Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Aug 24
-
(ACC Blog) On The Road With #ACCaugust – Updated 8/21/15
Aug 21, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions...http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) What Do Those Numbered Recycle Symbols On Plastic Mean Anyway?
Aug 22, 2015 | Digital Trends
By Jenny McGrath
If you grabbed a cup of coffee from your local chain this morning, what did you do with the cup? Trash it? Recycle it? Maybe you threw the plastic lid in the “landfill” can and tossed the paper cup in the “recycle” bin. When you’ve drained the last drop out of the laundry detergent bottle or squeezed out the rest.. -
(ACC Mentioned) “Just One Word” — Charleston Area Eyed For Plastics Export Hub
Aug 23, 2015 | The Post and Courrier
By John McDermott
The role of Mr. McGuire was a bit part in “The Graduate.” But the character offers up one of the most memorable pieces of career advice in Hollywood history: “Just one word. ... Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics,” he tells Benjamin Braddock. McGuire might as well have been counseling Upstate entrepreneur Jon McClure rather... -
Bill Would Ban Manufacture of Microbead Products
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Language to ban not only the sale and distribution of microbead-containing facial scrubs and other personal care products, but also the manufacture of such products, is being considered by the top two members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to interviews by Bloomberg BNA. -
Using 21st Century Methods To Understand The Halifax Project
Aug 21, 2015 | Science 2.0
By Richard Becker
When it comes to reviewing studies regarding combinations of low levels of chemical exposure and cancer risks, collaborators of the Halifax Project have raised questions that can help in the development of hypotheses – but to date, proof of cause and effect has not been presented. -
Lawmakers Press EPA About Animas Spill, Seek Hearings
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Members of Congress are pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to be more forthcoming about what caused the release of 3 million gallons of mining waste and sediment into the Animas River in southwestern Colorado. Several lawmakers are calling for congressional hearings into the Aug. 5 incident at the Gold King Mine near... -
Multiple Reviews Of EPA Spill Might Spur Abandoned Mine Policy Overhaul
Aug 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Three pending government reviews of EPA's accidental release of 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater from a Colorado mine during a cleanup operation might spur calls to overhaul federal policies on abandoned mines to create a uniform approach in how EPA and other agencies identify and cleanup such mines, advocates say. -
House Committee Schedules First Hearing On Mine Spill
Aug 21, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A House committee has scheduled the first congressional hearing on this month’s toxic waste spill in Colorado. The Science, Space and Technology Committee has asked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Gina McCarthy to testify on Sept. 9 about the spill. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the EPA... -
Political Target: Natural Gas
Aug 23, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
America’s natural gas boom has been a rare economic bright spot, and even President Obama likes to take credit for it. But as his term winds down, the Administration is waging a war of regulatory attrition to raise drilling costs and reduce its competitive advantage over wind and solar power. -
Texas Seeks Clean Power Plan Administrative Stay
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Texas has asked the Environmental Protection Agency for an administrative stay of its Clean Power Plan rule until legal challenges can be resolved, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R). A stay of the rule is necessary to maintain the status quo during the course of the litigation, said Jon Niermann... -
The Clean Power Plan Will Help Reduce Power Plant Pollutant Emissions Among Our Most Exposed Communities
Aug 22, 2015 | Natural Resources Defense Council Blog
By Juan Declet-Barreto’s
The EPA just released final rules to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants. These rules, known collectively as the Clean Power Plan, are a huge step in reducing the dangerous power sector carbon pollution that accounts for 40 percent of the U.S.' emissions footprint, drives global climate change, and is already endangering human health. -
Congress Seeks EPA Help on Local Issues
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wanted the Environmental Protection Agency to look into possible hazardous waste dumping; Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) sought help for a local company that alleged intellectual property theft; and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) asked the agency for a new Superfund listing. -
EPA Approves North Carolina's Revised RCRA Program
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Revisions to North Carolina's hazardous waste program have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. In a notice and proposed rule scheduled for publication in the Aug. 24 Federal Register, the EPA said the state requested changes to its program to align it with federal rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery... -
Can California Meet Its Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Goals?
Aug 23, 2015 | LA Times
When President Obama announced his controversial and ambitious Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, Californians gave a collective yawn. The president's goal of generating 28% of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2030 paled next to California's push, which began ... -
RGGI Responsible for Half of Emissions Reductions
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was responsible for half of the carbon dioxide emissions reductions achieved in the power sector in the nine participating states from 2009 through 2012, according to an Aug. 21 study from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University -
Environmentalists Divided Over Merits Of EPA Ash Rule's Reuse Provisions
Aug 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are divided on whether EPA's coal ash disposal rule should have set stricter standards for reuse of the material, with some advocates pursuing a data quality challenge with the agency over whether reuse is safe for public health or the environment while environmentalists suing over the rule are pledging not to contest its reuse... -
Clinton Angling To Obama’s Left On Climate
Aug 21, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Hillary Clinton’s break with President Obama on Arctic drilling this week represented a public shift left for the Democrat, a move greens say could be the start of a push to shore up support among environmentalists ahead of primary season. Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, primarily Sen... -
State Legislatures' Group Fails To Reach Consensus On EPA 'Waters' Rule
Aug 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) during its recent annual meeting failed to reach consensus on a resolution expressing “dissatisfaction” with the administration’s Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, one state source says, reflecting a longstanding split among the states over whether to support the policy.
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Blog) On The Road With #ACCaugust – Updated 8/21/15
Aug 21, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members of Congress to raise awareness of the vital importance of our industry and showcase the economic benefits of the business of chemistry where it matters the most—in their districts.
Take the #ACCaugust tour with us! Zoom in and out and pan around to see where we’ve been and where we’re going (don’t forget Alaska!)
-
(ACC Mentioned) What Do Those Numbered Recycle Symbols On Plastic Mean Anyway?
Aug 22, 2015 | Digital Trends
By Jenny McGrath
If you grabbed a cup of coffee from your local chain this morning, what did you do with the cup? Trash it? Recycle it? Maybe you threw the plastic lid in the “landfill” can and tossed the paper cup in the “recycle” bin.
When you’ve drained the last drop out of the laundry detergent bottle or squeezed out the rest of the shampoo, you might flip over the container and see a little triangle of arrows with a number inside. The symbols are meant to signify what type of resin plastic the container is made of, so consumers know whether or not they can recycle them. The Society of the Plastics Industry introduced the system, known as the Resin Identification Code (RIC) system, in 1988, and it’s become a universal standard.
Related: How to recycle your old computer
Still, a lot of people — if they recycle at all — just see plastic and toss it in the blue bin. The problem is that whether a recycler accepts the container is totally dependent on where you’re located. The L.A. Times has a “Can I Recycle …” feature that provides a great example using take-out cups, and it’s easy to see why there’s so much confusion around what should and shouldn’t go in those bins. Such cups can either be plastic or paper coated with polyethylene. Los Angeles recycles only the fully plastic cups. Arcadia recycles both kinds, but Santa Barbara won’t do either. Pasadena will recycle a plastic cup if it has a number.
To get more guidance on what you can and can’t recycle, you’ll need to get in touch with your local facility, but we can at least help decode the RIC system, thanks to the American Chemistry Council.
Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/what-do-plastics-recycling-numbers-mean/#ixzz3jj2B6aGr
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook -
(ACC Mentioned) “Just One Word” — Charleston Area Eyed For Plastics Export Hub
Aug 23, 2015 | The Post and Courrier
By John McDermott
The role of Mr. McGuire was a bit part in “The Graduate.” But the character offers up one of the most memorable pieces of career advice in Hollywood history:
“Just one word. ... Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics,” he tells Benjamin Braddock.
McGuire might as well have been counseling Upstate entrepreneur Jon McClure rather than Dustin Hoffman, who played the disillusioned college graduate in the 1967 Academy Award winner.
McClure also sees a bright outlook for plastics — in the Lowcountry.
“Remember the movie?” he quipped.
The industry veteran from Greenville is heading up a new venture that just bought about 107 acres of undeveloped land near the former Force Protection Industries plant on U.S. Highway 78 in North Charleston.
“From the day it went on the market I was trying buy it,” McClure said.
Preliminary engineering work is already under way. McClure’s plan is to build an export hub for plastic pellets that go into a dizzying array of consumer goods, from milk jugs to toys.
“Everything,” he said. “You name it.”
Driving the project is a bounty of cheap natural gas, the key raw ingredient in the commodity resin he plans to move through the North Charleston site. The chemical businesses at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Dow and other companies have responded to the domestic shale production boom — and the more favorable economics — by building new plants in Texas and other states for the first time in years.
Since 2010, companies have committed to invest more than $100 billion to add capacity in the U.S. by 2023, according to the American Chemistry Council. The Houston Chronicle’s Fuel Fix website described it as “a huge, hungry market” in a report on plastic pellet production last year.
“The chemical industry in America, on the petrochemical side, is in a huge expansion mode,” McClure said. “The U.S. has the lowest cost basis for natural gas in the world.”
McClure isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dreamer. The University of South Carolina graduate went to work in the plastics packaging business in 1983, and he stepped out on his own to launch ISO Poly Films Inc. with $1,200 in cash and a $10,000 line of credit in 1997. Four years later, Ernst & Young recognized him as its Carolinas Entrepreneur of the Year.
His Gray Court-based company quickly grew into a sizable player in the plastic films industry, with two manufacturing sites, 160 employees and $115 million in sales in 2013. McClure sold a majority stake in the business in 2009 and the rest last year.
In his latest venture, he originally thought the Houston area would be the ideal site for an export center. Manufacturers he met in the Texas energy industry capital told him otherwise.
“They said. ‘Don’t do it here,’” McClure said. “They said, ‘Build it in Charleston.’”
The key advantage boiled down to South Carolina’s relatively uncongested and expanding port system.
“The first objective was to secure the site, one close enough to the port with rail access,” he said.
The $5.4 million land purchase by his Stoney Ladson LLC closed Aug. 6. McClure said he can envision more than 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space on the Highway 78 tract, which already is served by a Norfolk Southern line.
“Our goal is to have the first building completed by the end of 2017,” he said.
The “transloading” operation could create several hundred jobs within three or four years of the opening, McClure estimated.
The plastic shipments would be transported by train from manufacturing plants along the Gulf Coast and Midwest states to North Charleston. The pellets would then be loaded onto big cargo vessels at the port to feed high-growth consumer markets in Asia and Latin America.
“This stuff will find its way all around the world,” McClure said.
-
Bill Would Ban Manufacture of Microbead Products
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Language to ban not only the sale and distribution of microbead-containing facial scrubs and other personal care products, but also the manufacture of such products, is being considered by the top two members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to interviews by Bloomberg BNA.
“Our intent is to seek to ban manufacturing along with sale and distribution,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the committee's ranking member and author of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 (H.R. 1321), told Bloomberg BNA in an interview.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health approved H.R. 1321 on a voice vote on May 14. The bill as currently written would require the Food and Drug Administration to ban the sale and distribution of personal care products containing synthetic microbeads, starting Jan. 1, 2018. The bill is currently silent on the question of manufacture, but Pallone promised that “we are going to address manufacturing and sale” as the bill makes it way through the full committee (94 DEN A-5, 5/15/15).
“Those changes will take place as we move the bill through the committee,” Pallone said.
Plastic microbeads are smaller than 5 millimeters and elude capture by wastewater treatment plants. They can act as sponges for more toxic chemicals and endocrine disruptors, such as mercury and bisphenol A.
Upton Favors Phaseout
Pallone is not alone in wanting to ban the manufacture of personal care products, which use plastic microbeads as abrasives.
Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the bill's chief sponsor, also has indicated that he is working on language to phaseout manufacturing and sales of such products that include plastic microbeads, which researchers have found in large quantities in the Great Lakes, committee spokeswoman Noelle Clemente said.
Both Upton and Pallone are treating the microbeads bill as a priority. Pallone said he hopes to see movement on the bill in Congress during the session that starts following Labor Day.
A companion bill (S. 1424) was introduced May 21 by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). That bill also seeks to ban distribution and sale of personal care products containing microbeads.
‘Pragmatic' Approach
The Personal Care Products Council, which represents about 600 large, medium and small-sized companies that manufacture and distribute the vast majority of cosmetic and personal care products marketed in the country, has endorsed the concept of a federal legislation that establishes “pragmatic” phaseout deadlines for synthetic microbeads that are found not only in personal care products but also in over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs. Johnson & Johnson, also a member of the council, has endorsed that concept.
At a May hearing, John Hurson, the council's executive vice president for government affairs, cautioned the Health Subcommittee that microbeads are a small portion of the microplastics found in oceans and lakes. The microplastics include fragments of clothing fibers, boat paint particles, degrading plastic bags and plastic bottles, as well as microbeads found in personal care products. The council along with Johnson & Johnson are advocating for a phaseout of plastic microbeads with alternatives that can biodegrade in marine and land-based conditions.
-
Using 21st Century Methods To Understand The Halifax Project
Aug 21, 2015 | Science 2.0
By Richard Becker
When it comes to reviewing studies regarding combinations of low levels of chemical exposure and cancer risks, collaborators of the Halifax Project have raised questions that can help in the development of hypotheses – but to date, proof of cause and effect has not been presented.
The Nova Scotia-based Halifax Project is focused in part, on reviewing published scientific studies with an eye towards picking out data of the “carcinogenic potential of low dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment” and associating them to some aspect of the biological processes involved in cancer.
For the purpose of this blog, I’d like to review four key observations of the Halifax Project and offer four points to help put the Project in perspective as a thought-starter – not a conclusive body of evidence – for generating testable hypotheses about low-dose chemical exposures.
Stages of scientific inquiry
Scientific research proceeds through a process that uses knowledge, perspectives, and observations from previous investigations to pose a question in the form of a hypothesis and then to design and conduct studies to test each hypothesis.
Results from these investigations are then evaluated, hypotheses are confirmed (or not), and the knowledge gained is used to reformulate or propose new hypotheses.
It’s from this exacting approach that tremendous advances have been made by scientists in their understanding of the complex biological processes involved in the development and progression of cancer -- what Hanahan and Weinberg call the “Hallmarks of Cancer.” Scientists have uncovered an array of factors that may contribute to or cause cancer. These can include: smoking, alcohol, radiation, viruses, natural and synthetic substances, obesity, hormones, chronic inflammation and a lack of exercise.
Four observations of the Halifax Project
From the lens of the scientific method, one can view the Halifax Project as contributing to the initial stage of a scientific inquiry.
The authors start by raising a question: can low levels of chemical exposures, in combination, be linked to significant cancer risks? Underlying this question are four observations: certain chemicals can elicit responses in test systems tied to one of the hallmarks of cancer pathway; humans are exposed to complex mixtures of substances; testing of chemicals for carcinogenicity typically involves single substances (at high doses) and not mixtures; andwhen mixtures are evaluated, typically, we evaluate single pathways in isolation.
Four points to keep the Halifax Project in context
Keeping the complexities of the process of cancer development in mind, there are a few important points to note when reviewing some of the Project’s observations.
First, the issue of exposure to chemical mixtures is not new. Toxicologists, cancer biologists and medical researchers know that that we are exposed to a number of natural and man-made chemicals simultaneously and continuously every day. So, it comes as no surprise that chemicals can be detected in human urine and blood or that, at some dose level or concentration in specific test systems, responses can be detected when chemicals are combined.
Second, this understanding of chemicals should not lead to undue concern. Because a substance is present and has adverse effects at some dose or exposure level does not mean, or even imply, that the presence of that chemical will lead to adverse effects at all levels.
Third, the human body is well equipped to manage exposures to low levels of chemicals. In fact, humans have always been exposed to low levels chemical mixtures. For example, an apple is a mixture of more than 150 different chemical substances; eating a fruit cocktail comprised of apples, bananas, strawberries, peaches, and pineapple, would lead to exposure to more than 400 different chemical agents. And such substances can, in certain test systems, cause responses in biological pathways.
Fourth, what matters is the amount of chemicals in the body relative to the amount that can actually cause harm. The question is not simply whether a chemical, natural or man-made, or mixtures of chemicals, are present in the body (a question of exposure), or whether chemicals can cause harm (a question of the chemical’s inherent toxicity). Instead, the answers to questions of exposure and toxicity must be considered in combination.
The Halifax Project provides a starting point for possible further study on the issue of low dose exposures to multiple chemicals with properties consistent with one or more of the hallmarks of carcinogenesis. While the articles raise questions, they do not provide the answers.
A thought-starter for generating testable hypothesis
Publications like the current series prepared by the Halifax Project Task Force provide a first step in an overall analysis of available information. As the authors of the papers themselves state, their work has been only hypothesis-generating. These papers do not establish or provide conclusive support for the claim that low level exposures to mixtures of environmental chemicals cause cancer.
Raising a question is just the beginning of the scientific processes and provides no real proof. Proof comes incrementally, from formulating clear hypotheses and then testing these using relevant and reliable scientific methods.
The Path Forward: Building confidence in 21st century testing tools and using these advanced methods to test hypotheses
Using modern molecular biology tools, experts are already making remarkable progress in understanding how biological pathways in cells and the body respond to different levels of chemical, physical and biological stress—whether in isolation or in a mixture. As confidence in these innovative 21st century testing tools advances, scientists will soon be in a better position to test hypotheses like those generated from the Halifax Project.
For example, scientists have recently shown that the dynamics of key biological pathways involve complex connections – similar to the wiring in integrated electrical circuits - that give rise to thresholds, exposures below which significant biological responses are not induced. Thus, simultaneous exposure to low levels of natural or environmental chemicals does not imply that potential risks would be experienced. At low levels of exposures, even to chemical mixtures, this type of “wiring” of the pathways underpinning cellular functions, including proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis (pathways involved in the hallmarks of cancer) should protect against adverse effects. Research in the molecular pathways of cancer is quite active and we are optimistic that continued strong research programs will provide greater scientific knowledge showing how the well accepted toxicological principle that the dose makes the poison operates in the integrated biological pathways that characterize the hallmarks of cancer. At ACC, our Long Range Research Initiative (LRI) is contributing to such research. The ACC LRI is focused on advancing the understanding of chemical exposure and potential links between chemical exposures, including mixtures, and adverse outcomes. This includes applying innovations in chemical safety testing, continuing the development and improvement of predictive models for generating estimates for environmentally-relevant chemical exposures, and evaluating links between chemical exposures and health and environmental outcomes. Collaborations between LRI investigators and scientists from the academia and federal governmental agencies have been instrumental for advancing the research in chemical safety assessment, including the importance of dose response in biological pathways that characterize the hallmarks of adverse outcomes including cancer.
-
Lawmakers Press EPA About Animas Spill, Seek Hearings
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Members of Congress are pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to be more forthcoming about what caused the release of 3 million gallons of mining waste and sediment into the Animas River in southwestern Colorado.
Several lawmakers are calling for congressional hearings into the Aug. 5 incident at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colo. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said Aug. 21 the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which he chairs, will hold a hearing Sept. 9 to hear directly from the EPA about the events that took place before and after the spill.
Smith said he has asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify at the hearing. “Weeks after the spill, families and businesses who depend on the Animas River continue to deal with uncertainty and limited information,” Smith said in a statement. “As the agency entrusted by the American people to protect the environment and ensure the nation's waters are clean, the EPA should be held to the highest standard.”
Mining Wastewater Released
EPA investigators, while attempting to enter Gold King Mine on Aug. 5, accidentally unleashed the mining wastewater and sediment into Upper Cement Creek, which flows into the Animas River. The Animas streams through Durango, Colo., and southwestern Colorado before merging with the San Juan River in New Mexico. The San Juan empties into the Colorado River at Lake Powell in Utah.
The plume of waste contained several heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead. The EPA and state officials have declared the water quality of the rivers as having returned to “pre-incident” levels (155 DEN A-8, 8/12/15).
The EPA said Aug. 19 samples from Lake Powell indicated “no significant impact” from the plume.
Additional Hearings
Smith said the House science committee “needs to hear from the EPA about steps it is taking to repair the damage and to prevent this from ever occurring again.”
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 20 that hearings are also likely to be conducted by the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“There are a lot of questions for the EPA to answer,” he said. “Why was there no contingency plan?”
Tipton and several House colleagues, including Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) and 27 other representatives, signed a letter to McCarthy asking 15 questions about the EPA's response to and handling of the spill.
Tipton told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 20 there has been no response to the questions in the letter.
A chorus of congressional voices have called for action and accountability since the incident began, including one from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). On Aug. 12, Boehner issued a statement calling on the Obama administration “to step up its efforts to protect the people in the affected states.”
-
Multiple Reviews Of EPA Spill Might Spur Abandoned Mine Policy Overhaul
Aug 24, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Three pending government reviews of EPA's accidental release of 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater from a Colorado mine during a cleanup operation might spur calls to overhaul federal policies on abandoned mines to create a uniform approach in how EPA and other agencies identify and cleanup such mines, advocates say.
But at least one small-government group hopes the studies will help them make a case that liability for releases from mine cleanups under the Superfund law and the Clean Water Act (CWA) should be eased, including through changes to “Good Samaritan” cleanup law. While EPA has sought to promote “Good Samaritan” cleanups of mine sites through guidance aimed at reducing CWA liability for innocent groups that voluntarily clean up abandoned hardrock mines, some groups have advocated for additional liability protections under the law to prompt such cleanups.
An EPA spokeswoman told Inside EPA Aug. 20 that the agency is working on an “internal technical review” of the Aug. 5 spill from the Gold King Mine in Colorado, which released wastewater containing heavy metals into the nearby Animas River. The review will proceed in parallel with an an independent assessment led by the Department of Interior (DOI) and an investigation by EPA's Inspector General (IG) office at the request of lawmakers.
All three studies will examine the circumstances under which the EPA cleanup crew triggered the release, which has prompted significant scrutiny from Congress and regular updates from the agency on its response.
A source at the environmental group Earthworks says that while multiple executive branch studies of the same incident could produce redundant results, they could also present a more compelling case for reforms if their conclusions agree on a need to make policy changes to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future.
“What I would hope is that especially the IG report gets at the underlying causes as to why EPA was forced to intervene on an ad hoc basis” by doing the cleanup work at the mine, which was abandoned around 1923, the source says. “[T]hat's because there's no unified organization in how you look at abandoned mines.”
Earthworks and other groups have long argued for financial assurance rules under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as the Superfund law, that would require hardrock mine owners to set aside fund to pay for cleanup, accidental releases and post-closure care.
Without such rules, the source says, EPA and state environment departments are forced to address problem sites as their own funding allows, and without an overarching regulatory strategy.
“There's a will, but there's not a way, because there is no money. There's no systematic way of inventorying the mines, prioritizing them for cleanup, and then cleaning them up,” the source says.
Mining Policy
Groups seeking financial assurance rules have sued EPA to force a deadline for action, and a federal appellate court ruled in May that EPA should update and expedite its schedule for issuing the regulations. EPA in recent months has said it plans to issue a draft version of the hardrock mining rules next August.
While the studies get underway, advocates say they are hopeful that potential unified conclusions on the need for abandoned mine policy reform could get a boost.
It is unclear at this point how, or whether, the scope of the three government studies into the wastewater spill will differ, since all three are still in their early stages.
DOI is performing “an analysis of the incident that took place at Gold King Mine, including the contributing causes,” according to an Aug. 18 statement from EPA, with a report set for release by Oct. 17.
The EPA spokeswoman says the agency's internal review is being conducted “by a team of five Regional and Headquarters people, at the direction of” Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response Mathy Stanislaus. The spokeswoman continues that that team is looking solely at the causes of the spill and not its environmental impacts, and plans to deliver a report to Stanislaus “shortly.”
The IG is still determining the scope of its review, according to a spokesman for the office. The Aug. 17 memo announcing the investigation said it would target “the cause of, and the EPA’s response to,” the spill, in response to a congressional request.
Regardless of the scope of the IG study, the Earthworks source says, the fact that other offices beyond EPA headquarters are investigating the accident will likely boost confidence in their results.
“Especially the Inspector General study will, I expect, give the people downstream more confidence in the findings. While I think the need for it is unfortunate, it's appropriate,” the source says.
Easing Liability
At least one group that advocates for small government is countering that the three studies could help to bolster calls for easing liability under both CERCLA and the CWA.
Lawrence University economics professor David Gerard said in an Aug. 13 blog post for the pro-small-government environmental think tank Property and Environment Research Center wrote, “I wonder what this will do to potential Good Samaritan policies more generally. That is, what if it had been a Good Samaritan operation rather than the EPA that was responsible here?” and questioned potential future policy changes that might now occur.
“There seems to be almost universal agreement that relaxing Clean Water Act liability is necessary to promote abandoned mine cleanups. The remediating party would obtain a permit (from either a state agency or the EPA) that would limit some liability for pre-existing conditions, provided that the provisions of the permit are met,” Gerard wrote.
“In principle, there is broad support for measures that would relax or eliminate liability to promote these voluntary Good Samaritan remediation efforts. In practice, however, there is no agreement on what this would look like, and consequently there has been no statutory or regulatory enabling of Good Samaritan efforts,” he wrote.
“Some of the sticking points have to do with who would issue the permits and whether they could be issued for sites on federal lands. But the larger disagreement concerns who can be a remediating party. It seems to me that environmental groups support a narrow definition that limits Good Samaritan status to government agencies. Other groups, including the mining industry, advocate a broader interpretation that is more accommodating toward private parties as Good Samaritans, including re-mining and redevelopment,” the blog post says.
Along with groups seeking to bolster their push for reforms of the mine cleanup regime, the studies are also likely to inform litigation over the spill. The Navajo Nation has already declared its intent to sue EPA for damages from the Gold King release, and the agency also faces possible legal action by downstream states. Attorneys familiar with cleanup law say that EPA will likely be sued for both natural resource damages and response damages under CERCLA, which would deal with both environmental harms from the spill and the cost of addressing drinking water contamination and other short-term issues respectively.
-
House Committee Schedules First Hearing On Mine Spill
Aug 21, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A House committee has scheduled the first congressional hearing on this month’s toxic waste spill in Colorado.
The Science, Space and Technology Committee has asked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Gina McCarthy to testify on Sept. 9 about the spill. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the EPA “has an obligation to be forthcoming about what went wrong” in Colorado.
A team of EPA contractors inspecting an abandoned mine inadvertently released 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into Colorado’s Animas River on Aug. 5. The waste eventually spread to the San Juan River in New Mexico.
Water quality has since returned to pre-accident levels, the EPA says, and the rivers have reopened. But the incident has provided fodder for lawmakers and led to calls for congressional inquiries.
“Weeks after the spill, families and businesses who depend on the Animas River continue to deal with uncertainty and limited information,” Smith said in a statement.
“As the agency entrusted by the American people to protect the environment and ensure the nation’s waters are clean, the EPA should be held to the highest standard. The Science Committee needs to hear from the EPA about steps it is taking to repair the damage and to prevent this from ever occurring again.”
The House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have both promised their own hearings on the accident.
The EPA’s inspector general is looking at the spill, and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation is leading a separate investigation into the accident.
-
Aug 23, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
America’s natural gas boom has been a rare economic bright spot, and even President Obama likes to take credit for it. But as his term winds down, the Administration is waging a war of regulatory attrition to raise drilling costs and reduce its competitive advantage over wind and solar power.
The latest effort came last week when the Environmental Protection Agency issued its new rule to slash emissions of methane, a byproduct of oil and gas drilling. The industry will be required to cut methane emissions by 40% to 45% over the next decade from 2012 levels. The rule spares existing wells that make no changes, but all new or modified wells will have to install costly new methane mitigation systems.
The rule follows new ozone limits proposed by the EPA last November, new limits issued in March on hydraulic fracturing on public lands, new moratoriums on drilling in and around Alaska, and a potential rule cracking down on greenhouse gas emissions from drilling on federal lands. Keep in mind the states already regulate natural-gas drilling, and they’ve done it well enough to avoid major accidents.
Methane has long been a target of the green lobby because it is viewed as an especially potent contributor to global warming. Yet the EPA’s own research shows methane emissions from drilling have been declining rapidly.
The EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory acknowledged this year that methane emissions from natural gas production have fallen 35% since 2007. That’s despite a 22% increase in gas production over the same period. The EPA last year found that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured gas wells had fallen 73% from 2011 to 2013. Overall methane emissions are 17% lower than in 1990.
The industry has every incentive to capture methane emissions because it’s also a valuable energy source that can be used to produce electricity and heat. The more methane that drillers capture, the better the return on their investment. The industry has already unleashed an array of technologies to prevent leakage from drilling, transportation and processing, and innovation is improving those tools.
The new EPA rule will impose large new costs for little benefit. In 2013 methane emissions counted for about 9% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Of that 9% about 3% are subject to the new rule, which would cut them in half. A Cato Institute study notes that even if the U.S. ceased all carbon emissions “now and forever,” the effect would be to reduce the rise in temperatures by the end of the century by 0.10 degrees Celcius. The methane rule’s contribution would be a mere 0.002 degrees Celsius.
The rule will nonetheless do immediate harm to a drilling industry that is already under pressure from falling global energy prices. The shale gas revolution has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduced costs for U.S. manufacturers, raised millions in taxes and royalties for government, and increased U.S. energy security. The new costs will reduce the marginal return on drilling, which means fewer new wells.
Our guess is that this is the real political purpose behind the wave of new drilling rules. The Administration has made coal its main fossil-fuel target, but the green lobby also has natural gas in its sights. A frontal assault is too politically risky, which is why regulatory attrition is the preferred approach.
President Obama’s new climate-change rule requires that utilities move rapidly to increase production from solar and wind power, which can only be competitive if natural gas costs rise sharply. The methane rule continues the assault, which is one more reason that the 2016 presidential election is crucial for continuing U.S. energy production.
-
Texas Seeks Clean Power Plan Administrative Stay
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Texas has asked the Environmental Protection Agency for an administrative stay of its Clean Power Plan rule until legal challenges can be resolved, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R).
A stay of the rule is necessary to maintain the status quo during the course of the litigation, said Jon Niermann, Environmental Protection Division chief, in an Aug. 20 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. While no harm would result from a stay, states will suffer irreparable harm by implementing the rule now, according to the letter.
“The Rule will require States to change their laws and policies,” said Niermann. “If the Rule is struck down, all laws, regulations, and memoranda of understanding put in place to facilitate compliance with the Rule would need to be rescinded or repealed, further exacerbating the misapplication of state resources.”
The EPA on Aug. 3 released its final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).
The rule sets a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state. The standard would be implemented by state regulators and is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
“Texas will defend its families and jobs from an overreaching federal government,” Paxton said in a statement. “Moreover, Texas has proven you don't have to destroy industry and jobs in order to protect the environment.”
Despite 15 years of rapid population growth, the attorney general said, nitrogen oxide and ozone levels are down.
Sixteen other states have also filed for administrative stay of the Clean Power Plan (151 DEN A-5, 8/6/15).
If the EPA denies Texas's request for a stay, the attorney general intends to file suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
-
Aug 22, 2015 | Natural Resources Defense Council Blog
By Juan Declet-Barreto’s
The EPA just released final rules to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants. These rules, known collectively as the Clean Power Plan, are a huge step in reducing the dangerous power sector carbon pollution that accounts for 40 percent of the U.S.' emissions footprint, drives global climate change, and is already endangering human health. Those of us working to protect our most vulnerable communities from the impacts of carbon and co-pollutant emissions like particulates and ozone precursors commend the EPA for listening to the concerns of the environmental justice (EJ) community and incorporating those concerns into the final rules. As EJ advocates and scholars have demonstrated, many of the nation's coal-based power plants are located in or nearby low-income and minority communities, exposing populations to particulate matter, as well as to ozone precursors that turn into lower-atmosphere ozone. It is critical to protect these communities, as they are often deprived of social and economic resources to prevent adverse health outcomes worsened by climate change like asthma and respiratory allergy attacks.
To address these concerns, the Clean Power Plan provides a series of recommendations and requirements that states must take into account in order to prevent disproportionate burdens on vulnerable communities as a result of states' implementation of the rules. These include mapping the intersection of pollutant sources and vulnerable communities, engagement with communities during state plan development, renewable energy/energy efficiency incentives to offset emissions reduction targets, and continuous EPA engagement by assessing and reviewing state plan impacts on EJ communities. Furthermore, as stated in the final rule document, if states want to secure an extension to submit implementation plans to the EPA, they have to demonstrate how they are "meaningfully engaging vulnerable communities and other interested stakeholders as part of their public participation process" (p. 1324).
Proximity analysis of power sector pollutant impacts
In this note, I'd like to unpack the mapping of pollutants and vulnerable communities, or what the EPA refers to as a proximity analysis, what it entails in an EJ context, and what tools the EPA is providing to conduct this analysis. A proximity analysis involves using U.S. Census and power plant emissions data in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to calculate demographics within a specified radius from power plants (a 3-mile distance is common). The analysis should consider the combination of both low-income and minority populations to account for urban/rural differences in race/ethnicity and socio-economic status. EPA has conducted a first-order proximity analysis for power plants in the U.S. and summarized results in the "EJ Screening Report for the Clean Power Plan"
As an illustrative example, I've conducted a quick-and-dirty (pun fully intended) mapping of the Bridgeport Station (Connecticut) power plant and the racial/ethnic composition of Census Tracts within 1, 3, and 5-mile radial buffers around the plant. The Bridgeport station emitted a little over 156,000 short tons of carbon dioxide, 107 short tons of NOx, and almost 140 short tons of SO2 in 2012, according to a power plant benchmarking report. For simplicity, I've left out income variables. I've estimated the size of the population within the area of each buffer, taking into account that Census Tracts only partially within the buffer have a fraction of their population within the buffer.
The table clearly shows that the concentration of minority populations increases as distance to the power plant decreases. This strongly suggests that African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics live closer to the plant, and are more highly exposed to the plant's emissions than the White population.
Proximity analyses of populations nearby power plant emissions are a first step in identifying the magnitude of exposed communities, but they don't take into account the complex photochemical interaction (that is, how pollutants behave and transport in the presence of solar rays and wind) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxides (NOx) that turn into ozone, or how fine particulate matter is dispersed locally and away from the power plant. Still, a proximity analysis, combined with a complete assessment of EJ burdens on vulnerable populations, can help states craft plans to ensure that minority and low-income communities are not disproportionately exposed to power plant pollutants as a result of compliance with the Clean Power Plan. Besides the EJ Screening Report, the EPA has offered guidance and tools to assist states in assessing disproportionate burdens. For example, the EPA has recommended that the EJ methodologies both in the EPA's Draft Solid Waste rule and Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions, as well as California's guidance on assessing EJ burdens should be used by states to assess and prevent disproportionate burdens as a result of Clean Power Plan implementation plans.
Now that the rules are finalized and we know what tools we have at our disposal, our task is clear: Environmental justice advocates, scientists, scholars, and environmental advocacy organizations have to work together with states to implement the best possible compliance plans that will reduce dangerous carbon pollutants and co-pollutants in all communities, and especially to protect our most vulnerable communities. We have a moral obligation to protect our planet and our people. As President Obama said: "We only get one home. We only get one planet. There's no Plan B."
-
Congress Seeks EPA Help on Local Issues
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wanted the Environmental Protection Agency to look into possible hazardous waste dumping; Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) sought help for a local company that alleged intellectual property theft; and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) asked the agency for a new Superfund listing.
Their letters, obtained by Bloomberg BNA through the Freedom of Information Act, show the variety of localized issues lawmakers ask the EPA to tackle and investigate during the course of a year.
Other correspondence includes letters from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and dozens of other lawmakers seeking EPA support for brownfields projects, investigations into alleged employment discrimination, information on enforcement actions and local hearings on regulations important to their states, among other issues.
The letters offer a glimpse into the litany of congressional requests the EPA must address. They include just the ones sent to the agency during a three-month period from Jan. 1 to April 3.
Assistance Sought for Companies
One area of assistance frequently sought by lawmakers is information on local companies facing enforcement actions or potential theft of intellectual property.
The office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) wrote the EPA to ask for information about a local scrap metal recycler that felt it had been singled out and targeted by the agency since settling a 2011 administrative complaint.
“[The constituent] feels that the EPA has been continually involved with their company's happenings since the administrative complaint,” an aide to Collins wrote Feb. 20. “It is making it difficult for them to do business.”
The agency replied March 11 to Collins that her concern had been “noted” and said additional guidance would be provided to the company about water discharges.
McMorris Rodgers raised a different kind of concern in a March 12 letter. She said competitors of Sterling lnternational Inc.—which produces insect-mitigating products—had used public disclosures from that company to craft unregistered pesticide products.
“It is my understanding that several of Sterling's competitors are using the information included in the public disclosures to create similar, unregistered biopestidical products, at a tremendous cost to Sterling,” McMorris Rodgers wrote. “While I appreciate the need for public disclosure, I also believe that these disclosures should not unfairly penalize companies who are simply complying with the law.”
Cynthia Giles, the head of enforcement at the EPA, responded May 11 that the agency would continue to examine the allegations raised by Sterling but said she “cannot discuss the status of that investigation.”
Investigations Sought
Lawmakers also asked the agency to examine a host of allegations, including possible environmental crimes or workplace discrimination at the agency.
One of those requests came from Grassley in a Feb. 23 letter after a constituent described 100 discarded tanks possibly containing hazardous waste that comprised the “makings of a bomb” and had the feel of a “huge cover up.”
In a March 27 reply, Giles said the Iowa Department of Natural Resources investigated the allegations but determined the tanks were not abandoned and contained old fertilizer. The Iowa department asked the owner of the tanks to “properly dispose of the materials by putting them in a secondary containment structure” but did not cite the owner for a violation.
Another request seeking information and assistance came from Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.). It involved a longtime EPA employee in Region 2 who alleged she was improperly passed over for a promotion and suffered retaliation within the office because of ongoing medical problems.
There was no response from the EPA to Meeks's letter included in the FOIA response.
Senior Lawmakers Send Letters
Senior congressional lawmakers also sent letters seeking EPA attention to local issues of concern.
Schumer, in late February, asked the agency to issue a unilateral administrative order to the Department of Defense and Northrop Grumman Corp. to push forward a cleanup plan for a contaminated groundwater plume in Bethpage, N.Y., that stemmed from decades-old manufacturing operations.
In a March 20 response, the EPA said it “agreed that this is a matter of great importance,” and Northrop Grumman subsequently signed a state cleanup plan for the site in May.
Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, forwarded correspondence Jan. 30 from a Nevada interest group that argued the EPA should not lower the national ozone standard from its current level of 75 parts per billion and asked it to respond directly. The agency said it subsequently replied directly to the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association.
Local concerns also arose from presidential candidates. The office of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on March 4 forwarded a letter from a constituent expressing concern about “the Tamarec, [Fla.] government's intent on building a school on land that is the habitat for endangered species.”
The EPA forwarded the letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which handles endangered species issues.
Cleanup Help Requests Common
Lawmakers frequently asked the EPA for funding to clean up contaminated sites or to add properties to the National Priorities List for remediation.
Tester asked the EPA in January to add the Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. site in Columbia Falls, Mont., to the National Priorities List under the Superfund statute. Such a listing is vital, because the site lies adjacent to Glacier National Park and the contamination could threaten the “watershed and surrounding communities,” Montana's senior senator wrote.
The letter was successful. EPA officials proposed adding the site to the National Priorities List in late March.
Even seemingly mundane topics such as securing brownfields cleanup funding got the attention of lawmakers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter in early February in support of a brownfields grant request for the city of Everett, Mass.
-
EPA Approves North Carolina's Revised RCRA Program
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Revisions to North Carolina's hazardous waste program have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
In a notice and proposed rule scheduled for publication in the Aug. 24 Federal Register, the EPA said the state requested changes to its program to align it with federal rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act issued between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2014. According to the EPA, none of the revised rules are more stringent than the federal requirements. The authorization merely makes the changes federally enforceable, and the state now will begin issuing and administering the associated permits.
The authorization covers waste management standards for academic laboratories, land disposal treatment standards for carbamate wastes, conditional exclusions for solvent contaminated wipes and the removal of saccharin and its salts from the hazardous waste lists as well as certain technical corrections and clarifications the EPA promulgated during the six-year period at issue.
Comments are due within 30 days of the rule's publication, but the EPA said in its notice that “this action is not controversial and [the agency] does not expect comments that oppose it.”
-
Can California Meet Its Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Goals?
Aug 23, 2015 | LA Times
When President Obama announced his controversial and ambitious Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, Californians gave a collective yawn. The president's goal of generating 28% of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2030 paled next to California's push, which began nearly a decade ago, to fuel 33% of its electrical needs with solar, wind and other renewables by 2020.
The state's commitment to a serious climate change policy began in 2006 with the passage of AB 32, the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act. That law required the Air Resources Board to formulate a plan for 2020 that would bring greenhouse gas emissions down to where they had been in 1990. And now that California is on track to meet that goal, it's time for the next, more ambitious step: SB 32.
The bill would ratchet up the effort considerably, calling for the state to reduce greenhouse emissions by 2030 to 40% below where they were in 1990.
That's not a figure to shrug or yawn about; it's considerably more aggressive than the AB 32 goal, which entails cutting emissions by 15% of what they would have been under a business-as-usual scenario. Nonetheless, the bill should pass. The state has already laid the groundwork, and besides, there's no alternative. Climate change is palpably afflicting the planet — for instance, it has worsened the California drought of the last four years, according to a study released last week — and this is just the start. The state obviously can't fight climate change on its own, but it plays an important leadership role.
A companion bill of sorts, SB 350, also has useful elements, though it would be improved if it offered greater flexibility. The bill directs state agencies to do three things by 2030: pump up the state's renewables portfolio to 50%, and halve both the amount of energy used by buildings statewide and the state's use of petroleum for vehicles.
The state is off to a good start on renewable sources of electricity, and that can be expected to grow tremendously in the coming years, but the latter two goals might not be attainable within 15 years. Even if tough new fuel standards for vehicles are imposed, would enough older cars be replaced with electric, hybrid or substantially more gas-thrifty models to meet that extremely ambitious goal? Housing follows a much longer life-cycle than automobiles, and how much retrofitting could the state afford, even if it uses money from the state's cap-and-trade fund, to bring its vast building stock into compliance?
The bill usefully directs state agencies, such as the Public Utilities Commission, to begin marshaling their financial and regulatory resources toward these reductions in fossil fuel use. But it would be better to leave specific goals to the ARB, the agency charged with the big-picture task of determining how best to reduce carbon emissions.
-
RGGI Responsible for Half of Emissions Reductions
Aug 24, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was responsible for half of the carbon dioxide emissions reductions achieved in the power sector in the nine participating states from 2009 through 2012, according to an Aug. 21 study from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.
The study, published in the journal Energy Economics, found that the remaining carbon dioxide emissions reductions from the power sector were due to a decline in economic activity, increased availability of lower priced natural gas, renewable portfolio standards and other factors.
The RGGI cap-and-trade program was the most significant factor leading to emissions reductions, the study said. It found that emissions would have been 24 percent higher without the RGGI program.
The study said emissions would have been 12 percent to 14 percent higher were it not for each of the other major factors—the economic recession, natural gas prices and renewable portfolio standards.
Study Shows a ‘RGGI Effect.'
“As far as I know, it is the first published paper to do a statistical breakdown of the various factors responsible for the reduction in RGGI emissions,” William M. Shobe, director of the Center for Economic & Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“It not only demonstrates that RGGI is responsible for reducing emissions but also uses a set of appropriate statistical measures to assess the relative magnitude of the various factors, along with RGGI, that contributed to the decline,” said Shobe, who was part of the peer review process for the paper. “These measures are subject to error, of course, but the results are strong enough to give us confidence that there is a substantial RGGI effect.”
Brian Murray, director of the Institute's Environmental Economics Program and the lead author of the study, said the study results have implications beyond the RGGI region.
“The findings suggest that emissions trading could be a cost-effective strategy for states now considering how to comply with EPA's recently issued regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,” he said in a statement.
Other key points in the study include:
• RGGI states experienced a greater proportional decline in emissions than the rest of the country.
• Natural gas discoveries have played a significant role in emissions reductions.
• Regional emissions reduction strategies can be effective, but could shift problems to other regions.
“It's important to keep in mind that lower emissions also are largely to do with competitive markets that have resulted in more efficient power plants, greater integration of renewable resources and increased generator availability,” Matthew Schwall, a spokesman for the Independent Power Producers of New York, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
-
Environmentalists Divided Over Merits Of EPA Ash Rule's Reuse Provisions
Aug 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are divided on whether EPA's coal ash disposal rule should have set stricter standards for reuse of the material, with some advocates pursuing a data quality challenge with the agency over whether reuse is safe for public health or the environment while environmentalists suing over the rule are pledging not to contest its reuse provisions.
Litigation over the final ash rule filed by advocates targets the requirements for existing and unused "legacy" ash ponds, in a bid to force the agency to write more-stringent requirements. A stricter rule "is the best friend the recyclers have ever had, because the more a regulation requires facilities to responsibly dispose of their ash, the more pressure it puts on them to find ways to responsibly recycle it," says one environmentalist attorney.
However, a source with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) -- which has not filed suit over the rule -- counters that the group continues to oppose all methods of reuse without a new EPA assessment of its potential adverse impacts on public health and the environment. Regardless of whether reuse would actually be hurt by a a more stringent rule, "this is a market that should be stigmatized," says a PEER source.
Reuse industry officials in advance of the final rule released last December cautioned EPA against regulating ash as a hazardous waste under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA). Advocates preferred this option as the most protective of public health, but industry said it would create a "stigma" for ash -- also known as coal combustion residuals (CCRs) -- hurting its beneficial reuse in products such as cement.
EPA eventually opted to regulate ash as solid waste under RCRA subtitle D, the option preferred by the reuse and power sectors and states, and supporters say it is just as protective as subtitle C would be.
Alongside engineering requirements for ash disposal sites, the rule also sets first-time criteria for distinguishing disposal from "beneficial reuse," in which coal ash is used as a component in manufactured products.
To qualify as reuse, "(1) The CCR must provide a functional benefit; (2) The CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material, conserving natural resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices such as extraction; (3) The use of CCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory standards, or design standards when available, and when such standards are not available, CCR are not used in excess quantities."
Reuse industry figures said that during the years-long rulemaking process, even the potential for a subtitle C rule was enough to depress recycling activity because of the stigma of using a "hazardous" waste in products. As evidence they pointed to the annual American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) survey of ash production and use, which they say shows stagnant or declining reuse activity since the rulemaking process began in 2010.
Ash 'Stigma'
But some environmentalist groups -- including Earthjustice, which has been one of the most prominent such groups seeking stricter controls and a subtitle C designation for the waste -- argued in written comments that the "stigma" is imagined. The decline in reuse corresponds to the downturn in construction activity associated with the 2008 recession, since the lion's share of recycled CCRs are used in building materials, the group said.
The environmentalist attorney says that mixing ash into concrete, or storing it at a structural fill site that includes a RCRA-compliant liner, is generally considered responsible -- but that "PEER has a good point" on concerns over more marginal uses for the material, such as for unlined fills or as a component of wallboard.
Although the source suggests that a stricter rule could further promote beneficial reuse, Earthjustice, which is representing environmentalist groups in their challenge to the rule, is explicitly stating that it will not seek to tighten the rule's recycling provisions through the litigation.
In an Aug. 20 brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the firm says reuse industry groups should be barred from intervening against environmentalists because the advocates will not pursue more stringent regulation of the sector as part of the case.
“The Conservation Organizations are not challenging any aspect of the rule regarding coal ash that is recycled or beneficially used. Moreover, the Conservation Organizations are not challenging EPA’s rejection of comments urging the agency to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste,” the brief says.
Even though industry is already suing over the rule, including separate petitions from groups in the utility and reuse sectors, they can only oppose environmentalists' claims directly if the court grants them leave to intervene against the conservation groups. Otherwise they are restricted to arguing only in support of their own challenge.
The reuse groups have until Aug. 30 to respond to the Earthjustice filing.
Data Petition
While PEER did not file suit over the coal ash rule, the group is pursuing administrative steps with EPA to try and force a change in how the agency addresses CCR reuse, says the PEER source.
The group is pressing EPA to revise its assessment of potential health and environmental impacts from reused ash through a long-pending Data Quality Act (DQA) petition, rather than join litigation. "EPA has taken a position in this rule that reuse, almost by definition, is a beneficial use. But unless EPA first did responsible and definitive risk assessments, we don't believe it's been shown to be beneficial," the source says.
PEER wants a a response to its 2010 DQA petition on ash recycling, where it argues EPA failed to consider the environmental impacts of burning coal to produce ash, and the possibility that materials made with recycled ash will release the ash at the end of their lifecycles, when certifying reuse as an environmentally safe process.
"If the recycled material is burned, you might as well be burning the ash directly. With new rules for controlling air emissions of mercury from power plants, you're going to see the mercury content of coal ash spike, because it has to go somewhere. And we believe that other insiders will come forward with information showing exposure pathways," the PEER source says, referring in part to EPA's mercury and toxics standards for utilities.
The path forward for PEER's objections to reuse is unclear, even though EPA previously told the group that it would defer action on the DQA petition until taking final action on the rule -- which under the data act means the agency "should" have issued a response within 90 days of signing the rule. But EPA still has yet to respond, and the DQA includes no penalties for missing the 90-day target. The PEER source says the group is weighing options for how to proceed if EPA fails to respond or denies the petition.
Industry Data
Meanwhile, a reuse industry source says the sector is expecting ash use to climb now that EPA has committed to a solid waste policy with its subtitle D regulation. But the source says that recycling statistics from the reuse sector will not be available to prove or disprove that expectation for over a year.
"You need the infrastructure to process and deliver ash before you can ramp up how much of it gets used. There's a lot of people who use ash at certain volumes, and they could be persuaded to use it at greater volumes, but before they'll change their processes you have to persuade them that you're in a position to deliver it." Since ACAA takes almost a year to compile and edit its reuse surveys, figures for 2015 are not due to be released until late 2016, the source continues. "I'm confident that recycling is going to begin to grow again, I just don't have the figures yet to show it happening yet."
-
Clinton Angling To Obama’s Left On Climate
Aug 21, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Hillary Clinton’s break with President Obama on Arctic drilling this week represented a public shift left for the Democrat, a move greens say could be the start of a push to shore up support among environmentalists ahead of primary season.
Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, primarily Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, have each staked out more liberal positions than Clinton on environmental issues.
But activists say they hope Clinton will join them there soon — not just on Arctic drilling but other major topics like the Keystone XL pipeline and broader climate policy.
Clinton’s silence on Keystone in particular has left environmentalist groups frustrated, prompting biting criticism from a key constituency, said Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesman for 350 Action.“I think she understands that’s a problem, and I think she understands she can’t go into the general election or even into the primary without such a huge and intense part of her base,” he said. “I think she’s feeling like there’s a problem she has to correct and I think that’s why we’re seeing this kind of leftward tack on climate issues.”
Before this week, Clinton had mostly aligned herself with Obama’s environmental agenda, endorsing his controversial emissions standards for power plants and promising to protect them as president.
But she distanced herself from Obama, swiftly and noticeably on Tuesday, after his administration approved a permit for Royal Dutch Shell to explore for oil in the Arctic off the coast of Alaska.
“The Arctic is a unique treasure,” Clinton said in a signed tweet. “Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling.”
Republicans knocked Clinton over the decision, with presidential candidate Jeb Bush saying it was “wrong” to move left of Obama on drilling.
“Being more-anti energy than Obama is extreme,” the former Florida governor said in a tweet. “We should embrace energy revolution to lower prices & create US jobs."
But activists, many of whom have pushed Clinton to speak more aggressively on environmental causes and climate change, were pleased to hear the stance, and indicated they expect her to move further left on environmental causes.
The announcement was a “pleasant surprise,” Greenpeace USA spokeswoman Cassady Sharp said.
“But honestly she doesn’t have the best environmental record, particularly when it comes to Keystone or fracking,” Sharp said. “But so far she’s definitely getting it right on the Arctic.”Clinton has remained noticeably mum on the day’s highest-profile environmental issue — the fate of Keystone — so far this campaign. But she suggested this week that she’s getting closer to announcing a position on the beleaguered project if the Obama administration doesn’t finish its review of the project first.
“I am getting impatient, because I do feel like at some point a decision needs to be made," Clinton said in Nevada on Tuesday.
"Because I'm not comfortable saying, you know, 'I have to keep my opinion to myself' given the fact that I was involved in it,” she continued. “So at some point, I may change my view on that."
By distancing herself from Obama — overtly on Arctic drilling and subtly on Keystone — Clinton finds herself moving closer to positions held by her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders and O’Malley.
Both candidates have long opposed offshore drilling, as well as the Keystone pipeline. O’Malley’s climate platform is lofty — with a goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2050 — and Sanders has a reputation for pushing aggressive climate bills during his tenure in the U.S. Senate.
The two have looked to use their environmental proposals as leverage against the front-runner. Sanders, for one, has slammed her for refusing a position on Keystone, and he tweeted Tuesday that he’s opposed Arctic drilling “for years.”By moving left now, Clinton may be able to solidify her position with a key Democratic voting bloc ahead of primary season.
“I think part of what it goes back to is for her trying to solve this electoral, political problem,” Ganapathy said. “I think she understands that it’s untenable for her to keep feeling the heat for months and months and months and she needs to do something to close the gap on these.”
But opposing Arctic drilling alone won’t be enough to appease environmental groups, many of whom are hungry for more specifics from Clinton on what she would do on climate change as president.
They also worry she may follow in Obama’s footsteps by supporting further oil and natural gas development around the United States. Clinton riled environmental activists at a July campaign stop when she said she opposes banning fossil fuel development on public lands until renewable options are more viable.
“Bernie is the candidate that is presenting a much more comprehensive view of what needs to be done,” Friends of the Earth Action President Erich Pica said. Friends of the Earth endorsed Sanders earlier this month, praising his climate push during his tenure in the Senate.
“The president has been using very specific tools that he’s had to use existing regulatory regimes to handle some of the pollution. But he’s also complicated that with the all-of-the-above energy policy that he kind of pushed out there for many years. Even Secretary Clinton has picked up on the all-of-the-above, it’s kind of all-of-the-above lite.”
Clinton begun releasing her environmental platform in waves. Last month she pledged to install 500 million solar panels as president and create enough renewable energy to power American homes within 10 years of taking office.
Greens say that’s a good start, but they’re looking for more.
“We really would like to see something a little more aggressive from all the candidates, something a little bit more tangible to show they really are committed to leaving, quite honestly, public fossil fuels — Arctic oil included, but other coal and gas — in the ground,” Sharp said.“Particularly as these candidates broaden out their platforms for voters, it’s going to be something we really consider a deal-breaker when it comes to environmental and climate policy.”
-
State Legislatures' Group Fails To Reach Consensus On EPA 'Waters' Rule
Aug 21, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) during its recent annual meeting failed to reach consensus on a resolution expressing “dissatisfaction” with the administration’s Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, one state source says, reflecting a longstanding split among the states over whether to support the policy.
At NCSL's Aug. 3-6 legislative summit in Seattle, a vote over a resolution outlining the group's opposition to the regulation ended in a 19-19-1 tie that meant it failed, the source says. “That spells it out for us: we can't take a position,” the source adds, saying some states have voiced support for the rule while others strongly oppose it.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly issued the rule on June 29 to clarify the scope of the CWA following Supreme Court rulings that created competing tests for determining jurisdiction. Supporters say it provides much-needed legal clarity but critics say it expands the water law's reach far beyond what Congress intended.
More than a dozen states have so far filed litigation in district and appellate courts challenging the rule on grounds that it violates the commerce and due process constitutional clauses, oversteps the reach of the water law and violates the Administrative Procedure Act, among various other legal criticisms of the regulation.
Federal district courts have thus far split over whether to stay the suits until a judicial panel on multi-district litigation responds to the administration’s push to consolidate all cases in one court, with four district courts granting stay requests but one rejecting it. At press time the division appeared to be one ruling against a stay, four backing a stay, and decisions still pending in at least five other district court cases.
At the appellate level, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has consolidated litigation over the rule in one suit, and the Justice Department is trying to have the overall challenge to the rule heard in that court.
States have long been divided over support for the CWA rulemaking. Some states, such as Maryland, have voiced broad support for the rule. And in 2014 public comments filed on the agencies' proposed rule, some states fielded comments asking for greater input in shaping the rule to ensure proper implementation while other states argued the rule has so many flaws that EPA should have revoked it and issued a fresh proposal.
For example, in Oct. 24, 2014 comments signed by Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R), the state urged the agencies to "reject the proposed rule as currently drafted," saying the "failure to include the states in the formulation process effectively missed an opportunity to build consensus with the primary implementing entities and prevent controversy.” The Association of Clean Water Administrators, however, representing state water program managers, said in Nov. 14, 2014, comments that it was then unable to either support or oppose the proposal at that time, and instead asked for "continued dialogue" with EPA and the Corps in crafting a final rule.
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested