the internet and on television, making appearances on NBC’s Today show and the CBS Morning News.
That the vinyl and polystyrene “visual aids” on TV weren’t actually items made with phthalates or anything someone would put in the microwave in the first place was hardly surprising to the American Chemistry Council’s Steve Russell.
“As the plastics industry already knows, there is quite a bit of confusion among consumers about the resin identification codes, codes that were established to assist with and improve recycling so that plastics could be sorted more easily. That resin ID code has been frequently and widely misreported as being as a means to a way to identify what materials are in the plastics,” said Russell, ACC’s vice president of plastics. “That’s why ACC and [the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.] and [the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers] and other organizations are working to develop better guidance on recycling by the type of container rather than the resin ID code. And hopefully cut down on some of the misreporting.”
Phthalates frequently get presented to those outside the industry as something new, said Eileen Conneely, high phthalates panel manager at ACC, even though they have been in use, and safe, for 50 years.
“The average consumer doesn’t know about phthalates,” she said.
All these journal articles pretty much have the same caveats from their authors, that further studies are needed, Conneely said, even though phthalates have been thoroughly tested and found safe for commercial and consumer use.
“Phthalates are used as a softener for PVC plastics. Generally you’re not going to find them in any microwavable containers,” she said. Phthalates are more commonly found in building and construction materials — wire and cable, roofing membranes — than food-contact plastics.
ACC has a Web site, www.phthalates.org, to help better educate everyone, inside and outside the plastics industry, on how the plasticizers work, why they are used and their 50-year safety record. Conneely and Russell both acknowledge getting the right information out about phthalates and plastics in general is an uphill battle.
“Unfortunately, misreporting of the facts about plastics and their safety is something that happens a lot,” Russell said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stricter Toxic Chemical Regulations in Sight
Jul 17, 2015 | Epoch Times
By Conan Milner
Consumer products are loaded with industrial chemicals—from cosmetics to mattresses, from firearms to food. These compounds are found in 96 percent of all manufactured goods. But a growing body of evidence finds that many chemicals on the market today are linked to serious health problems.
The law that governs the regulation of chemicals in commerce is called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was written in 1976, and while the science for evaluating chemicals has evolved, the law has not. Both the chemical industry and environmentalists want a revision of TSCA, but Congress has been slow to act. A law that satisfies both public safety and industry concerns has been a tough nut to crack.
The current law gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) some power to regulate chemicals, but the agency fails to function as an authority with any real teeth. Under the law, chemical manufacturers are not required to prove safety; rather the onus is on regulators to show that a chemical is harmful in order to ban or restrict it. Even if the EPA has a strong case, industry still gets the last word.
Take asbestos, for example. The EPA banned the material under TSCA in 1989, citing a decade of research identifying asbestos exposure as a cause for cancer. Two years later, an appeals court overturned the agency’s decision because regulators failed to demonstrate that getting rid of asbestos was the “least burdensome alternative.”
As a result, asbestos use has been restricted, but the material is still found in many building materials and car parts. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), asbestos exposure is responsible for between 12,000 and 15,000 deaths a year.
Since the original TSCA was enacted, EPA has managed to ban a few chemicals, such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and lead-based paint. Environmentalists fear that further dangers lurk in consumer products, but regulators lack the resources to address them.
When TSCA was enacted, it grandfathered in, without any evaluation, about 60,000 chemicals that were currently in commerce. According to congressional testimony in April 2015 from Jim Jones, EPA’s assistant administrator of chemical safety, for the past 40 years, EPA has been able to require testing on only about 200 of the original 60,000 chemicals.
In the last six years, the agency has identified 80 chemicals that are a top priority. Five of these have been evaluated. Three show risk.
“A chemical safety program is not credible if it is clear that resources are inadequate to do the work that is necessary to determine safety,” Jones stated One Nation, Many Chemical Laws
Poor consumer confidence in federal oversight has given rise to various state laws that treat potentially hazardous chemicals with greater scrutiny and discretion. Today, 38 states have passed more than 250 policies that address toxic chemicals, and dozens of new state policies are currently under consideration.
The chemical industry says this patchwork of individual state mandates places an unnecessary burden on small businesses, which already work on a small profit margin. According to a statement from the American Chemistry Council, state laws “are often based on the claims of activists rather than scientific conclusions.”
The industry bid for TSCA reform has repeatedly insisted on eliminating individual state restrictions in favor of a single law. But states and environmental groups have rejected this feature each time. The Unknown Numbers
Chemicals are a major part of the U.S. economy. Over 25 percent of the U.S. GDP is derived from chemical-dependent industries.
However, it’s unclear how many chemicals are actually in U.S. commerce. TSCA inventory lists about 85,000, but many of these are no longer in production. There are at least 7,700 chemicals produced in or imported to the United States according to 2012 data, but the actual number remains a mystery. The EPA has urged industry to determine hard figures, but chemical companies declared the task too burdensome.
The trick for lawmakers is to meet safety concerns without excessively hindering business. Such a compromise has remained elusive for years, but this summer Congress has made real progress.
On June 23, the House’s latest version of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 got a near unanimous vote. This bill would give the EPA more power, requiring fewer restrictions in evaluating risk, and granting regulators the authority to impose fees on businesses that fail to comply.
The bill would also allow EPA to request new safety data from manufacturers and would give the agency resources to begin evaluating chemicals that have been on the market for decades. Regulators have identified about 1,000 existing chemicals that may present some hazard. The House bill gives resources to test about 10 chemicals per year. At this pace, it will take a century for EPA to address the backlog of potential risk. Crafting a Chemical Compromise
While previous proposals have failed to stir much compromise, the only opposition to the House’s latest TSCA reform bill was Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who criticized the legislation for granting the EPA “sweeping new powers,” and allowing “states to adopt more stringent standards.”
Environmentalists also believe the House bill falls short. In a June 23 statement, EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook said the proposal still can’t ensure that everyday chemicals are safe.
“We commend the House for its focus on the need to overhaul chemical policy, but this piece of legislation will not do the job,” Cook stated.
The companion bill in the U.S. Senate has similar features to the House proposal, yet sets even stricter requirements for new chemicals. In the House bill, new chemicals are released into the marketplace by default, unless regulators can prove safety within 90 days. In the Senate version, compounds cannot enter commerce until regulators determine safety.
Another feature of the Senate bill is that it also discourages using animals for toxicity testing and encourages green chemistry research. The green chemistry philosophy aims to design products that prevent pollution and toxicity.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) stated goal is to bring the Senate bill to a vote before the summer recess starting August 10.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Restaurant Leftovers Find New Purpose At Soup Kitchens And Homes For The Elderly
Jul 17, 2015 | Tri-County Times
By Sally Rummel
About 40 percent of all edible food in the U.S. goes down the drain or in a landfill — from the pasta that didn’t get eaten after a big party to the huge quantity of food that is leftover after a day’s business at a restaurant.
Huge portion sizes, large menus that require lots of food on hand and chain restaurants with their own rules all result in full dumpsters and a lot of waste.
With hunger and poverty still an issue in every community, using these potentially wasted foods can make the difference between someone having a meal on the table for their family, or not.
One local woman is on a crusade to take this food and get it into the hands of people who need it. Christine McDunnough of Fenton Township founded Food Runners last year with her daughter, Shannon, 18, a Fenton High School graduate and son, Darren, a sophomore. Her husband, Darren, also helps, along with other volunteers when needed.
They started picking up food from restaurants three days a week or when specifically called for a special event.
Food Runners currently has a corporate contract with Panera Bread, and works weekly with VG’s Grocery to take leftover breads and baked goods to the three soup kitchens in Flint operated by Catholic Charities of Genesee and Shiawassee counties. Food Runners also picks up leftovers from the CRUST booth at the Flint and Davison farmers markets for the same destination.
“I’m amazed at how much food is leftover,” said McDunnough. “Some restaurants do a much better job of containing food waste than others.”
Big parties and community events that serve lots of food are also potential pick-up points for Food Runners.
After last year’s Applefest, Food Runners picked up three carloads of food, canned goods, dry goods and paper products. “They gave us everything,” said McDunnough. “All you have to do is call us at (810) 348-9700 and let us know you have leftovers. We can be sure everything is properly sealed in containers for delivery.”
Where does all this food go? The North End Soup Kitchen, South End Soup Kitchen and Center of Hope, all operated by Catholic Charities, are the main recipients.
“They bring us day-old Danishes and coffee cakes from Panera,” said John Manse, director of community service for Catholic Charities. “It’s nice to have that to serve for dessert.”
Catholic Charities also have their own vans that pick up donations weekly from Great Harvest Bread Company, Bob Evans, Red Lobster, Outback Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Oliver T’s and Koegel’s.
“We can incorporate a lot of these foods into our menu,” said Manse. “It helps the bottom line; we don’t have to buy bread for the 300-400 sandwiches we make every day. We’ve been getting bologna ‘ends’ from Koegel’s for two years. Now we don’t have to buy bologna at $15 a case.”
Locally, leftover bread from CRUST in Fenton finds its way to a number of care homes for the elderly, coordinated by General Manager Jeremy Waddell through his ties at The Road Community Church on South Holly Road in Holly.
While leftover bread is a bakery reality, independent restaurants like The Laundry take food waste containment seriously. By growing their own produce, they’re able to “harvest” it as needed, so there’s virtually no waste.
Chef Jody Brunori plans menus so that ingredients are used in more than one dish, providing multiple opportunities to deplete ingredients. Rinds, peels, leaves, spent grain from The Laundry’s in-house brewery, Lynchpin Beer Company, are all raked into garden beds outside the restaurant for a rich compost. Food ordering is a critical component, too.
So even if you don’t “clean your plate” when you’re dining out, you know that leftover foods that have never been served and are properly stored or frozen can go where they are truly needed.
“We’re so blessed here in Fenton,” said McDunnough. “I believe I’m here to do something more to give back.”
Six ways to reduce food waste at home
Restaurants aren’t the only culprits of large scale food waste. According to the American Chemistry Council, Americans overestimate how much they can eat and it costs each household about $640 a year in wasted food. Here are six ways to stop waste at home, according to a recent story in USA Today:
1. Use an app designed to help you use up leftovers. One example is SideChef, which gives step-by-step instructions with photos and videos for using up food. You can even share leftovers with strangers, thanks to the app, Leftover Swap.
2. Buy plastic-wrapped produce, which keeps fruits and vegetables from ripening too quickly by slowing the intake of oxygen and the release of ethylene gas. Leave food in its packaging and rewrap it if you have leftovers after opening.
3. Ignore sell-by dates (to a degree). These dates aren’t necessarily an indication of food safety, but are used to tell stores how long to display a product. The use-by date is an indication of the last day of peak food quality, but it’s not necessarily unsafe to eat after that date. Use your eyes and nose: if the food smells bad or has mold, toss it.
4. Plan your meals. That will help you buy what you need. Look for recipes that use several of the same ingredients. If a recipe calls for an ingredient you’re not likely to use again, don’t buy it; swap it out for something you already have on hand. Commit to eating leftovers. When you get your groceries home, rotate the food in your pantry and fridge to eat your older items first.
5. Freeze it. When in doubt, throw it in the freezer. That goes for meat, veggies and fruit nearing their expiration date. Wrap tightly in plastic wrap and label what it is. Wrap chicken breasts individually so it’s easy to pull out just what you need.
6. Just add water. Herbs can be frustrating because they’re usually sold in large bunches and used sparingly. Infuse water with herbs such as mint or basil or cut up herbs and freeze them into ice cubes to give a kick to water or cocktails. You can also add them into store-bought dips like hummus or pesto for extra flavor. Store herbs properly in the first place to extend their life. Wash, wrap in paper towels, cover with a plastic bag and place upright in a glass of water in your fridge, like a bouquet of flowers.
-
EPA to Expand Electronic Filing for New Chemicals
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers will be required to submit pre-manufacture notices and related documents to the Environmental Protection Agency using new cloud-based software under a direct final rule the EPA is scheduled to publish July 20.
The rule also will expand the types of documents that manufacturers and importers must file electronically.
The direct final rule is designed to save chemical manufacturers and the agency time and money by expanding and improving electronic submissions of required documents, the EPA said.
The direct final rule will amend a 2010 regulation the EPA issued that established electronic reporting requirements for information that chemical makers submit to the agency to comply with Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (75 Fed. Reg. 773).
The amended rule requires companies to use new cloud-based software rather than download the agency's software onto their own computers.
“This change will eliminate certain firewall and file submission size limitations that exist with the current version of the software,” the EPA's direct final rule said.
The direct final rule also will require companies to submit bona fide intent to manufacture requests electronically. It establishes a new procedure for companies to notify the agency when they move their manufacturing site for certain chemicals, and it makes technical corrections to the 2010 rule.
The direct final rule will be effective in January 2016, 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, unless a party objects to the regulation by Aug. 19. If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule by Aug. 19, then the agency will withdraw it and issue a proposed rule for public comment.
Several Types of Documents Affected
Section 5 authorizes the EPA to regulate new chemicals, a term that refers to substances that have not previously been on the TSCA inventory of chemicals made or sold in the U.S.
Documents submitted under Section 5 include:
• pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), which companies submit before they make a new chemical or import it into the U.S.;
• health, safety and other information that companies provide to support their PMNs;
• notices of commencement (NOCs), which companies use to tell the EPA they have begun manufacturing a new chemical that already went through the agency's PMN review;
• notices of a new manufacturing site for a new chemical that a company is making under certain exemptions the agency provides; and
• bona fide intents to manufacture, which companies and importers file if they need the EPA to confirm whether or not a chemical is on the TSCA Inventory.
Chemical manufacturers and importers must file bona fide intents if they cannot find a chemical they would like to make or import on the TSCA inventory.
The EPA maintains a public inventory and a confidential inventory. Chemical identities on the confidential inventory are known only to the manufacturer and the agency to protect proprietary information.
Companies currently submit bona fides only in paper form. The direct final rule requires manufacturers and importers to use the EPA's new cloud-based software.
-
Committee To Check Progress Of EPA Tracking Initiative
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A House subcommittee is set to check in on the progress of a multiyear U.S. EPA initiative to modernize how it tracks hazardous waste shipments and save the agency money in the process.
Under the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act of 2012, EPA is authorized to implement a national electronic manifest system for tracking hazardous waste. In 2014, the agency issued a final rule authorizing the use of electronic hazardous waste manifests (Greenwire, Jan. 16, 2014).
This law helped to "modernize the dated paper manifest system that tracked the type and quantity of hazardous waste being transported to a modern electronic based system," according to a hearing notice released by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Economy.
Under existing law, hazardous waste is supposed to be tracked as it travels from sites where it is generated to disposal areas. The 2012 update gives waste handlers the option of completing this information and transmitting it to EPA electronically.
In theory, not only would this make the process simpler for industry, but it would save the federal government money. EPA has said the e-Manifest program could save $75 million each year when implemented (Greenwire, March 4, 2014). Meanwhile, industry would save between 300,000 and 700,000 hours on the mandated paperwork.
It's not clear whether EPA will meet a statutory deadline to have the system running by Oct. 5 -- three years after the law took effect. The agency notes on its website that it "has not received appropriated funding to date for this program" but is "making significant progress in establishing the groundwork for the system."
The agency failed to meet a one-year deadline to issue the final rule, ultimately coming in more than three months late. However, the agency describes the initial rulemaking as "an ambitious undertaking" and maintains that its record was, under the circumstances, "a clear success."
Schedule: The hearing is Friday, July 24, at 9 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
Time For Oversight Of Dangerous Chemicals
Jul 19, 2015 | The Washington Post
The government is failing at protecting the public from dangerous chemicals. Congress tried to regulate the various questionable substances that manufacturers and industry use to produce the products Americans buy. But the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act failed. Stuck with a lousy law, the Environmental Protection Agency moved slowly, and in 1991 a federal appeals court threw out the agency’s attempt to ban asbestos. The EPA has managed to ban only five chemicals since the 1970s, while thousands of others stay on the market with no review. We say “thousands” because it’s not even clear how many are out there. Congress has done little since to fix the problem.
Until now. After decades of lax oversight, Congress is nearly done with a comprehensive overhaul of the law — but Washington will finish the job only if lawmakers and the interests pressuring them don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
The House passed a chemicals reform bill last month by a near-unanimous vote. The Senate passed its own version out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in April with strong bipartisan support; its sponsors are working out a deal to bring it to the floor this month. Things seem to be progressing nicely, except that there are big differences between the two versions that have split public-health advocates, some backing the House’s version, others the Senate’s. This split could be productive. Or it could be toxic.
Both bills create a process to review chemicals that have sat on the market without oversight and another to examine new chemicals companies want to use in their products. But the Senate version does more than the House’s to preclude states from regulating chemicals that the EPA is looking at. That has earned it opposition from activists, including some major environmental groups, and Californians such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), whose state has been the most aggressive in regulating chemicals on its own. They want to see the Senate ditch the bill before it and just take up the House’s version.
That would be a bad idea. The Senate’s version isn’t some giveaway to industry; among other things, it allows states to apply for easily obtainable waivers from the federal government that would allow them to continue regulating even while the EPA does its work. Moreover, the Senate’s version has several valuable provisions that the House’s doesn’t, including one that raises money from industry fees to pay for chemical evaluations and another tasking EPA to prioritize its reviews. Sponsor-Generated Content Northeast Ohio welcomes economic growth By ANGA Natural gas is fueling the Steel Valley’s renaissance. READ MORE
This is a situation in which regular legislative order would lead to the best outcome. The House has passed its bill. Let the Senate pass its own version. Then the two sides can hash out differences in a conference committee, where the potential exists for lawmakers to combine the strengths of both bills.
As that process proceeds, public-health activists should keep this bottom line in mind: The system the nation currently has is thoroughly broken. It needs reform now.
-
Jul 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Danny Haacke
Legislation on chemicals is constantly evolving around the globe, and polymers are at the forefront of this changing regulatory environment. Unfortunately, all countries have their own ideas of how to regulate chemicals, leading to slight modifications that are too relevant to be ignored and require national expertise to avoid rejection of registrations and non-compliance.
The OECD definition of a polymer is used in most national regulations: “A polymer means a substance consisting of molecules characterised by the sequence of one or more types of monomer units and comprising a simple weight majority of molecules containing at least three monomer units, which are covalently bound to at least one other monomer unit or other reactant, and consists of less than a simple weight majority of molecules of the same molecular weight. Such molecules must be distributed over a range of molecular weights, wherein differences in the molecular weight are primarily attributable to differences in the number of monomer units.”
In addition, the OECD has defined polymers of low concern (PLC) as those deemed to have insignificant environmental and human health impacts. The rationale behind this is that polymers with high molecular weight are less likely to cross biological membranes and cause harm. Those PLCs should have reduced regulatory requirements. In most countries, PLCs are either exempt from notification or can be notified with reduced data requirements, however these are not harmonised. New polymers that do not meet the criteria for PLCs shall be notified as a regular new substance.
Here we use a report by Deloitte, Technical assistance related to the review of REACH with regard to the registration requirements on polymers, prepared for the European Commission (DG ENV) earlier this year, as the basis for this article. It was published to determine how to proceed with polymer registration under REACH.
Europe
All polymers are exempt from registration and evaluation under REACH. But importers or manufacturers of a polymer must organise and submit a registration to Echa for a monomer or any other substance that has not already been registered. This is required if the polymer consists of 2% weight by weight (w/w) or more of a monomer, or other in the form of monomeric units and chemically bound substances, and if the total quantity of such a substance makes up to 1tonne per year (t/y) or more.
There is also a special group of substances known as the no longer polymers (NLP). NLP substances are to be registered as normal phase-in substances.
USA
Polymers in the US are regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). New polymers can, however, be exempt from the obligation of a pre-manufacture notification (PMN) under some conditions, including low fraction of low molecular weight, if the fraction of oligomers is below a certain percentage or, in the case of a polyester polymer, if only certain acceptable reactants have been used.
To make it more complicated, there are again some exclusions from these exemptions: charged, instable, those containing more than 2% unknown reactants, water-absorbing and polymers with reactive functional groups.
Australia
Australia describes the requirements for the different types of polymers when registering in schedule D of the Nicnas legislation. They make a distinction between existing and new but also between biopolymers and synthetic. A biopolymer is directly produced by living or once-living cells or cellular components, or a synthetic equivalent of such a polymer, or a derivative or modification in which the original remains substantially intact. All others are synthetic polymers. A non-hazardous polymer is water soluble, has a low octanol water partition coefficient (Pow), high molecular weight (MW), is readily biodegradable and is not hazardous to man or the environment. All new chemicals in Australia (including polymers) are subject to notification, for which two categories exist: permits and assessment certificates. Polymers usually require assessment certificates (limited, standard or PLC), depending on their Number Average Molecular Weight, tonnage and physico-chemical properties. However, in compliance with certain limitations, an application for a permit will also be sufficient: applying for one allows for a reduction of costs and data requirements, but authorised volumes and durations are lower. In addition, only chemicals assessed under an assessment certificate are eligible for entry onto the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances (AICS).
China
Under China’s chemicals legislation, polymers that are not on the Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances Produced or Imported in China (IECSC) are considered a new chemical substance. Chinese companies have to notify the new chemical substance to the Chemical Registration Centre (CRC) before manufacturing or importing.
Foreign companies can notify the new substance by appointing a local Chinese agent. Take note that even if all monomers are listed on IECSC, notification is still required if the polymer itself is not listed on there.
There are different types of notifications for new polymers in China: a simplified notification under special conditions if all composing building blocks are on IECSC and the polymer contains < 2% of a new chemical or if it is a PLC. Information on composition of the polymer and identification of the monomers is required, as well as information on the manufacturing process. No obligatory testing; a simplified notification under basic conditions if the above does not apply and the volume is not higher than 1t/y. Then some ecotox studies may be needed; andif the volume is above 1t/y then a typical notification is needed.
A simplified notification means fewer studies are needed and a chemical risk assessment report is not required.
Japan
Polymers are mainly regulated by the Chemical Substances Control Law (CSCL) in Japan but also by the Industrial Safety and Health Law (ISHL). New polymers are mainly affected by ISHL.
Existing polymers require annual reporting. New polymers need a notification, unless they are exempt. This is the case for an inorganic polymer, block polymers of which all units are on the ENCS list (New Chemical Substances Inventory), and for co-polymers that contain not more than 1% of a new chemical, or 2% of an existing chemical.
South Korea
Under Korean REACH, existing substances (including polymers) that have been designated as “chemicals subject to assessment” will be given a transitional period of up to eight years to register if they are pre-registered. New chemical substances shall be registered prior to manufacture or importation, and K-REACH requires new chemical substances manufactured and imported in quantities of less than 1tonne per year to be registered as well. Chemical substances used for research and development are exempt from registration. Polymers are generally not exempt from registration in Korea, but the data requirements are slightly different from normal substances (less stringent). However, low concern polymers, which are defined in a Presidential Decree, are exempt from registration, but manufacturers or importers have to apply in advance.
-
How New Chemicals Are Identified
Jul 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
Existing chemicals are deemed to be safer because their effects are either known or have been in circulation long enough with no significant damage. New chemicals, on the other hand, are thought to pose a risk, as their effects on human health and the environment are often not known or verified.
To tackle this, countries have systems in place to differentiate between the two.
There is no globally accepted definition of a “new” chemical but, at ChemCon Asia in June, Karon Armstrong provided a round-up of the general criteria. Firstly, a substance must not be listed on an inventory or listed as a category on an inventory. It must not be a component of an article or an impurity, or a naturally occurring substance. Chemicals imported for R&D purposes do not qualify as new chemicals, nor do polymers that are eligible for exemption. Chemicals imported in low volumes or for export purposes only are also not considered new chemicals. If these criteria are fulfilled, a chemical must be registered as new.
However, companies are falling at the first hurdle. It is not always easy to determine if a chemical is new, simply by checking inventories. This is the case, for instance, if a substance has only recently been notified or notified as confidential. While the option to make confidential notifications is necessary to protect chemical identity, it is another hoop to jump through when determining if a chemical is new.
Timing is another factor. After notification approval of a substance, it is published in the Inventory Gazette. Sometimes, a notified chemical is immediately added to an inventory. This is most common if it has not been notified confidentially. Official listing takes place three to five years after approval. Until then, a new chemical cannot be manufactured or imported by a party other than the notifier, until a new manufacturer or importer submits a secondary notification. After a substance is notified, others may use the same substance without additional notification.
There are 12 main global inventories, belonging to Australia, Canada, China, the EU, Japan (two inventories), Korea, New Zealand, the Philippines, Switzerland (separate from the EU), Taiwan, Thailand and the US.
Companies must check the inventory of the country to which they import or manufacture. If a chemical appears on the national inventory, it is not a new chemical and must be notified. In some countries, if a substance appears on another country’s inventory, a simplified notification can be submitted.
Notifying a new chemical
The EU’s REACH Regulation is unique in that it does not distinguish new from existing chemicals by inventory listing. If a substance is being imported in amounts over one tonne per year and is not registered, each legal entity must register the substance by submitting an inquiry dossier to Echa. Echa’s response will detail what data is required to register the substance, what data is already available and if there are any other registrants.
In the US, the EPA’s New Chemicals Program enforces a ban on the production or use of a new chemical before it enters the market. Manufacturers and importers must complete a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) and submit this at least 90 days prior to manufacture of the chemical.
New chemical procedures in Asia span the board from mature to almost non-existent. Korea’s newly implemented Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (K-REACH) is similar to EU REACH in its scope and requires new chemicals to be registered in much the same way.
Japan’s regulations are also well established: all manufacturers or importers of new chemicals must file a notification three months in advance and substances are subject to testing. Notifications must be in Japanese and, once approved, they are added to the Inventory of Existing and Notified Substances (ENCS) three to five years later. There are separate notifications under Japan’s Industrial Safety and Health Law (ISHL) and substances notified on this inventory are often added after just one year. Japan defines a new chemical as one that is not listed on the ENCS inventory, is not a class I or II specified substance, a designated substance or on a published list of notified new “safe” substances. Manufacturers often have to wait years before the substance is added to the inventory and, during that time, only the original notifier can manufacture or import the substance.
China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) Order 7 requires companies to submit new chemical substance notification sirrespective of annual tonnage. The requirements apply to new substances, those used in preparations or articles intended to be released and also new substances used as ingredients or intermediates for pharmaceuticals, pesticides, veterinary drugs, cosmetics, food additives and feed additives.
Confidential business information
One of industry’s prevailing concerns is that of protecting the identity of chemicals used in products. To tackle this problem, most countries allow chemicals to be notified confidentially and inventories are often split into public and confidential sections.
Taiwan’s Chemical Substance Inventory (CSI), for example, has both a public and confidential section. Notifiers have automatic confidentiality on volume in the public section, and notified chemicals are added after five years. To claim CBI, a separate application must be submitted that will allow the Cas number and chemical name to be concealed. Chemicals are instead identified by serial number and generic name, and are kept confidential for five years, with the option to extend for another five years.
The US has a similar system. There is a confidential section in its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory but, to appear on the list, a detailed, written response to 14 questions must be submitted, along with a CBI claim.
The EU, on the other hand, requires all hazardous substances to be declared on safety data sheets (SDSs) and it is almost impossible to keep chemical names confidential. The EU has two main inventories, the European Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances (EINECS), which is a static inventory of around 100,000 substances, and the European List of Notified Chemical Substances (ELINCS), which contains around 4,300 company-specific new chemical notifications.
China and Korea have no separate, confidential inventories, but generic names appear on a public listing along with a reference number. In Korea, CBI can only be claimed for non-hazardous substances, and these substances must not appear on any other public inventories. Neither of Japan’s inventories have confidential sections, although the authorities do have some provisions to protect disclosure of newly listed substances.
Chemicals are often listed on an inventory more quickly if a company foregoes claiming CBI.
Nevertheless, due to the lack of global harmonisation of CBI, companies are at an impasse when trying to claim it in a country that allows for this, while notifying in another that requires full disclosure of a hazardous substance.
Post-notification
There are further requirements after notification, which differ country by country. In China, records must be kept of new chemical notification, quantity, flow status and its impact until it is published in the inventory.
In Japan, notifiers must report actual volumes of the chemical and comply with labelling and hazard information laws. The government can direct manufacturers and importers to investigate long-term toxicity for humans, top predators, and flora and fauna.
In the Philippines, a Notice of Commencement (NoC) must be submitted to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) with a bill of landing, import entry and tax revenue declaration.
Both new and existing substances may need to be notified a second time (a secondary notification), if new information is received on the substance, such as an increase or change in exposure, an increase in tonnage, a switch to domestic manufacture instead of import, a change in manufacturing method or a change in polymer characteristics.
-
Preserving and Protecting Cleveland’s Theater District Finds Success with Spray-foam Insulation
Jul 17, 2015 | Retrofit Magazine
By Peter Davis
Downtown Cleveland’s theater district, known as Playhouse Square, is a set of nine performance venues that form the second largest performing arts center in the U.S. Its impressive history dates to the opening of the first five theaters in the 1920s. Currently, the buildings and venues of the Playhouse Square district are seeing growing interest, thanks in large part to recent urban revitalization taking place in the city’s downtown, including substantial renovation and restoration projects on Cleveland’s impressive collection of pre-World War II buildings. This includes the National Register of Historic Places-listed Hanna Building and Annex, which is the home to the 1921 Hanna Theatre and site of some of the most recent upgrades and renovations in the Playhouse Square area. But while the renovations at the building are more recent in the district, the buildings now benefit from a trusted product that has been a staple in the restoration and preservation of the area’s historic gems for the last four decades, versatile spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation.
Today’s Playhouse Square district is a textbook example of historic preservation and reuse, by protecting the district’s five original theaters and incorporating new performance areas and complementary restaurants and businesses into the mix. It was a project that almost did not happen, as the shuttering of four of the five original venues in the late 1960s left only the Hanna Theatre open and the future of the buildings uncertain. Fearing the destruction of these cultural landmarks was near, in 1973 a group of local advocates, leaders and businesses formed the nonprofit Playhouse Square, an association taking its name from the district. Supported by donations, private-public partnerships and membership dues, the new non-profit went quickly to work, obtaining long-term leases for the closed Palace, Ohio and State theaters and beginning the laborious task of restoring and upgrading the infrastructure in those buildings, launching the largest theater restoration project.Intermission for the Playhouse Square District
With most of the historic Cleveland theaters having closed in the late 1960s, and age and neglect having set in even prior to the doors being shuttered, nonprofit Playhouse Square’s three original theaters were in need of extensive renovations by the time the association took possession of them in the 1970s. This included the roofs, which were especially showing their age and are vital to protecting the integrity of the buildings and venues they cover. The nonprofit group realized they needed a durable waterproofing solution for the roof systems, as well as a versatile insulation option that worked around the renovations that had been made through the years.
From early on, nonprofit Playhouse Square’s founders decided to find ways to maximize energy efficiency and selected SPF as the single roofing solution for the three historic buildings. SPF is a spray-applied insulator that is made by mixing liquid components onsite to create an expanding foam. When properly sprayed by a trained professional contractor, SPF expands to form a continuous moisture and air barrier that fits around gaps and joints. After making initial structural upgrades and repairs to the roofs of the buildings, the SPF insulation was applied as a top layer.
“The historic preservation of all the ornate plaster and paint work was critical from a waterproofing standpoint,” says Jack Moore, president and CEO of LaGrange, Ohio-based West Roofing Systems Inc., which has handled all of the SPF installations for the nonprofit. “Our partnership with Playhouse Square over the past 35 years, utilizing SPF roof systems, has contributed tremendous success to the preservation of these national treasures.”Act II
The process of reviving the district was a slow one. The Ohio Theatre was restored and reopened in 1982, followed by the State Theatre in 1984 and the Connor Palace in 1987. Playhouse Square then turned its sights on the two remaining original theaters, taking control of the Allen Theatre in 1997 and then purchasing the Hanna Building and Annex, which housed the Hanna Theatre, in 1999. Encompassing approximately 480,000 square feet, the Hanna Building and Annex are named after the late Ohio Sen. Mark Hanna. The Hanna Theatre has resided in the Annex since its 1921 opening; the rest of the complex was originally designed as office and retail space. The still independently owned Hanna Theatre, unlike the other four original venues, had remained open until 1989, when it closed. Because of strong sentiment for the venerable theater, it reopened in 1996 but was in need of substantial rehabilitation when the Playhouse Square nonprofit took ownership three years later.
Part of the non-profit’s approach to rehabbing the district was the introduction of additional smaller venues, including the Helen Lab Theatre, Kennedy’s Cabaret, Outcalt Theatre and the Westfield Insurance Studio Theatre, and encouraging the establishment of new restaurants, retail and offices in area. Taking ownership of the Hanna Building and Annex provided the nonprofit with the opportunity to restore another of the district’s gems and help continue to diversify the area’s amenities. That included the 2002 opening of the 14th Street Theatre in a former restaurant space attached to the main Hanna Building. Once the historic Hanna Theatre in the Annex was restored and reopened in 2008, the nonprofit turned its attention to the 14th Street Theatre space and began a much-needed renovation of the venue. The renovations began solely to rehabilitate the 14th Street Theatre space, but the job expanded to tackle roofing issues for the 14,000-square-foot section of the Hanna Building that housed it; the roof was in need of new insulation and upgrades were needed to address waterproofing.
Similar to renovations and restorations undertaken in the district in decades prior, Playhouse Square again sought an effective and durable solution that wouldn’t break the project budget. In 2012, representatives again turned to SPF, citing its high performance through the years. Based on the earlier use of SPF for the other theaters in the district, Playhouse Square knew it could help decrease heating and cooling costs and not change the historic character of the building. SPF’s versatility as an insulation and a sound barrier also made it a great choice for the clerestory structure and large auditorium. Additionally, SPF’s flexibility was critical for working around bulky mechanical units, ductwork and visible conduit chases, in addition to exposed piping and masonry.
-
Feminine Care Product Increases Women’s Exposure to Harmful Phthalates
Jul 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
A new study has found that vaginal douching by American women of childbearing age may increase their exposure to hormone-disrupting phthalates and contribute to racial and ethnic differences in exposure to the chemicals.
Phthalates are a widely used group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that have been linked to problems of the reproductive system, including hormonal changes, thyroid irregularities and birth defects in the reproductive systems of baby boys. Used as a plasticizer, they are ubiquitous in household products such as food containers, children’s toys, plastic wrap made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as well as many cosmetics and personal care products. In cosmetics, phthalates are typically used to maintain the scent of fragrances in many colognes, perfumes, hair products, deodorants, lotions, body washes and much more.
Researchers from the George Washington University and the University of California San Francisco used federal data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2001-2004 and found that the feminine hygiene practice of vaginal douching was strongly associated with increased levels of a metabolite, or breakdown product, of diethyl phthalate, in women’s urine. The more frequently a woman used a douche, the higher was the concentration of the metabolite. Women who douched more than two times a month had 152 percent higher concentrations of the metabolite than women who didn’t use douches.
The authors, Francesca Branch, Tracey J. Woodruff, Susanna D. Mitro and Ami R. Zota, also found differences among races in both feminine hygiene practices and phthalate concentrations. Black women reported higher rates of vaginal douching, and their metabolite levels were higher than those of other women, putting them at a higher risk of the potentially harmful effects of phthalates.
“Our findings showing that black women may be at higher risk is important,” Dr. Zota, one of the authors, said. “It shows that some subpopulations are disproportionately exposed and that personal care product use may be driving these exposure disparities.”
Dr. Zota noted that the study, published in the journal Environmental Health, is one of the few that has been done on potentially harmful chemicals in feminine care products and said there is a lot of potential for future research on this aspect of women’s health.
Women shopping for feminine care products and cosmetics should check the label to avoid phthalates. Keep in mind that they are not always explicitly identified on the ingredient list, so also be wary of ingredients such as “fragrance,” a vague term that can hide a multitude of ingredients.
-
Fostering Sustainable Chemistry
Jul 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Henning Friege, Christopher Blum and Hans-Christian Stolzenberg
The international community is aiming to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in September. At the same time, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) will hold its penultimate conference (ICCM4) before its mandate ends in 2020.
While binding multilateral agreements, regional and national legal frameworks have achieved considerable progress in chemicals management, sustainable development will clearly require further efforts to promote a transition in the chemicals sector.
The German Federal Ministry for the Environment and the Environment Agency UBA are currently setting up and developing and initiating an international centre for sustainable chemistry, called the International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre (ISC3). The German authorities are inviting interested stakeholders at th national and international level to participate in the work of the centre and to join a growing network that aims to create a common platform to drive progress.
The centre will be built in Germany and is scheduled to officially open in early 2017. Its work will focus on fostering globally both sustainable chemicals management and providing the innovation needed for enduring sustainable development. It is obvious that transition requires innovation but it equally needs direction too.
Many impacts on human health and the environment are manifest at a global scale, thus requiring mitigation measures at that level. Moreover, current use of materials and energy is unsustainable and rapidly depleting our planet’s available resources. The increasing consumption of goods is leading to more waste and pollution, overstraining the world’s ecosystem. Therefore, in an increasingly globalised economy, it is not sufficient to develop sustainable chemistry strategies at regional or national levels.
These, and related issues, will be addressed by the new international centre for sustainable chemistry. It will explore emerging topics from the lifecycles of sustainable chemicals, and identify links between chemicals management and sustainable development, as well as relevant policy tools to scale-up at all levels.
A vital objective of the centre is the continued improvement of sustainable chemistry worldwide. This includes fostering the approach as part of international chemicals’ management and helping effective implementation of relevant international treaties. In this sense, without intervening regulatory action by the authorities, it is undertaking the implementation and enforcement of these conventions and their objectives.
Another aim of the centre is to bundle promising approaches and, if necessary, to initiate changes of direction. Additionally, the centre will have an international focus and further develop and strengthen a global network of researchers, enterprises, associations and institutions in this area. It will be a platform for a mutual exchange of information, identify innovative projects and link players as well as institutions to the same objectives.
The centre will work on further expanding and developing fundamental principles for implementation in areas like development of inherently safe chemicals (“benign by design”) and substitution of environmentally hazardous substances, energy and material-efficient use of resources through better syntheses, resource recovery, construction and operation of safe chemical plants. It will also aim to create secure jobs with high protection standards as well as develop and demand the supply of consumer products which are preferably inherently safe.
Numerous sustainable chemistry applications have already demonstrated that new approaches in chemistry can be developed to protect human health and the environment, while at the same time generating economic benefits. However, tthe move to a permanent sustainable handling of chemicals includes the minimising of directly harmful impacts, conserving of resources, a shift from end-of-pipe to preventive chemicals’ management and also a holistic view of the indirect effects of chemical products throughout their lifecycle.
Past and present policy in international chemicals management are also included within the Rio Declaration and its Rio follow-up process: safe handling of chemicals, saving of resources as well as relieving the environment of harmful discharges play a significant role. And safe manufacture and use of substances as well as the sustainable management of natural resources are all objectives of sustainable chemistry. In general, international organisations, national governments, industry and research are all making a contribution:
An important milestone was reached the international level with the creation of the GHS (Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals). Saicm has brought into existance an international platform which has an overarching policy strategy for the Rio 2020 Process. Since the introduction of REACH, the EU has a chemicals policy which focuses on prevention and where manufacturers and users are responsible for registering substance data as well as for utilisation of chemicals in compliance with their registration.
Industry has recognised the opportunities linked to a more efficient use of resources, a switch to reproducible raw materials, adaption of synthesis routes to highly specific reactions and the production of inherently safe chemicals. Well-known initiatives are “Responsible Care” and the “Global Product Strategy” of the International Council of Chemical Associations and corresponding progress can be observed in many enterprises. Research in the field is being undertaken worldwide at universities as well as in specialised institutes and industry, related both to specific substances and individual manufacturing processes and applications.
Numerous approaches are being pursued simultaneously, numerous approaches are being pursued. An overview is missing at the international level in terms of progress and experience. Moreover, consistent ecological and societal standards in global competitiveness are still not a matter of course.
By setting up an international centre for sustainable chemistry, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment and the Environment Agency are helping to bundle the expertise available nationally and, more importantly, internationally as well as to organise and intensify an exchange on research and the application of results. Moreover, the centre aims to introduce existing standards worldwide and to discuss and implement further steps in the direction of the Saicm “2020 Objectives”.
The perspective is to improve prospects of economic success of enterprises implementing the harmonised chemical safety regulations and pursuing the innovative aspects of transition to sustainable chemistry. Additionally, sustainable chemical products and processes must become standard and be competitive with “conventional” manufacturing processes, products and services.
With the creation of a centre which operates internationally, the German authorities want to bring together existing initiatives and players in a network and raise awareness in industry, science and politically as well as in public perception, and advance the development through exchange and presentation of examples of best practice.
By bringing together existing expertise and further developing it through international networking, it can penetrate industry and the economies of industrialised, as well as developing, countries, with primary strategies. The basic understanding of sustainable chemistry and its intrinsic opportunities for sustainable development need to be established worldwide. It will thus also become “mainstream” as a transformation process.
The ongoing work of the international centre for sustainable chemistry will address: modus operandi and tasks of the centre;appropriate structure (necessary capacities, organisational form, governance, financing) and possible affiliation to suitable institutions; andobjectives, organisation and working methods of an international network for the promotion of sustainable chemistry: attract researchers, business representatives, international institutions and interested associations as well as sustainable chemistry “visionaries” from throughout the world.
An advisory board of a small number of experts will discuss topics concerning the centre and network in close cooperation with the German Federal Environment Agency UBA.
The professional public will be informed about the project from an early stage. This is scheduled to take place in the framework of two events, amongst others: On 24 and 25 September at the conference on Sustainable Chemistry: the way forward in Berlin and on the 1 October at the Saicm ICCM4 Conference in September in Geneva. There will already be the possibility at ICCM4 for representatives of international organisations, governments and enterprises to put forward first ideas for the project. In the course of 2016 and parallel to meetings of the advisory board, the question will be resolved of how and on what scale the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, together with partners, will secure basic financing for the centre and the network for the following years.
A congress in Berlin is anticipated at the end of the project, as well as the official launch of the network and the centre in early 2017.
BOX
The centre of excellence is likely to perform the following roles for industry, relevant authorities and specialist organisations: analyser / evaluatorcommunicator / platform / multiplier for international organisations and their national representatives, for stakeholders in the area of sustainable chemistry in research, development, enterprises and labour unions as well as educationinnovation motor / incubator for methodical and interdisciplinary aspects of research, development and innovationpromoter for enterprises, associations, universities and research institutions international and national counsellor and initiator for institutions in the area of sustainable chemistry
-
60 Percent of Facilities Through CFATS Process
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Almost all facilities are at least halfway through the Department of Homeland Security's chemical security program and approximately 60 percent of all regulated entities have received approval for their plans to keep their facilities safe, according to a July fact sheet.
According to Department of Homeland Security data, 3,121 of 3,229 facilities regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program—more than 96 percent—have received authorization for their plans to secure their facilities, which is the first step in a two-step process that also concludes having the plans formally approved.
In addition, 1,935 of the 3,229 regulated sites—59.2 percent of the total—have had their site security plans formally approved by the department, the data show.
Those totals show the department has rapidly increased the pace of approving security plans. As of October 2014, for example, just one-third of all facilities had approved plans and approximately 60 percent of all entities had authorized ones. In September 2012, the agency told a congressional committee that it had approved just two site security plans.
The CFATS program aims to protect the nation's industrial facilities against the risk of terrorist attacks. Congress granted the program a four-year reauthorization (Pub. L. No. 109-295) in December 2014 after changes in leadership at Homeland Security improved the speed of security plan approvals and appeared to reduce wasteful spending.
The number of facilities regulated under the program continues to drop as well. Hundreds of facilities have been dropped from the program over the past year—there were 4,199 regulated sites in March 2014, for example—though the department has not explained why many dropped out (45 DEN A-4, 3/9/15).
In addition, the Department of Homeland Security said it has conducted 1,950 visits to facilities in order to assist them with program compliance. Regulated entities under CFATS are as varied as dry cleaners, chemical manufacturers, universities, hospitals and warehouses.
New Procedures Arrive
The latest totals represent the last data from the Department of Homeland Security before it implements significant changes to how security plans are evaluated.
As of July 16, lower risk facilities are eligible to participate in a program that would allow them to have their security plans considered more promptly by the department. Under the accelerated approval procedures, the department would have 100 days after a site security plan's submission to act or they would be deemed approved automatically.
The department released guidance for how to participate in the voluntary program on May 13. Only facilities in Tiers 3 and 4—the lowest risk levels out of four—are eligible to participate in the expedited program (94 DEN A-7, 5/15/15).
-
BLM Has Until Aug. 28 for Filing in Fracking Case
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A federal court granted the Bureau of Land Management five extra weeks, until Aug. 28, to file a record of decision on the BLM hydraulic fracturing rule (Wyoming v. Interior, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-00043, 7/16/15). The rule, which updates regulations for fracking-related oil and gas work on federal and Indian lands, is subject to consolidated lawsuits from state governments and industry groups. The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming issued a stay of the rule pending further court action. Judge Scott Skavdahl has said he will rule on motions for a preliminary injunction within about three weeks after he has the record of decision (122 DEN A-8, 6/25/15). The order extending the deadline is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_of_Wyoming_v_United_States_Department_of_the_Interior_Secre/4.
-
Offshore Oil, Gas Rule Impractical, Costly, Agency Told
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The proposed federal rule on blowout preventers and other well control systems for offshore oil and natural gas exploration needs a lot of work if it's to achieve its purposes without needlessly undercutting much investment, according to industry comments.
Industry representatives described the rule as far more expensive than the estimate issued by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) in April along with its proposed rule (71 DEN A-9, 4/14/15).
The rule as proposed would be overly prescriptive, impractical in several ways—such as the deadlines for making equipment changes—and likely to have unintended consequences, including an increase in some risks, industry groups and companies said in the comments submitted July 16.
For its final rule, the BSEE should aim for requirements that are more flexible, allowing for adaptation to the specific circumstances of an oil or gas well and allowing for development of better technologies, the industry groups said.
The rule (RIN 1014-AA11) is built to a large extent on the latest voluntary standards of the American Petroleum Institute, which serve as guides to best practices. Much of the industry criticism is aimed at where the BSEE went beyond those standards.
The regulatory impact analysis developed for the BSEE provided a 10-year cost estimate of $883 million for the rule. Seven industry trade associations jointly submitted an estimate putting the cost at $31.8 billion over 10 years.
The industry analysis also calculated the rule would reduce spending on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico by $57 billion during 2017-2030.
The industry analysis was developed for the American Petroleum Institute. The joint comments of the seven industry associations included the views not only of the API but also the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the National Ocean Industries Association, the Offshore Operators Committee, the Petroleum Equipment & Services Association and the US Oil and Gas Association.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc submitted comments through subsidiaries estimating that the rule's cost just for Shell's Gulf of Mexico operations would be $400 million or more per year, far beyond the BSEE estimate of $77 million a year for the industry as a whole.
Bigger Blowout Preventers Required
The proposed rule puts special emphasis on blowout preventers, which are essentially large valves plus pairs of hydraulic rams that can shear off a well to close it. Blowout preventers can be five stories tall and weigh more than 300 tons.
The proposed rule would add more features to the blowout preventers, including a requirement for double sets of shear rams to be in place within five years, reducing the risk that one set might fail, as happened during the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010.
Industry comments said some of the proposed requirements for added features were overdone, possibly forcing use of such large blowout preventers that they would be unwieldy. There might not be enough room on the deck of a floating drilling rig for blowout preventers with all of the added features the BSEE proposed, according to the industry comments.
The seven associations and Shell both objected to a proposed requirement that all elements of a blowout preventer be inspected periodically at the same time. The current system of phased inspections has worked well and is more practical, the associations said.
Rationale for Some Ideas Unclear
The proposed rule envisioned setting standards for the margin of safety used to ensure that drilling fluids are dense enough to control the estimated pressures they will encounter in an oil or gas reservoir.
“However, the proposed rule does not discuss how the current requirements are insufficient, how the new requirements were determined, or how these requirements would improve offshore drilling safety,” the seven associations said of the proposal on drilling safety margins.
“In effect, BSEE proposes mitigation, with no supporting rationale, for something that has not been identified as a problem,” the associations said.
Exxon Mobil Corp. filed comments saying the proposals on drilling safety margins “cannot be met by a large proportion of well types drilled on the OCS,” including the lower-risk “in-fill” wells drilled into mature fields.
“The requirements are based on technically flawed assumptions about drilling mud circulation and measurement that either could not be met or should not be employed to best manage risk,” ExxonMobil said.
Longer Deadlines, Shorter Deadlines
The proposed rule would require many of its elements to become effective within three months of publication of a final rule. The joint comments of the seven associations suggested three years, not three months, might be needed to ensure that appropriate equipment can be manufactured and installed and BSEE-approved independent organizations can verify compliance.
Environmental advocacy groups filed comments seeking shorter deadlines, not longer ones.
The BSEE proposed three years for compliance on real-time monitoring of drilling activity, five years for installation of double shear rams on subsea blowout preventers for the surface blowout preventers on floating facilities and seven years for shear rams that center drill pipe during shearing operations.
Advocacy groups urged the BSEE to shorten those compliance deadlines “to the maximum extent,” as it was put in a joint filing by the Wilderness League, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Oceana and six other groups.
-
Tightening The Screws On Fracking
Jul 17, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Margie Alt
One of the most intractable problems of fracking is the threat its toxic, radioactive wastewater poses to our environment and our health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to prevent municipal wastewater treatment plants from accepting this hazardous wastewater is one important step toward a solution.
On its face, allowing facilities to treat wastewater laced with heavy metals, radioactive elements, and other dangerous toxic chemicals alongside dirty bath water is a terrible idea. These are plants designed to treat human waste and food scraps. They aren't equipped to deal with arsenic or benzene, which go untreated and are released into our rivers and lakes.
Even more alarming, the chlorine used to disinfect water can mix with the bromides present in fracking's wastewater to form trihalomethanes, toxins linked to bladder cancer, miscarriages and still-births.
Pennsylvania learned these lessons in 2011, when Carnegie Mellon University researchers detected abnormally high levels of bromides in the state's western rivers. The contamination prompted state officials to ask drillers to voluntarily stop sending their wastewater to the region's 15 sewage treatment plants.
The industry complied. The public relations website for the Independent Petroleum Association of America even proclaimed that industry "had known for years" that "wastewater from fracking should not be treated at water treatment facilities and released into river waters."
Since 2011, frackers have stopped sending their waste to treatment works, but the practice has continued to be permitted. EPA proposed a rule in April to change that, and rightly so. After all, as regulators crack down on other dangerous forms of waste disposal, reverting back to sewage treatment plants may become more attractive to frackers, and perhaps for this reason, at least one industry group has said it opposes the measure.
Public health and environmental advocates and average citizens, though, are united in support. This week Environment America staff, along with Clean Water Action, Congressman Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments applauded EPA's proposal, submitting 30,000 comments from Americans in support of the rule.
It is a good proposal. Yet even if it is approved, other fracking wastewater disposal methods still present a conundrum for public health and the environment. Plants specially designed to treat fracking waste are far from foolproof, as Duke University researchers found in Pennsylvania. Waste often spills into rivers and streams during storage and shipment. And studies show reinjecting the waste deep underground is most likely causing earthquakes.
The fact remains that fracking wastewater is monumental problem for which there simply is no adequate technical or policy solution. So we'll support tightening the screws, one by one, on fracking's dangers. And we'll keep tightening until we've banned this dirty drilling practice for good.
-
Gas Industry Opposes DOE's Residential Furnace Rule
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The natural gas industry says the Energy Department's proposed rule for residential furnaces has flawed analysis and is too costly, while energy standards and consumer groups support the rule's gains in energy efficiency and long-term cost savings.
The American Gas Association (AGA), which represents more than 200 local energy companies, said in recent public comments that the rule will lead to high installation costs due to the required switch-over from non-condensing to condensing furnaces.
The proposal on energy conservation standards, issued in March, would require residential non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home furnaces to meet a 92 percent minimum annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) standard by 2021 (48 DEN A-3, 3/12/15).
The proposed standard is for non-weatherized furnaces, which come in two forms—condensing and non-condensing. Furnaces that have an AFUE of 90 percent or above are considered condensing because they condense water out of flue gases to recoup heat. By this November, residential furnaces will need to comply with a baseline efficiency level of 80 percent AFUE, based on a 2007 DOE final rule (224 DEN A-3, 11/21/07).
The AGA said most residential furnaces in the U.S. are non-condensing, meaning they generally vent through the roof or chimney. Condensing furnaces can't be connected to existing venting and require a new venting system.
The AGA said it's impossible to install condensing furnaces in some homes, and in others it requires a new venting system, which can cost $1,500 to $2,200 to install on top of the condensing furnace, typically about $350 more than non-condensing furnaces.
The American Public Gas Association, which represents publicly owned gas distribution companies, said in its comments that it's concerned the high installation costs will lead consumers to switch to less expensive but also less efficient fuel sources, including electric furnaces or heat pumps.
Rule Would Impact Poorer Households
This rule would most severely impact fixed and low-income families who would switch fuel sources, rather than undergo the expensive installation costs for condensing furnaces, the APGA said.
The AGA also said the rule's estimate of 10 percent of consumers who would switch to electric furnaces or heat pumps is too low.
Additionally, the AGA referred to a study by the Gas Technology Institute, which it contracted to analyze the rule, that found the rule was based on flawed methodology and that its benefits were overestimated and its costs were underestimated.
Meanwhile, the Consumer Federation of America, which represents consumer interests, said in its comments filed jointly with other consumer groups that the more energy-efficient furnaces could lead to economywide savings of $20 billion.
This would apply to low-income consumers as well, they said, since that group generally has less-efficient furnaces, and the energy savings from more efficient furnaces will be larger. The agency should take into account the low-income consumers who live in public housing and rental housing, the comments said.
Specifically, they said the payback period of the new appliances would be less than half the life of the appliance.
DOE Overestimated Number of Switching Customers
Also, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), which works on energy-efficiency standards, contended in its comments that DOE overestimated the percentage of customers who would switch to electric furnaces or heat pumps.
DOE said in its spring 2015 unified regulatory agenda that it plans to issue the final rule by December.
-
Okla. Boosts Scrutiny At Disposal Wells, Hints At Volume Cut
Jul 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Mike Soraghan
Oklahoma oil and gas officials have put more than 200 new disposal wells under scrutiny for the possibility they might be contributing to the state's earthquake swarms.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) announced today it is expanding its "areas of interest" to the west and east.
In addition, state officials said they are actively considering telling oil companies to cut the volumes of wastewater they are injecting.
"Last week, the Coordinating Council discussed the possibility of reducing injection volumes in the near future," said Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment Michael Teague. The Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity is a group of state officials, industry leaders and others who meet in private.
OCC officials did not mention a volume cutback, but OCC Oil and Gas Conservation Division Director Tim Baker did say the agency intends to take other actions.
"There is much more to be learned and more actions to be taken as we go forward based on the latest data and research," Baker said. "There is still no issue more important to us, and to thousands of Oklahomans, than this."
Cutting volumes could be a blow for oil producers already limping from low prices. Several production methods in Oklahoma bring up higher volumes of water in need of disposal than in other areas.
Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has at times been reluctant to jump into the debate surrounding the state's earthquake swarms (EnergyWire, July 8). But she came out in support of the commission's move today.
"The Corporation Commission is taking active and appropriate steps to address seismic activity," Fallin said in a statement. "The state will continue to work with all parties to pursue sound, scientifically-driven policy to reduce earthquakes in Oklahoma and protect homeowners."
All the disposal wells under scrutiny inject into the Arbuckle formation, which underlies most of the state and sits atop granite bedrock. But officials are concerned that the wells might be injecting deeper into the granite "basement." OCC officials say there is broad agreement among seismologists that injecting fluid into bedrock poses a risk of causing earthquakes.
Under the expanded directive announced today, the companies that own the disposal wells have until Aug. 14 to prove they are not injecting below the Arbuckle. The areas of interest had included wells disposing of oil and gas wastewater in 19 counties; that number is now up to 21.
OCC officials had allowed some wells to continue operating without proving they weren't in bedrock, so long as they cut their injection volume in half. That will no longer be allowed. The companies will have to prove their wells are not in bedrock, reduce depths if they are or else cease operations.
Also, OCC officials said owners of some low-volume Arbuckle disposal wells in the Guthrie area have voluntarily shut down their wells to aid in "research efforts," even though they are operating at the proper depth. Officials have been flummoxed by the strength and frequency of earthquakes in the Guthrie area, which doesn't have high-volume wells operating.
OCC's original directive went out in March. Since then, 124 Arbuckle disposal wells have reduced their depth, OCC said today. In addition: 16 are in the process of plugging back54 are limiting their volume to less than 1,000 barrels a day96 have proved they are at the proper depth25 have cut their injection rate in half37 are not injecting
But a series of quakes in central Oklahoma in June brought renewed urgency to the issue (EnergyWire, June 26). In a widely reported comment to Reuters, OCC spokesman Matt Skinner called the seismic surge a "game-changer."
Favorably aligned faults and production methods that create uniquely large volumes of wastewater appear to have combined in Oklahoma to create unprecedented swarms of man-made earthquakes in several parts of the state. Last year, the state had 585 earthquakes of magnitude 3 or greater, and this year there already have been more than 450. That compares with about two a year before 2009.
Seismologists say most of the sharp increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma can be attributed to deep underground injection of waste fluid from oil and gas operations.
-
Energy On Stage In 2-Week Sprint To Recess
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
Energy policy will be a central focus of the congressional agenda over the next two weeks, including a few cameo appearances in other debates as lawmakers race to finish must-pass legislation before heading home for the August recess.
The House and Senate energy committees are both looking to put some points on the board before the long break, as they try to move past years of partisanship and advance comprehensive energy bills with bipartisan backing.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is adding the final touches and working through remaining negotiations on comprehensive energy legislation and could release the highly anticipated document as soon as today.
Republican Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said she plans to begin marking up the bill this week and report the language out of committee before Congress adjourns for the August recess. That schedule would ensure the bill is ready for floor action as soon as leadership has floor time available, said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the senator.
"The chairman's goal is to report out a broad energy bill before leaving for the August recess. We've got sufficient time to do that," Dillon said. "Most of the hard work was done during the legislative process earlier this year, so we look forward to moving forward and marking up the final package."
Murkowski last week signaled the possibility of holding up to four markups on the bill's four titles addressing infrastructure, supply, accountability and efficiency. Dillon said no final decisions have been made on the number of markups yet as the committee continues to work on the bill (E&ENews PM, July 14).
However, the committee has cleared the calendar for the next couple of weeks in anticipation of marking up the measure.
In the House, Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last month said the panel was wrestling with outstanding efficiency issues, as well as the crude export ban, as it readies a bill for the floor before the recess (E&E Daily, June 26).
A spokesman for the Energy and Commerce Committee said in an email that more information about timing and the House energy bill could be revealed as soon as today.
The full House this week will debate another of the committee's efforts: West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley's H.R. 1734, which would change U.S. EPA's new rule for power plant combustion waste. Pushing back on the agency's plans has for years been a key part of the GOP's energy agenda (see related story).
Backers in the House and Senate have also spoken about the possibility of attaching the measure to broader energy legislation. In 2012, it almost was snuck into the multiyear transportation reauthorization bill.
Energy will also play a side role in the ongoing rush to extend federal transportation programs, which will run dry of funding in September unless Congress acts.
The House last week passed a bill to keep transportation money flowing through December. Meanwhile, the Senate, which is expected to vote on its funding measure this week, continues to sort through a variety of proposed offsets to pay for the measure, and the length of an extension will hinge on the levels of agreement on the proposals (see related story).
Nearly $9 billion of energy offsets are at play, including the controversial idea of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to raise $7 billion (Greenwire, July 16).
A second proposal would raise $1.6 billion over 10 years by making Canadian oil sands subject to the U.S. crude excise tax.
The House's five-month highway extension that passed last week was paid for in part by a formula tweak intended to "equalize" the fuel excise tax to make natural gas vehicles more competitive with diesel (E&E Daily, July 16).
Simmering tensions over energy taxes will flare tomorrow when the Senate Finance Committee marks up an extenders package that includes a two-year reprieve for the renewable production tax credit (see related story).
Conservatives will face off once again with GOP supporters of the incentive, including Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.).
One wild card on extenders remains whether it could be folded into the transportation bill. While there's some Senate sentiment for doing so, House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has signaled plans to take up extenders in the fall.
-
U.S., EU Discuss Energy Restrictions In TTIP Talks
Jul 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Doug Palmer
U.S. and European Union trade negotiators explored the possibility of lifting restrictions on U.S. energy exports to European Union as part of talks on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the chief EU negotiator said today.
"It was a very broad discussion of all aspects of energy and raw materials to try to understand how this issue could be addressed in TTIP," Ignacio Garcia Bercero told reporters in Brussels at the end of the 10th round on the proposed pact. "We looked into the issue of restrictions. We looked into the issues related to investments. We looked also into issues related to energy efficiency, renewables."
The EU has been open about its desire to get more access to U.S. oil and natural gas supplies as part of the pact. It also has been pushing for a separate energy chapter within the TTIP agreement, but both Garcia Bercero and U.S. Chief Negotiator Dan Mullaney said the two sides still had not agreed on what approach they should take.
"It's a large subject and cuts across areas such as goods trade, services trade," Mullaney said. "The negotiators have been spending their time looking at each individual issue, [exploring] what kind of provision might be useful, whether or not it can be addressed, or should be addressed, in a trade agreement."
Meanwhile, Garcia Bercero took issue with the criticism that lifting U.S. oil and gas export restrictions as part of TTIP would be inconsistent with government efforts to address global climate change.
"I think it's very difficult to argue that restrictions on U.S. exports of gas and oil can be seen be as having a positive environmental effect," he said.
U.S. gas export restrictions lead to more U.S. coal exports to the European Union, and the U.S. allows refined oil exports even if it bans crude oil exports, he said. -
As Final Rule Nears, Meeting Records Offer Insight Into EPA Rollout Process
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Hundreds of pages of records obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of Information Act detail who U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was talking to in the runup to the Clean Power Plan announcement last year. The documents provide a window into EPA's internal process for drafting the rule last year and could provide clues on who the agency is consulting now before it finalizes the proposal in the coming weeks.
Stay tuned for that story from Kevin Bogardus in today's Greenwire.
Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget is wading through meetings with stakeholders as it reviews the final rule (Cutting Edge, July 10).
On Tuesday, OMB heard from state environment agency representatives, including from California, Pennsylvania and Washington.
David Clegern, a spokesman from the California Air Resources Board, said California attended to ensure the rule "provides adequate motivation to move forward some of the states which could do more on reducing" greenhouse gas emissions.
"We also want to make sure that the final rule gets emission reductions as soon as possible, rather than later, and that it dovetails smoothly with existing successful state programs," Clegern said.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more of this weekly column and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
Judge Dismisses Oklahoma Clean Power Plan Lawsuit
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal district court said July 17 it lacks jurisdiction to hear Oklahoma's challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan (Oklahoma v. McCarthy, N.D. Okla., No. 4:15-cv-00369, 7/17/15).
In her order dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma cited a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissing similar challenges to the proposed rule as premature.
“Plaintiffs claim that immediate judicial review is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, because judicial review of a final administrative rule is a lengthy process and plaintiffs are currently incurring costs to comply with the requirements of the proposed emission standards,” Eagan said. “Plaintiffs’ claims are exaggerated.”
Eagan had ordered Oklahoma to submit a brief by July 16 explaining why the state believes the lawsuit should proceed (129 DEN A-1, 7/7/15).
Oklahoma to Pursue Other Challenges
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said July 17 he disagreed with the court's decision and vowed he will continue to oppose the EPA's proposal.
“The rule's proposal already is imposing great cost on the state of Oklahoma, its public utilities and its citizens,” Pruitt said in an e-mailed statement. “The so-called Clean Power Plan is unlawful because it exceeds the EPA's authority granted to the agency by Congress in the Clean Air Act. In short, the Clean Power Plan is a transparent attempt to shut down coal-fired electric generation in the state, with no regard for the costs and legality of doing so. My office will continue to use all available avenues to fight this unlawful rule that will be financially devastating to the citizens and state of Oklahoma.”
Oklahoma had argued that the EPA proposed rule (RIN 2060-AR33), which would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, exceeds the agency's Clean Air Act authority. The state said Section 111(d) of the act bars the agency from regulating industrial sources under that section that are already subject to hazardous air pollutant emissions standards under Section 112, as are power plants.
Eagan said those questions of statutory interpretation would be better presented to the D.C. Circuit after the final rule is issued, which is expected in August.
The EPA said in a July 17 statement that the proposed rule “is built on a time-tested state-federal partnership in the Clean Air Act, which was established by Congress, for EPA to establish public health goals and then gives states important flexibility to design plans to meet their individual and unique needs.”
Prior Lawsuits Dismissed
Oklahoma had joined two other challenges to the EPA's proposal that were dismissed by the D.C. Circuit as premature because the rule is not yet final (In re: Murray Energy Corp., 2015 BL 180996 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ; West Virginia v. EPA, 2015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1146, 6/16/15).
The Clean Power Plan would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state, and state regulators would develop their own plans on how best to achieve those emissions goals. The EPA would issue federal plans for states that choose not to develop their own plans.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has said the state won't comply with the rule (95 DEN A-6, 5/18/15).
-
Judge Tosses Oklahoma Challenge To Proposed Carbon Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A federal judge on Friday tossed out a challenge brought by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt challenging EPA’s proposed carbon rule for power plants.
Oklahoma failed to explain why the court has jurisdiction to hear the challenge to EPA’s proposed rule, concluded Judge Claire Eagan of the U.S. District Court for Northern Oklahoma. She dismissed the state’s claims that it was already causing economic harm, necessitating an immediate intervention.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are exaggerated,” she wrote, noting that opponents of the rule will have ample opportunity to challenge the final rule, and to request a stay to prevent any potential economic harm.
Eagan noted that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last month declined to hear a similar lawsuit in June. A federal judge in Nebraska also previously declined to hear a challenge to the proposed rule.
The judge further said that disputes over EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act must go through the D.C. Circuit Court, not her Tulsa courtroom. -
Pope Francis And Brown Part Ways On Cap And Trade
Jul 19, 2015 | LA Times
By George Skelton
The pope and California's governor don't agree on everything about climate change. Global warming's threat to the planet? Yes. Selling permits to pollute? Hardly.
Peddling pollution permits has a euphemism. It's politely called cap and trade. And it raises a ton of money for state government, including Gov. Jerry Brown's struggling bullet train.
Here's how cap and trade works:
The state — specifically the California Air Resources Board — sets industry-wide caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Corporations can buy emission "allowances" from the state or on the open market from companies that aren't polluting all they're entitled to.
The theory is that when it starts costing companies too much to emit harmful gas, they'll emit less. It may be working slightly. The air board recently reported emissions fell 0.3% in 2013, the first year of cap and trade and the latest year that data are available. Meanwhile, the California economy grew 2%.
"California is showing the world how to throw off the shackles of fossil fuel dependency," air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said. "No longer must economic growth result in smokestacks and pollution."
OK, but still we're allowing companies to pollute through smokestacks if they pay off the state.
That's the sort of thing Pope Francis strongly objected to in his recent encyclical that called for changes in human behavior to slow down climate change and avoid global catastrophe.
"The strategy of buying and selling 'carbon credits' can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide," the pope wrote. "This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment.
"But in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors."
Brown shrugged off Francis' comments.
"There's a lot of different ways," he told reporters, "that cap and trade can be part of a very imaginative and aggressive program."
Yes, Brown certainly did use imagination in aggressively persuading the Legislature to set aside 25% of cap-and-trade earnings each year for high-speed rail, rescuing his train from a sidetrack. In this budget year, cap and trade is a $500-million lifeline — at least — for the $68-billion bullet train.
Under California's landmark 2006 anti-global warming law, cap-and-trade money must be spent on projects that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Brown argues that the 500-mile bullet train will reduce greenhouse emissions by getting passengers out of their cars to ride the electrified rail.
But critics point out that the train won't be rolling until after 2020, and the line's construction will spew more gas. No matter. Brown and compliant Democrats are running the Capitol railroad.
The state's cap-and-trade pot this year is estimated at between $2.2 billion and $2.7 billion. Besides the 25% for high-speed rail, 35% has been permanently set aside for transit, intercity rail and affordable housing in the urban core. The remaining 40% must be fought over each year at the Capitol.
Of the total cap-and-trade kitty, roughly 40% comes from expanding the program this year beyond operations such as oil refining and cement making to also include fuel delivering — as in trucking gasoline to the service station.
The California Energy Commission estimates that has raised pump prices by 10 cents per gallon. And the business lobby calls that an illegal tax.
It is not a tax, the air board insists. It's just an "incidental production of revenue" through regulation.
George Orwell would have loved that verbiage. Only government could call raising billions "incidental."
"All of a sudden this language appears from nowhere — incidental regulatory costs," says Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. "They invented this whole new phrase to give some cover to why they didn't need a two-thirds vote [for taxes] in the Legislature."
The state Chamber of Commerce sued, lost in Superior Court and has appealed the ruling.
Actually, it's a real stretch to call this a tax. And it gums up government anyway to require a two-thirds legislative vote for taxes. Back in California's salad days, taxes needed only a majority vote. They rose and fell depending on the fiscal situation. Proposition 13 changed that.
But profiting off polluting does make the head shake.
The pope and I aren't the only ones who think like that. Or at least used to.
"I was a big foe of cap and trade in the beginning," says Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), who is pushing the year's biggest anti-global warming bill.
"I believe people should not be able to pay for the right to continuously pollute low-income neighborhoods. But I realize that cap and trade is here to stay. So what can we do to make it work for communities?"
De León steered through legislation requiring that a good chunk of cap-and-trade money be used in poor areas that suffer heavy doses of pollution.
Republicans advocate using the remaining money for highway repairs. That doesn't fly with Democrats. They note that roadways are where much of the greenhouse gas is emitted. They're looking at spending on such projects as energy and water efficiency, watershed restoration and renewable energy.
But it does seem cockeyed: licensing people to pollute. Then using their license money to suppress pollution. I'd like to hear Brown explain that to the pope.
-
Senators Introduce Companion Coal Ash Bill
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced coal ash legislation (S. 1803) that would grant states a greater role in regulating the material as the House prepares to vote on companion legislation the week of July 20.
The Senate bill, long in the works, would also permanently bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Proponents say the legislation, introduced July 16, would take the minimum protective standards from the EPA's April final rule (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302)—such as groundwater monitoring, engineering standards and protective lining—but would allow states to craft their own implementation plans. They also say it would grant states enforcement authority to reduce the risks of dual regulation in the final rule.
“The overregulation of coal ash by the EPA would threaten vital industries and needlessly cost West Virginia and the nation more jobs, neither of which we can afford,” Manchin said in a statement. “This legislation gives us a commonsense fix: let each state use existing EPA health and environment regulations to set up their own permitting program that allows them to recycle and reuse coal ash.”
Environmental and public health groups have warned the legislation would imperil human health and the environment by delaying compliance deadlines, eliminating critical protections from the final regulation and creating an inconsistent patchwork of state programs.
The EPA unveiled the first-ever federal management and disposal standards in April (RIN 2050–AE81) following a lengthy rulemaking process. The agency opted to regulate the material under the nonhazardous waste provisions of Subtitle D of RCRA.
Caps Busy Week
The introduction of Hoeven and Manchin's bill completes a busy week of developments surrounding the EPA rule.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) formally confirmed July 16 the chamber would consider Rep. David McKinley's (R-W.Va.) companion bill (H.R. 1734) during the week of July 20.
“If we do not act, the EPA will replace the existing, successful state-based regulatory program with harmful new regulations that will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and result in billions of dollars in burdensome costs,” McCarthy said on the House floor.
Amendments to the legislation are due July 20 to the House Rules Committee ahead of a likely committee meeting about how to structure floor debate on the measure.
Separately, groups filed seven separate lawsuits in a federal appeals court challenging the EPA's final rule on July 15 and July 16. Those groups included major electric utility associations and a coalition of eight environmental groups (137 DEN A-9, 7/17/15). 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;}
-
Power, Coal Ash Reuse Sectors File Suits Over EPA's RCRA Disposal Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists, power companies, the coal ash reuse sector, and at least one municipality have filed legal challenges to EPA's final Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal rule for coal combustion residuals, with the cases likely to revive claims by critics of the rule that it is too broad, is based on faulty data, and has other flaws.
More than a dozen parties in total have filed no less than seven petitions for judicial review of the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, including environmentalists who have jointly challenged the regulation.
The disposal rule, which was published April 15 in the Federal Register, regulates ash as a solid waste under subtitle D of RCRA -- a win for industry and many states. But the decision was a loss for advocates who sought regulation of ash as a RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste, which they said would have imposed stricter requirements and ensured against a future coal ash spill similar to the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority spill that prompted the rule.
Industry groups however said that subtitle D would offer the same level of protection as subtitle C, and backed the agency's approach. Legislation is pending in the House and Senate that would make the subtitle D designation permanent and make various changes to provisions of the rule criticized by industry.
For example, the agency's final disposal rule establishes an enforcement regime based on citizen suits rather than a state-led permitting program subject to federal review and approval of their policies, which industry and states have argued is a major flaw requiring legislation to correct. The fight over the enforcement regime could potentially be an issue in the ash suits now pending in the D.C. Circuit.
The only municipal government that at press time appears to have challenged the ash rule thus far is the city of Springfield, MO, which filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit July 15.
State and local governments have targeted the rule's enforcement provisions in comments and public statements, warning that EPA's approach will be burdensome and create inconsistent requirements across jurisdictions.
The American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) filed a joint petition July 16, while the power company AES Puerto Rico filed its own petition July 17 and the Associated Electric Cooperative filed on its own July 16.
Industry's Concerns
Power groups have criticized the rule's enforcement mechanisms, with USWAG writing in earlier comments that “the self-implementing nature of the rule may result in redundant federal and state regulatory requirements for coal ash,” and also questioned EPA's power to regulate “legacy” inactive sites located at active power plants.
Environmentalists have so far filed one joint petition on July 17, which was signed by Clean Water Action, Environmental Integrity Project, Hoosier Environmental Council, PennEnvironment, Prairie Rivers Network, Sierra Club, Tennessee Clean Water Network and Waterkeeper Alliance.
Advocates have charged, in comments and testimony to Congress, that the rule's standards for facility closure are too lax and that legacy site provisions should not be limited to active power plants.
Finally, two petitions were filed by firms with an interest in ash reuse -- Beneficial Reuse Management and the cement company LeFarge North America, both of which filed July 15.
Ash and other coal residuals are often used in cement, wallboard and other structural materials, and are also used to fill in open sites directly, a practice termed “structural fill.” The reuse firms' arguments are likely to target EPA's restrictions on structural fills, which apply to any such project involving at least 12,400 tons of ash. Industry sources have said those requirements are manageable for large projects, but they have questioned the basis for the 12,400-ton figure. For instance, the ash recycling firm Headwaters, Inc., argued in an April 1 letter to EPA that the threshold appears to be based on a misreading of ash impoundment sizes, and that the limit should therefore be raised dramatically.
-
Senators Seek Changes To EPA Coal Ash Rule
Jul 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A pair of senators introduced legislation Friday to change the federal government’s coal ash disposal standards in a way that they say would provide more certainty to utilities.
The bill from Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is similar to legislation that the House is planning to vote on next week, after the Energy and Commerce Committee passed it earlier this year.Hoeven and Manchin say their bill would retain the health and environmental standards in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) December rule regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash, a waste product from coal-fired power generation that contains substances like arsenic, mercury and chromium.
“Coal ash is a byproduct of coal-based electricity generation that has been safely recycled for buildings, roads, bridges and other infrastructure for years,” Hoeven said in a statement.
“The overregulation of coal ash by the EPA would threaten vital industries and needlessly cost West Virginia and the nation more jobs, neither of which we can afford,” Manchin said. “This legislation gives us a commonsense fix: let each state use existing EPA health and environment regulations to set up their own permitting program that allows them to recycle and reuse coal ash.”
The EPA declared in December that coal ash is not hazardous under federal law, avoiding costly disposal rules.
But the EPA cannot enforce its own rule, nor force states to enforce it. Instead, only lawsuits from citizens can hold utilities accountable.
The Senate bill, similarly to the House one, would require states to adopt the federal standards or let the EPA enforce them itself, a proposal that has gained the support of utilities and others who want to avoid dealing with lawsuits.
But it would also delay enforcement of some of the provisions, and it would prevent the EPA from eventually declaring coal ash to be hazardous, aspects that have angered environmentalists.
-
Court Dismisses Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Obama Climate Rule
Jul 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge on Friday dismissed Oklahoma’s second lawsuit against the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants.
Judge Claire Eagan of the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that the state’s attorney general cannot challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation until it is made final. It is the second case in as many months in which a federal court has dropped lawsuits against the Obama administration’s signature climate change initiative, which is due to be made final next month.
The message from the two cases is clear: Anyone wishing to block the carbon limits must wait until the EPA is done writing them.
“Plaintiffs have not shown that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims concerning the proposed emission standards for coal-fired power plants and, upon issuance of a final rule, plaintiffs will have a forum in which they can seek judicial review of the emission standards,” Eagan wrote.
“The court finds no exceptional circumstances that would warrant judicial intervention at this time, and plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” she continued.
Eagan handed down her opinion less than three weeks after Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his lawsuit.
She relied heavily on last month’s ruling in the EPA’s favor in a lawsuit brought by Oklahoma, 12 other states and various energy companies, in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
She also dismissed claims from Pruitt that because there is no other way to stop the harm that the proposed rules are currently inflicting on Oklahoma, the courts have power to stop the EPA.
Pruitt said he was disappointed in the ruling.
“We disagree with the court’s ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to hear our challenge to this rule now,” Pruitt said in a statement.
“The rule’s proposal already is imposing great cost on the state of Oklahoma, its public utilities and its citizens,” he continued. “The so-called Clean Power Plan is unlawful because it exceeds the EPA’s authority granted to the agency by Congress in the Clean Air Act.”
Pruitt added that he would use “all available avenues” to fight the rule.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said the agency is pleased with the outcome of the case.
Eagan had shown immediate skepticism toward the case, asking Pruitt the day after he filed the case to explain why last month’s decision should not apply to him.
The rule is the main pillar of President Obama’s second-term push to fight climate change and to convince other world nations to take their own actions as part of a United Nations pact. As proposed, it would cut the power sector’s carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030.
The House has voted to delay the rules until all court challenges are done and let states opt out, while the Senate is working on its own legislation to derail the effort.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) ordered state agencies earlier this year to ignore the rule and not write any plans to comply. That action would spur the EPA to write its own compliance plan for the state.
-
EPA Plans To Revive 'Significant Impact Levels' For Ozone, PM2.5 Permits
Jul 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is planning rules to revive "significant impact levels" (SILs) that industry can use to avoid certain Clean Air Act permit mandates for its ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), though environmentalists who successfully sued to scrap some previous SILs continue to oppose them.
In its recently released "Action Initiation List" (AIL) of rulemakings launched in May, the agency says that it will take more than 12 months to develop a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) establishing ozone SILs for air law prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting purposes.
"The SIL for Ozone would be used as a screening tool by reviewing authorities to help determine whether the projected emissions from a proposed new major source or major modification will cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS," according to the AIL. SILs allow permit applicants to avoid a full analysis of emissions impacts if an initial assessment determines that projected emissions from a proposed plant fall below the applicable SIL.
EPA's "Rulemaking Gateway" of pending regulations says the agency anticipates issuing the proposal in September 2016.
The move will be "super important" for industry in areas of the United States that could be designated as out of attainment with the ozone standards, one industry source says. This is because the SILs might potentially help show that projects do not threaten a NAAQS violation, easing the permitting process.
Protracted litigation has delayed implementation of the most recently revised ozone NAAQS, set in 2008 at 75 parts per billion (ppb), by years, and as a result the agency has not yet set SILs for that standard.
The importance of SILs will only increase, sources say, if EPA as expected tightens its ozone NAAQS to a level within a proposed range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. This would make it harder to win air permits, and would require another revision of the SILs to match a new standard. EPA must issue a rule either revising the ozone NAAQS or leaving it unchanged by Oct. 1, under a consent decree reached with environmentalists.
Having SILs in place for ozone would provide regulatory certainty for all concerned, says a second industry source, because it would provide "an effective screening process" for processing permits and determining which projects will have the greatest impact and should be subject to PSD permitting requirements. However, "obviously where the number falls is important," as a SIL set too high could compromise NAAQS attainment, the source adds.
"There does need to be some level of de minimis tool" through the SIL level chosen for ozone, says the first industry attorney, echoing the claim that SILs can help streamline the permitting process.
The source says that SILs will be most important for industries looking to modify plants or build new facilities in areas in nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS, or which may face future designation as nonattainment. Demonstrating that a plant will emit below the SILs is necessary to win a permit in such areas, the source says.
Particulate Matter
EPA is also expected to revise its SILs for PM2.5 following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's January 2013 ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA that remanded the values to the agency. The agency's Rulemaking Gateway projects that EPA will issue an NPRM by April next year.
Sierra Club opposed the SILs, and a similar "screening tool" known as significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs), on principle, because they allow industry to escape some permit requirements if a plant's emissions fall below the de minimis levels set by SILs or SMCs. The D.C. Circuit vacated SMCs entirely, but left the legal framework for SILs intact, subject to EPA providing a better justification for its SIL levels.
One environmental legal source with knowledge of the case says "Because SILs allow violations of the health-protective NAAQS, we litigated over the PM2.5 SILs EPA promulgated back in 2010. Those SILs were illegal, as EPA eventually agreed, and as a result they were taken out of the [regulations]."
The source suggests that advocates who opposed the PM2.5 SILs will fight the ozone SILs. "Our position in that litigation was that the Clean Air Act doesn't allow for SILs at all. The Clean Air Act hasn't changed, and our position remains the same -- SILs unlawfully allow pollution levels to rise to unhealthy levels," the source says.
However, a second environmentalist who was not involved in the Sierra Club litigation welcomes EPA's forthcoming rule to set SILs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The source calls the SILs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS a piece of "housekeeping" that some environmental groups have been pushing EPA to issue for some time. Even though SILs are a required part of the PSD permitting program, "there are none in place" for the current ozone limit, the source notes.
-
Michigan Would Narrow Air Contaminant List
Jul 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality proposed dropping some “low-toxicity non-carcinogens” from its list of toxic air contaminants, saying a smaller list will enable it to focus on the most harmful substances when considering air permits.
As part of a draft revision to air pollution control rules, the DEQ proposed a list of 756 air pollutants, along with criteria that would define them. “The current list is rather open-ended,” covering more than 1,200 substances, DEQ spokeswoman Karen Tommasulo said in a July 17 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
“This change better focuses our permitting process on the pollutants of most concern,” DEQ Air Quality Division Chief Lynn Fiedler said in a July 16 statement. “Our mission as an agency continues to be protecting public health while encouraging economic development.”
The proposed rule changes will be reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Reinvention, a division of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs charged with streamlining state regulations. Following a review, the proposal will be put out for public comment and a public hearing.
“We're troubled that the state is moving in the direction of trying to delist a large number of potentially toxic chemicals,” Anne Woiwode, conservation director of the Sierra Club's Michigan chapter, told Bloomberg BNA July 17.
“There are ways for them to simplify the process if they think it's onerous,” she said. Shrinking the list of toxic chemicals, she said, is “sending Michigan backwards after many years of having been a leader on these issues.” 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;}
-
Senate's Next Move A Mystery Wrapped In An Enigma
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The Senate is poised to take up a transportation funding bill this week.
But which one?
House leaders are pressing the upper chamber to ratify H.R. 3038, the five-month extension they muscled through last week (E&E Daily, July 16). With a key procedural vote scheduled for tomorrow morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) still wants a longer-term bill that would at least run past the November 2016 elections.
A formidable array of roadblocks stand in his way. The bill's potential length and price tag remain unsettled, as lawmakers search for the "pay-fors" needed to offset the cost under congressional budget-scoring rules. Senate Democrats are unhappy with some truck and rail safety provisions; the section on public transportation hasn't even been introduced.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has promised a filibuster if the bill is used as a vehicle to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank; Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has pledged to use all legislative devices at his disposal this week to wrangle a vote on cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood.
Pushing the bill forward will be "tough," said Karen Torrent, a lobbyist with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, an advocacy group that works on passenger rail issues. "It's a long shot at best."
The calendar won't make the job any easier. The existing funding extension expires at the end of next week; without a replacement, road and transit projects around the country could grind to a halt.
Presumably as a fallback, McConnell on Thursday placed the House measure on the Senate calendar.
Politically, he has a clear-cut incentive to keep a transportation funding crisis from erupting before next year's elections, when a disproportionate number of vulnerable GOP senators will be on the ballot.
Practically, the latest impasse illustrates why it's so difficult for Congress to break the herky-jerky cycle of short-term reauthorizations that has become the norm for much of the past six years.
The major obstacle is financial. The Highway Trust Fund -- designed to pay for road and transit projects solely with fuel tax receipts -- can no longer handle that job without billions of dollars in yearly help from the general Treasury. But those transfers have to be offset with savings from other sources that are becoming ever harder to find. Democrats quickly balked last week, for example, when Republicans floated the possibility of using a federal employee retirement plan as source a large chunk of the needed offsets.
From the standpoint of simple logistics, assembling a long-term surface transportation bill ranks among the most daunting tasks on Capitol Hill. Three Senate panels are involved in cobbling together the bill's policy provisions. While the Environment and Public Works Committee delivered the highway provisions last month, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee handed in the 500-page rail, freight and safety section only last week over Democratic objections that are sure to resurface in any floor debate (E&E Daily, July 16). A coalition of health and safety groups has scheduled a media conference call for this morning to call for changes. The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee has yet to release the public transportation section; attempting to insert it on the floor will likely inflame further Democratic opposition.
And with members of both parties eager to depart for their customary August recess, the House is set to leave first. That means the Senate could have to take the House bill as the only alternative to nationwide disruption of transportation construction projects.
The House has not yet released its version of a long-term bill. If the Senate fails to reach agreement on legislation in this round, its handiwork thus far "would likely serve as a starting point for debate at a later time," said Erich Zimmermann, director of transportation programs at the National Association of Regional Councils.
-
Senate To Vet Nominee To Lead Embattled Agency
Jul 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey
A Republican-led Senate committee this week will vet President Obama's pick to lead an agency that oversees pipeline safety in the wake of multiple explosions and spills in states including California, Illinois and Michigan.
Marie Therese Dominguez, Obama's nominee to lead the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), will testify before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Wednesday. The agency has been without a leader since October, when Cynthia Quarterman left for a position with the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based international affairs think tank.
Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) has said he's eager to vet Dominguez, citing a dearth of presidential nominees to several transportation and safety agencies, as well as PHMSA's inferior track record. Thune also said he was eager to hear how Dominguez plans to steer PHMSA in the right direction.
"PHMSA has come under scrutiny as an ineffective safety regulator," Thune said in a statement. "The lack of presidential nominations for critical safety positions has been a standing concern of the committee."
In recent months, PHMSA has been blasted on the Hill for failing to enact congressionally mandated pipeline safeguards, including spill notifications and the use of automatic and remote-control shut-off valves. The agency in recent weeks has stepped up its pace in implementing the law.
While Dominguez likely will be taken to task for the agency's shortcomings, some observers say her track record on pipeline safety issues is unclear. She's currently principal deputy assistant secretary at the Army Corps of Engineers and has had previous stints at the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Postal Service and National Transportation Safety Board.
Carl Weimer, executive director of the watchdog group Pipeline Safety Trust, said Dominguez is "somewhat of an unknown quantity" and that he hadn't expected her nomination. "Everyone from industry and environmental groups we chat with thought we knew everyone whose name was thrown into the hat," Weimer said.
But Weimer also said he's learned that Dominguez has experience in agencies where change is underway and that PHMSA likewise is adjusting to beefed-up appropriations and an uptick in new hires to oversee pipeline safety.
A PHMSA official told House members last week that the agency, thanks to recent appropriations, is in the process of hiring 122 new employees, 109 of whom will work on pipeline safety and be in the field inspecting infrastructure (Greenwire, July 14).
Weimer said it'll take a year or more for the agency to beef up its ranks and he'll be eager to see whether those positions change the nation's pipeline surveillance and safety. He also said PHMSA isn't solely to blame for the slow implementation of regulations and that lengthy reviews at the White House Office of Management and Budget are also a factor.
"We always complain that they don't move fast enough, but the reality is the rulemaking process is a slow beast," he said. "We know they completed their work on some of these rules a couple years ago and sent them up the ladder to OMB where they languished. While PHMSA is the one taking the beating, there's blame to go around."
Dominguez has the backing of at least one Democrat in the upper chamber. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) in a statement said in May that her work in private- and public-sector management will pave the way for her success at PHMSA.
"As PHMSA Administrator, she will be faced with very challenging issues, from pipeline safety to the safe transport of crude oil by rail," Warner said. "I know she will be up to the task."
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, July 22, at 10 a.m. in 253 Russell.
Witness: Marie Therese Dominguez, nominee to lead the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
-
Train Derailment Spills 35,000 Gallons Of Oil In Montana
Jul 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Officials said 35,000 gallons of oil leaked from a derailed train in Montana on Thursday night, The Associated Press reports.
A train carrying crude oil from North Dakota derailed in Montana’s Roosevelt County and oil leaked from three of the 20 cars that fell from the track. The train consisted of 106 tank cars, each of which can haul of up to 30,000 gallons each.No one was injured, according to the Department of Transportation, but about 30 people were evacuated from homes within a half-mile radius of the derailment. The train, operated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, was bound for Washington State.
Unlike other oil train accidents, including a 2013 incident in Quebec that kill 47 people, the train and its spilled oil did not catch fire. Local law enforcement said that was “lucky,” considering the derailment knocked over a power line.
Thursday’s spill is just the latest accident involving oil trains around the United States and Canada. A train carrying crude oil slipped off the tracks and caught fire in Tennessee earlier this month, an incident that followed derailments in North Dakota, Ontario, Illinois and West Virginia so far this year, according to CNBC.
The Obama administration introduced new regulations for oil trains in May. The rules look to phase out or retrofit old railcars carrying ethanol or crude oil within the next seven years and mandate new routing and speed standards for oil trains.
The rules aren’t strong enough for some environmental and safety groups, which launched a series of protests against oil trains earlier this month.
-
Oil Train Derailment Prompts Evacuation In Montana
Jul 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
A train pulling 106 cars loaded with oil derailed Thursday evening in northeastern Montana, and at least three of the cars were leaking crude, prompting nearby homes to be evacuated, the Associated Press reports.
There were no reports of injury or fire, but of the 21 cars that derailed near Culbertson, only two remained upright, Roosevelt County Sheriff Jason Frederick told the AP.
A spokesman for the railroad, Burlington Northern Sante Fe, said the oil had been contained, and railroad employees were on the scene.
Police, fire and other emergency responders were at the site of the derailment, which forced the closure of U.S. Highway 2, the region's main artery. The sheriff didn't know how many homes were evacuated but described area as a rural setting with ranch homes spread apart.
The derailment came about six hours after rail traffic started moving again following another BNSF derailment further west near Fort Kipp on Tuesday, the Billings Gazette reported. -
Court Weighs Dismissal In Suit Seeking CWA Permits For Coal Train Cars
Jul 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
A financial holding company is asking a federal district court in Washington state to block environmentalists' novel suit seeking Clean Water Act (CWA) penalties for spills of loose coal from rail cars owned by the company's subsidiaries, arguing that the CWA claims are legally flawed and that the firm cannot be held liable for the cars' use.
In its July 10 brief in Sierra Club, et al. v. BNSF Railway Company, et al., co-defendant CIT Group says environmentalists have been unable to point to specific instances of coal falling from the firm's train cars into protected waters -- a hurdle that the plaintiffs must clear to win a substantive ruling on whether the cars require CWA permits.
“Plaintiffs only have alleged the hypothetical possibility that the alleged discharge of coal could have come from a rail car purportedly owned by [CIT] Group Inc. because some of its rail cars leased to third parties are used to transport coal in Washington. To cross the threshold of plausibility, Plaintiffs need, at a minimum, to plead a specific allegation that at least one such discharge did in fact come from a rail car owned by Group Inc.,” the brief says.
Even if Sierra Club and its allies can meet that requirement, the brief continues, they should be suing the separate firms that lease rail cars and other equipment from CIT, since the lessees operate independently.
“Even the Group Inc. subsidiaries that lease rail cars (and that are not parties to this litigation) have no operational control over the equipment used and transported by others. Thus there is no basis for Group Inc. to [be] sued . . . relating to the transport of coal cars that are operated and controlled by unrelated third parties,” the brief says.
The case poses a test for whether solid coal falling from a train car into a protected water constitutes a discharge from a “point source” that would require a CWA permit.
A decision backing the advocates' claims would subject rail cars to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, which in turn would aid the groups as they seek to curb industry plans for new coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest.
Sierra Club and its allies argue that because the water law includes "rolling stock" in the definition of "point sources" subject to permit requirements, the train cars themselves should require discharge permits.
"Each discharge from each train car on each day constitutes a separate violation of the Clean Water Act," subject to individual fines and requiring a permit, Charles Tebutt, a lawyer who is representing environmentalists in the case, said in a 2013 press call that announced the suits.
Pending Litigation
The litigation is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, after Sierra Club and its allies consolidated it with a closely linked case in the eastern district of Washington, also titled Sierra Club v. BNSF.
Before consolidation, both cases survived industry motions for dismissal in 2014, with Judge John C. Coughenour holding in the western district suit that the environmentalists have standing to bring the suit and that their claims give BNSF "sufficient information to figure out the nature of the violations for which it is being sued."
The advocates then sought and won an order consolidating the cases into the western district, and also filed a new complaint adding CIT as an additional defendant, based on evidence that firm is now claiming is inadequate.
While Coughenour's 2014 order preserving the case held that Sierra Club's allegation that CWA violations were occurring at “every location where BNSF's railcars pass over or near a protected waterway” passed the test for a “reasonably specific” complaint, CIT claims the groups have been even more vague in their claims against it.
“Even if Group Inc. did own or operate rail cars, which it does not, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy” the need to allege particular violations stemming from those cars, the filing says.
If CIT's motion to dismiss fails, it is still not certain that the combined suit will reach a ruling on the merits. While judges in both cases denied industry's requests for outright dismissal, Judge Lonny R. Suko, the judge in the related eastern district of Washington case, set a high bar for the plaintiffs to show that coal from the train cars follows "a confined, discrete conveyance" to protected waters -- a key characteristic of a point source as defined in the CWA.
The advocates' suit is part of a series of efforts by environmentalists against both greenhouse gas and conventional pollution from coal mining and related transport operations. They are especially concerned over plans by industry to build several new coal export terminals in Washington state and Oregon and, together with state and federal lawmakers, are calling for greater scrutiny of the climate change and other environmental impacts of the terminals. If the court sides with Sierra Club, BNSF and other railways could be forced to seek discharge permits for coal trains, or even for individual train cars -- which could require them to cover the cars, seal leaks or take other potentially expensive measures to curb discharges, in addition to subjecting the companies to potentially high administrative costs.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested