Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Slowdown Rattles Stock Market
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Major U.S. stock indexes tumbled dramatically on Aug. 24—and along with them the stocks of U.S. chemical makers—as investors reacted to the stock market decline that has hammered China since June. -
(ACC Mentioned) Hybrid Appoints Retired EPA Section Chief to Board of Advisors
Aug 27, 2015 | NASDAQ
Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. (OTCBB:HCTI) is pleased to announce that it has appointed Mary Cushmac to its board of advisors. Ms. Cushmac who retired from the US EPA in 2011 spent most of her career focusing on the dangers of isocyanates in the polyurethane industry and was in charge of numerous efforts to limit the use of isocyanates with the eventual goal of an outright ban (see full bio below). -
(ACC Mentioned) Polyethylene Prices Fall 5 Cents
Aug 27, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Lower feedstock costs played a role in sending North American polyethylene prices down 5 cents per pound since Aug. 1. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges EPA To Consider International Reviews In Dioxane Analysis
Aug 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Manufacturers and users of the chemical 1,4-dioxane are encouraging EPA to consider in its ongoing assessment of the human health risks of the chemical international reviews of 1,4-dioxane, including a draft assessment performed several years ago by a panel of experts representing the international cosmetics industry and regulators. -
TIA Expects 'Full Compliance' with Washington Reporting Deadline
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Toy Industry Association (TIA) says SME toy manufacturers in Washington state – many of whom must file reports to the government next week on chemicals contained in their products – have not expressed concerns that the obligation will cause significant problems. -
US EPA Issues Three Test Guidelines for Endocrine Disruptors
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced the availability of three non-mammal final test guidelines for use in Tier 2 of its endocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP). -
JRC Outlines Read-Across Strategy for Predicting Toxicity
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has made its latest contribution on read-across with a strategy designed to support predictions made using the technique. -
Is Your Drinking Water Contaminated With Toxic Non-Stick Chemicals?
Aug 27, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
When you drink a glass of water, you expect it to be clean and pure, not contaminated with invisible toxic chemicals -
Sutherland: From Tianjin to West, What We Need to Learn
Aug 26, 2015 | Houston Chronicle
By Vanessa Allen Sutherland
The scene has become all too familiar; in newspapers and on TV, we see emotional images of the devastation that occurred last week in Tianjin, China. -
U.S. 'Not Immune' to Tianjin-Scale Blasts, CSB Chief Warns
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A chemical explosion like the one in Tianjin, China, earlier this month could happen in the United States, the new U.S. Chemical Safety Board chairwoman said in an op-ed published today. -
Green Group Poll: 'Overwhelming Majority' Backs Obama Climate Rule
Aug 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A survey commissioned by an environmental group found that 6 in 10 voters support President Obama’s landmark climate rule for power plants. -
Even If You Buy the Science, the Policy Still Fails
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Congress Blog
By Ross McKitrick
In a recent speech to the Washington-based think tank Resources for the Future, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy promoted the White House’s new Clean Power Plan by: (a) appealing to science and disallowing any debate about it; (b) making statements unsupported by the science; (c) praising the economic analysis behind the plan; and (d) announcing rules that economic analysis says won’t work and will cost too much. -
Judge Declines to Block Obama’s Water Rule
Aug 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge in West Virginia declined to block implementation of the Obama administration’s controversial water pollution rule, saying the court does not have jurisdiction. -
Key Senate Democrat Skeptical About EPA's Ozone Proposal
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) yesterday criticized U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standard, asserting that he supports protections for public health but that the current plan "doesn't make sense on the ground." -
Most voters Oppose 'Just Say No' Strategy -- LCV Poll
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The League of Conservation Voters released a new poll today showing scant voter support for states opting not to implement U.S. EPA's newly finalized Clean Power Plan. -
Power Producer Plans to Shut Down 2 N.Y. Coal-Fired Plants
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
NRG Energy Inc. announced yesterday it will request to shut down its coal-fired Huntley Station in Tonawanda, N.Y., pending regulatory approval by March 2016. -
ECOS Eyes Next Steps For Oil & Gas Emissions Cuts After EPA Proposals
Aug 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) members will use their upcoming fall meeting to debate options for furthering cutting oil and gas sector emissions beyond the reductions expected from EPA's recently proposed air and climate rules for the industry, as well as debating a host of other controversial policies at the event. -
Activists Blast 'Hypocrisy' of Obama's Arctic Trip
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama's planned trip to the Alaskan Arctic next week to promote his efforts to contain global warming is "hypocrisy" given his administration's approval of oil exploration in the region, a climate advocacy group said today. -
Judge Denies Coal Giant's Bid to Block Obama Rule
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal judge yesterday denied a bid by a coal giant to block the Obama administration's controversial rule for establishing which waters qualify for federal protection from going into effect this week.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Slowdown Rattles Stock Market
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Major U.S. stock indexes tumbled dramatically on Aug. 24—and along with them the stocks of U.S. chemical makers—as investors reacted to the stock market decline that has hammered China since June.
“People are realizing that China is not going to be growing at 7% a year,” says Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a major trade association. Adding to that realization is a further drop in the price of oil, which threatens the shale-gas-inspired petrochemical expansion in the U.S.
On Aug. 24, the Shanghai Composite Index fell more than 8.5%, continuing a decline that has totaled 38% since June. U.S. investors, already spooked because of China’s recent currency devaluation, reacted in kind.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, which includes large U.S. chemical firms such as Dow Chemical and Eastman Chemical, was off 3.9% at the end of the day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 3.6%. The S&P dropped another 1.4% on Aug. 25 and was up 1.7% in midday trading on the 26th.
Compounding the market jitters has been the decline in oil prices from nearly $100 a barrel a year ago to around $40 recently. Chemical investors are concerned that low prices could hurt the profitability of shale-gas-inspired expansion projects in the U.S., which ACC now values at $147 billion.
ACC’s Swift acknowledges that about $3 billion in fertilizer-related projects were canceled in August and that other shale-dependent projects may now be delayed. Yet he says recent declines in U.S. natural gas prices still give U.S. petrochemical makers, which largely rely on gas-derived ethane feedstock, an advantage over oil-derived naphtha.
Still, declining oil prices are a nightmare for U.S. shale project planners. “Oil dynamics drive marginal production cost and price-setting mechanisms for chemicals, plastics, and fibers,” says Don Bari, a vice president at consulting firm IHS. “A prolonged oil price recovery could shift the feedstock advantage from ethane back to a more cost-competitive naphtha.”
The stock market tends to react early, and large declines predict economic slowdowns only about half the time, says John E. Roberts, a stock analyst with investment bank UBS. What is clear, he says, is that the stock market is going through a period of volatility as people try to sort out the longer-term impact of recent events.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hybrid Appoints Retired EPA Section Chief to Board of Advisors
Aug 27, 2015 | NASDAQ
Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. (OTCBB:HCTI) is pleased to announce that it has appointed Mary Cushmac to its board of advisors. Ms. Cushmac who retired from the US EPA in 2011 spent most of her career focusing on the dangers of isocyanates in the polyurethane industry and was in charge of numerous efforts to limit the use of isocyanates with the eventual goal of an outright ban (see full bio below). "We are very happy to add Ms. Cushmac to our board of advisors," said Joseph Kristul, President and CEO, "Her track record against isocyanates in the polyurethane industry and extensive experience, brings great expertise to our team and speaks volumes as to the true potential of our award winning technology."
Hybrid's patented award winning technology is the only formulation in the world today that produces polyurethane without the use of any isocyanates in the entire production process.
About Mary Cushmac
Mary Cushmac has more than 30 years experience at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Design for the Environment (DfE) and the New Chemicals programs in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. From 1997 until her retirement in 2011, she worked in partnership with the collision repair industry and career/technical schools to develop and promote best practices to reduce exposure to isocyanates during spray painting and related operations. Isocyanates - key chemicals in automotive and industrial coatings - are reported to be the leading cause of occupational asthma.
Ms. Cushmac played a major role in establishing and leading the Federal Spray Polyurethane Foam Workgroup with participation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). This work group initiated dialog with the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA), the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Center for Polyurethanes Industry (CPI), and the polyurethane foam industry to promote health and safety best practices that reduce isocyanate exposures in spray polyurethane foam applications.
Ms. Cushmac was also a member of the advisory panel created to advise the North Carolina Division of Public Health and ATSDR on local communications issues related to the 2007-2010 public health study regarding isocyanate (TDI) emissions from a polyurethane plant in North Carolina.
Ms. Cushmac joined the EPA in 1980, serving as the New Chemicals Pre-notice Coordinator and later as a section chief. She chaired the work group that developed the TSCA Pre-manufacture Notification Rule Amendments published in 1995, and co-chaired the New Chemicals Program's Environmental Technology Initiative that developed the 1994 Automotive Refinishing Industry Isocyanate Profile, which outlines health and safety information on isocyanates and recommends engineering controls and protective equipment to reduce inhalation and dermal exposures.
Ms. Cushmac co-authored a discussion of the hazards associated with isocyanate exposures, best workplace practices, and safer alternatives in a section of the Handbook of Green Chemistry, Green Processes, Designing Safer Chemicals, published in 2014.
Prior to joining the EPA, Ms. Cushmac worked as a research chemist in food chemistry at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and published several articles on analytical methods for detecting toxins in food.
Ms. Cushmac received her undergraduate degree in chemistry at Trinity College in Washington, D.C. and a Master's degree in organic chemistry at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. She is a member of the American Chemical Society.
CAUTIONARY DISCLOSURE ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements in this news release other than statements of historical fact are "forward-looking statements" that are based on current expectations and assumptions. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the statements, including, but not limited to, the following: the ability of Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. to provide for its obligations, to provide working capital needs from operating revenues, to obtain additional financing needed for any future acquisitions, to meet competitive challenges and technological changes, and other risks. Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statement(s) and/or to confirm the statement(s) to actual results or changes in Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. expectations.
About Hybrid Coating Technologies
Hybrid Coating Technologies (HCT) is a San Francisco-based innovator focused on improving the quality and safety of foams, coatings, and adhesives for industrial and commercial customers around the world. We are the exclusive licensee of Green Polyurethane™ foam, coatings, and adhesives - the world's first-ever patent protected polyurethane-based foam, coatings, and adhesive products that eliminate toxic isocyanates from the entire production process (licensed by Nanotech Industries, Inc.) and the 2015 recipient of the Presidential Green Chemistry Award.
The Problem of Conventional Foams/Coatings/Paint and Isocyanates
Conventional polyurethane (PU) paint and coatings have many disadvantages: they are porous, permeable and maintain poor hydrolytic stability. This makes the material highly vulnerable to environmental degradation and ultimately leads to their chemical decomposition, especially when in contact with water. Conventional PU foams such as spray foam insulation are applied via a spraying mechanism that sends toxic isocyanates in the air - exposing workers to the dangers of toxic isocyanates. Strict and costly health & safety measures have to be implemented in the manufacture and application of conventional polyurethane due to the toxicity of isocyanates. This is why regulatory bodies around the world are now looking toward phasing out the use of isocyanates.
The Green Polyurethane™ Solution
Green Polyurethane™ (also referred to as "HNIPU" - hybrid non-isocyanate polyurethane) is a "hybrid" material that combines the high chemical resistance properties of epoxy and advanced durability and wear resistance properties of polyurethane, making it the perfect coating application for sanitary, high traffic and corrosive surface areas. As a hybrid material with superior properties, Green Polyurethane ™ can be applied in one or two coatings, providing a welcome cost-saving substitute to currently used multi-layered coating applications. Its safety features allow it to be applied without the interruption of business due to public exposure, creating an additional 30-60% savings on application costs for customers. As a foam, Green Polyurethane™ provides high R values up to 6.0, energy savings up to 30% and improved tensile strength over conventional foam without using dangerous isocyanates.
Recent Anti-Isocyanate Regulatory Pressure
US EPA MDI Action Plan: The US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is taking progressive action to regulate and potentially ban isocyanates and has mentioned Hybrid's technology as an alternative to toxic polyurethane in its MDI Action Plan against isocyanates (see page 4 Figovsky and Shapovalov)
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/mdi.pdf
OSHA National Emphasis Program: On June 25, 2013 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a division of the US Department of Labor, initiated a National Emphasis Program to protect workers from the serious health effects from occupational exposure to isocyanates. Isocyanates are found in polyurethane based products. According to OSHA, "Workers exposed to isocyanates can suffer debilitating health problems for months or even years after exposure which could result in death."
California'sDepartment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on March 13, 2014 selected isocyanates and two others substances from a list of 1,100 toxic components that it will focus on with the goal of potentially banning them altogether within the next two years. The announcement is part of a bigger effort to educate consumers and manufacturers about product safety under the Green-Chemistry Law, which went into effect in California last year. Under the law, the agency has jurisdiction to ban these products altogether after following proper protocol. That process includes workshops, a public comment period and requiring manufacturers that want to sell these products in California to determine whether it would be feasible to use safer ingredients
The US EPA on January 8, 2015 announced that it was taking action to protect consumers from new uses and imports of harmful isocyanates in polyurethane. The EPA's proposed action, a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), would require manufacturers (including importers) to notify the EPA at least 90 days before starting or resuming new uses of isocyanates in polyurethane based consumer products. The EPA would then have the opportunity to evaluate the intended use of and if necessary, to take action to prohibit or limit all products containing over one tenth of one percent of the chemical including imported products that make their way into the United States.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Polyethylene Prices Fall 5 Cents
Aug 27, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Lower feedstock costs played a role in sending North American polyethylene prices down 5 cents per pound since Aug. 1.
The decline effectively wipes out a 5-cent hike that the market had seen in May. Prior to that increase, regional PE prices fell a total of 16 cents between October and April.
Oil prices remain a global price-setter for PE, even though most PE made in North America is derived from natural gas. West Texas Intermediate oil prices were above $45 per barrel on Aug. 1, but were near $39 per barrel in late trading Aug. 26, for a drop of about 13 percent.
PE demand in the U.S. and Canada remained solid through July, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. High density PE sales in the region were up almost 6 percent in that seven-month period, with domestic growth of 2 percent boosted by a gain of almost 29 percent in export sales.
For low density PE, seven-month sales ticked up almost 2 percent, with 3.5 percent domestic growth hampered by a loss of more than 4 percent in export sales. The linear low density PE market fared better, with sales up almost 6 percent in that time frame. Domestic LLDPE growth of almost 7 percent was softened by growth of only 2 percent in the export market.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges EPA To Consider International Reviews In Dioxane Analysis
Aug 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Manufacturers and users of the chemical 1,4-dioxane are encouraging EPA to consider in its ongoing assessment of the human health risks of the chemical international reviews of 1,4-dioxane, including a draft assessment performed several years ago by a panel of experts representing the international cosmetics industry and regulators.
The International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR), of which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a member, is nearing finalization of a 1,4-dioxane assessment. FDA staff plans to host a Sept. 10 public meeting to prepare for the ICCR annual meeting before traveling to Brussels, Belgium, in November.
An industry source says draft assessments, such as the 1,4-dioxane assessment, can only be finalized at these annual meetings. But an FDA spokeswoman says that "[a]lthough finalization of the ICCR working group report is in progress, a completion date has not been provided."
Industry urged EPA in written comments on the agency's plan to assess 1,4-dioxane's risks under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority to consider the ICCR document to correct what the groups considered errors in EPA's preliminary understanding of exposure to 1,4-dioxane.
EPA in late June released for comment its problem formulation and initial assessment of the chemical. EPA determined further review is warranted of potential risks to workers exposed to 1,4-dioxane during product formulation or while using it as a cleaning agent. The agency said it also intends to assess risks to workers and consumers from products that contain 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant, such as paints, varnishes, adhesives, cleansers and detergents.
A second industry source says that "the opportunity for highest exposure [to 1,4-dioxane] is in consumer products. [EPA doesn't] regulate that, FDA does. ICCR has come up with a number that they're comfortable with . . . but EPA feels the need to do an assessment of products under" TSCA.
The source adds that "one of the details that hasn't really come out is that we feel that 1,4-dioxane got on their [work plan risk assessment] list by an error in" the Inventory Update Rule data that EPA relied on to estimate exposure potential when prioritizing chemicals for assessment. The agency in 2012 developed and used criteria to prioritize chemicals for risk assessment as part of the work plan risk assessment program.
An industry coalition, including the American Chemistry Council, the American Cleaning Institute, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, Waste Management and others, argue that EPA should consider the assessments of other regulatory agencies, including those of Environment Canada and Health Canada, the European Chemicals Bureau, and the draft assessment of the ICCR.
IRIS Assessment
The associations argue that EPA's problem formulation document (PFIA) is based on the agency's overly stringent 2013 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of the chemical, which they imply should not be used. As a result, the groups argue that "EPA has not justified the need for further evaluation" in its problem formulation document.
A key concern is the inhalation cancer risk estimate. The industry groups argue that EPA's IRIS assessment, upon which the PFIA is based, is six times more stringent than the cancer inhalation risk estimate calculated by the Canadian agencies. "The oral values are the same, yet the inhalation values differ by about six-fold (HC uses 180 [milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)] while IRIS uses PODHEC of 32 mg/m3). Considering the best available evidence on the carcinogenicity, the HC values are also protective of cancer effects."
But the groups also argue that EPA's assessment errs in other ways, such as its assumptions regarding consumer exposure to 1,4-dioxane, which is often a contaminant rather than an intentionally included ingredient in consumer products, including cosmetics.
The groups point to a draft assessment of 1,4 dioxane released in 2012 by an expert panel to ICCR, "a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities from the United States, Japan, the European Union, and Canada, [which] recently recommended an initial target maximum level of less than or equal to 25 [parts per million (ppm)] 1,4-dioxane in finished cosmetic products and a target maximum level of less than or equal to 10 ppm in finished cosmetic products that should be phased-in over a suitable transition period. The ICCR recommendation was based on several recent surveys of formulated consumer products, which observed concentrations generally below 25 ppm with concentrations below 10 ppm are readily achievable. Moreover, ICCR noted a number of risk assessments for 1,4 dioxane conducted around the world, which considered exposure from trace levels present in formulated consumer products, and concluded that there were high margins of safety (>1,000)."
Should ICCR adopt its panel's assessment and recommended maximum level of 1,4-dioxane, the standard is not mandatory for ICCR members. "Adoption of ICCR recommendations is voluntary," the FDA spokeswoman says. "Each specific regulatory jurisdiction or health authority will determine how the recommendations from ICCR will be used."
-
TIA Expects 'Full Compliance' with Washington Reporting Deadline
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Toy Industry Association (TIA) says SME toy manufacturers in Washington state – many of whom must file reports to the government next week on chemicals contained in their products – have not expressed concerns that the obligation will cause significant problems.
Small to medium-sized manufacturers of certain children's products containing state-designated chemicals are required to file reports under the state's Children's Safer Products Act (CSPA) by 31 August (CW 18 March 2013).
The law:limits the use of lead, cadmium and phthalates in children’s products sold in Washington; andrequires manufacturers of children’s products to notify the state government if their products contain “chemicals of high concern” for children.
The reported information is published in a public portal, while a second public database contains information on products the department has tested.
The Act’s implementation Rules include a seven-year phase-in schedule. This is based on a company's annual gross sales and on “tiers” of product. The first reporting deadline for manufacturers was in August 2012, and there have already been several rounds of reporting.
According to Josh Grice, CSPA lead at the Washington Department of Ecology (DEP): “The phase-in schedule has allowed knowledge of the reporting requirements to spread through the children's products manufacturing industry over time and helped to prepare smaller manufacturers for the phase-in requirements.”
The department, he said, “has done extensive outreach to manufacturers through trade organisations, retailers, conferences, and other means,” and has had direct communication with more than 50 companies about the reporting requirements.
The TIA said it “had not heard any special concerns from smaller manufacturers who will need to report for the first time” and it expects smaller manufacturers will be “in full compliance”.
Companies larger than $250m in sales are already required to file reports for all three product tiers under previous years' reporting deadlines. “Tiny” manufacturers, with $100K or less in gross sales, will begin reporting Tier 1 products next year, and will report the remaining two tiers in 2017 and 2018.
As part of a five-yearly review cycle, the department plans to reassess its chemicals of concern list in 2017.
Washington state has received reports from 449 companies for close to 25,000 products sold in the state under the scheme, the DEP told a Senate Committee in neighbouring Oregon earlier this year.
Signed into law last month, Oregon's Toxic-Free Kids Act uses the same chemicals list as Washington (CW 14 August 2015).
The Act, however, does not contain a phase-in schedule like Washington's. Oregon's SB 478 says that first biennial notices for covered products containing listed chemicals “shall be submitted to the [Oregon Health Authority] no later than 1 January 2018.”
-
US EPA Issues Three Test Guidelines for Endocrine Disruptors
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced the availability of three non-mammal final test guidelines for use in Tier 2 of its endocrine disruptor screening programme (EDSP).
The guidelines are part of a series developed by its office of chemical safety and pollution prevention (OCSPP) which describes accepted scientific methodologies and protocols to provide data for informing regulatory decisions. The test guidelines are used by the EPA, the public and companies that submit data to the EPA.
The test guidelines are:medaka extended one-generation reproduction test (MEOGRT), OCSPP test guideline 890.2200;larval amphibian growth and development assay (Lagda), OCSPP test guideline 890.2300; andavian two-generation toxicity test in the Japanese Quail (JQTT), OCSPP test guideline 890.2100.
-
JRC Outlines Read-Across Strategy for Predicting Toxicity
Aug 27, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has made its latest contribution on read-across with a strategy designed to support predictions made using the technique.
The strategy is outlined in a paper published in the scientific journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. The ten authors include Elisabet Berggren of the JRC, Derek Knight, senior scientific advisor at Echa, plus scientists from universities and major cosmetics companies.
They say the paper is based partly on discussions held at Seurat-1, the EU's largest collaborative project on alternative testing. Seurat-1 has been pushing the case for regulatory acceptance of read-across (CW 21 May 2015), and will present the results of four read-across case studies at its concluding conference in December.
The authors hold that the two major aspects of read-across involve:first, assessing similarities between the target chemical – where data is missing – and the source chemical – where data is available; andsecond, assessing the uncertainties about how the two substances might behave differently.
Target and source organic chemicals are generally grouped together on their similar molecular structure and chemical properties. But this is not enough to guarantee the regulatory acceptance of a read-across prediction, the authors say.
Other justifications that might be required include: consideration of bioavailability, metabolism and biological or mechanistic plausibility.
Sources of uncertainty also need to be considered, the paper says. For example, is the grouping of target and source chemicals justified? And is the read-across argument complete?
The strategy concentrates on chronic toxicity, but uses an approach applicable to any endpoint. However, one principle it espouses is that when read-across is applied, it must be done on an endpoint-by-endpoint basis.
The paper concludes by presenting templates for reporting on the assessment of similarities and uncertainties, plus a work flow for reporting a read-across prediction.
Another paper on the same subject and by many of the same authors has also recently been published inEnvironmental Health Perspectives. It is based on Seurat-1 discussions.
-
Is Your Drinking Water Contaminated With Toxic Non-Stick Chemicals?
Aug 27, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
When you drink a glass of water, you expect it to be clean and pure, not contaminated with invisible toxic chemicals. But nationwide testing has found that 6.5 million Americans in 27 states are drinking water tainted by an industrial compound that was used for decades to make Teflon.
The chemical, known as PFOA, has been detected in 94 public water systems. The amounts are small, but new research indicates that it can be hazardous even at the tiniest doses. PFOA and closely related fluorinated chemicals – including PFOS, once used to make Scotchgard – can cause cancer, birth defects and heart disease and weaken the immune system.
Even the lowest level of PFOA detected by the water testing, which was mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency, was about five times higher than what’s safe to drink, according to the new research. This means that even if the EPA has not reported finding PFOA in your drinking water supply, it could still be contaminated.
Want to know whether the testing found PFOA, PFOS or any one of four other highly fluorinated chemicals in your drinking water? EWG’s interactive map below shows every U.S. county where the chemicals were detected. Click on your county to see if your water utility found any.
Click here to read the full report: Teflon Chemical Harmful at Smallest Doses
In a signal of the growing scientific alarm over the dangers of PFOA, the National Toxicology Program recently announced a systematic re-evaluation of the chemical’s effect on the immune system. The program’s Office of Health Assessment and Translation will evaluate ongoing and upcoming studies. It also plans to assemble an expert panel of scientists to review the findings.
Americans should be protected against water contamination by PFOA and other so-called perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs. PFOA and PFOS are just two members of this large family of chemicals, which do not break down in the environment. They’ve spread to the farthest reaches of Earth, are in virtually every American’s blood and can be passed from mother to child in the womb and in breast milk. PFOA and PFOS have been phased out in the United States, but scientists have raised concerns that the new chemicals that replaced them may be no safer.
This map identifies where water has been contaminated by PFCs county-by-county.
-
Sutherland: From Tianjin to West, What We Need to Learn
Aug 26, 2015 | Houston Chronicle
By Vanessa Allen Sutherland
The scene has become all too familiar; in newspapers and on TV, we see emotional images of the devastation that occurred last week in Tianjin, China. Rubble strewn as far as the eye can see. Smoke plumes slowly rise in the background as people search desperately for family members and seek answers as to what could have caused such a tragedy – members of the public pleading to know what happened to their husbands, wives, daughters and sons.
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Sutherland-From-Tianjin-to-West-what-we-need-to-6467389.php
-
U.S. 'Not Immune' to Tianjin-Scale Blasts, CSB Chief Warns
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
A chemical explosion like the one in Tianjin, China, earlier this month could happen in the United States, the new U.S. Chemical Safety Board chairwoman said in an op-ed published today.
Vanessa Sutherland, who was confirmed by the Senate three weeks ago, wrote in an op-ed published today in the Houston Chronicle that the United States "is not immune to such events."
"We need to take stock of the lessons learned coming from Tianjin in the coming days and weeks, evaluate the U.S. storage and handling of volatile chemicals in an effort to prevent another tragedy, and focus on continual training and outreach," Sutherland wrote.
Among her recommendations: Ask "tough questions" about what could be done in the United States.
The two explosions in Tianjin this month left at least 139 dead amid questions about why hazardous material was permitted to be stored so close to homes.
Under Chinese law, such facilities are supposed to be at least 1,000 meters from residences, but an early government investigation has found that two owners of Ruihai International Logistics Co. Ltd., which operated a storage site, used official connections to win approval to operate the warehouses, according to state media reports.
Advertisement
As a result, the company was able to store sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate and potassium nitrate even though the site was closer to homes than would normally be allowed.
China's prohibition on where chemicals can be stored is actually more stringent than U.S. policy, said Ron White, the director of regulatory policy at the nonprofit Center for Effective Government.
In the United States, siting of chemical facilities is a zoning decision typically made at the local level. In some states, like Texas, local zoning policies are limited or nonexistent, creating fewer barriers to where industrial sites can be built.
In West, Texas, the West Fertilizer Co. operated a storage facility where ammonium nitrate was kept adjacent to a middle school, but when the fertilizer exploded just before 8 p.m. on April 17, 2013, students were not present. The blast killed 15 people, injured 160 and destroyed 150 buildings.
In her op-ed, Sutherland noted that the CSB's preliminary findings on the West disaster found ammonium nitrate was subject to a "patchwork" of U.S. regulations, including allowing the material to be stored in wooden buildings and storage bins and no federal rules restricting it from being kept near homes, schools and hospitals.
Last year, the Center for Effective Government found 1 in 3 American children attends school within the vulnerability zone of at least one high-risk chemical facility. One school -- San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park, Texas -- is within the vulnerability zones of 41 different chemical plants, the most in the country, the group found (Greenwire, Sept. 30, 2014).
The report looked at "a subset of the riskiest chemical facilities," White said. "It's not even all of them."Zoning
In part, these risks stem from the growth of these communities over time, said Bill Allmond, vice president for government affairs at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates.
Government has a role to play in managing where chemical facilities can be located, but that effort should be limited to new facilities, Allmond said.
"There's a reason why most of America has zoning laws around industrial facilities and commercial facilities being away from residential areas," Allmond said.
Managing the problem becomes tricky when cities or towns grow and development reaches around what were once isolated industrial sites, Allmond said, like how the West Fertilizer site was once on the outskirts of town but became surrounded by schools and homes.
If development is allowed to abut high-risk chemical plants that were there first, the fault of those decisions lies with local officials, Allmond said.
Because simply replacing these facilities would be costly and impractical, safety advocates have long focused on reducing the risk and quantity of the chemicals stored there, by requiring plants to consider alternatives to existing operations that could mitigate the consequences of a deadly incident.
Although the CSB is not a member of an interagency working group convened under an executive order President Obama issued in 2013 on chemical safety, Sutherland can play a key role in raising public awareness of how chemical facilities can become safer, White said.
That's crucial as EPA prepares to issue a proposed rule next month on updates to its risk management program, which regulates high-risk facilities, White said.
"They need to continue to raise that issue to an even higher profile," White said.
-
Green Group Poll: 'Overwhelming Majority' Backs Obama Climate Rule
Aug 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A survey commissioned by an environmental group found that 6 in 10 voters support President Obama’s landmark climate rule for power plants.
The poll, released Thursday by the League of Conservation Voters, also concluded that 70 percent of United States voters want their state governors to comply with the regulation.
Only 31 percent disagreed with the rule, and 17 percent said their states’ governors should not comply.
The group characterized the support for the rule as an “overwhelming majority.”
“It is good news that support for the Clean Power Plan remains strong, but it’s especially good news to see that Americans want their governors on board with the plan too,” League President Gene Karpinski said in a statement.
“State leaders who are choosing to fight these carbon pollution safeguards would do well to listen to their constituents instead of the polluters,” he said.
The question about governors’ compliance is targeted directly at state executives who are considering ignoring the mandate to write state implementation plans, a strategy pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Only Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has firmly pledged such a response, which would spur the EPA to write its own plan for the state.
The group commissioned one Democratic and one Republican polling firm to conduct the survey in the days after Obama announced the final version of the rule in early August.
The breakdown between support and opposition of the climate rule was nearly identical when pollsters presented arguments both in favor of the plan and against it, the polling firms said.
-
Even If You Buy the Science, the Policy Still Fails
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Congress Blog
By Ross McKitrick
In a recent speech to the Washington-based think tank Resources for the Future, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy promoted the White House’s new Clean Power Plan by: (a) appealing to science and disallowing any debate about it; (b) making statements unsupported by the science; (c) praising the economic analysis behind the plan; and (d) announcing rules that economic analysis says won’t work and will cost too much.
In other words, it was business as usual in the world of climate policy.
She started her speech by saying that scientists are as sure that humans cause climate change as they are that smoking causes cancer, and “we are way past any further discussion or debate….don’t debate about climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act.”
From there she focused on the harms from extreme weather events, attributing the California drought to carbon dioxide emissions, as well as increased storms, wildfires and floods. She said anthropogenic climate change (i.e. global warming) leads to more extreme heat and, amazingly enough, more extreme cold. And she linked weather-related economic threats facing families and small businesses to anthropogenic climate change.
Now whatever you do, don’t question the science. For many years we have been told to rely exclusively on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for official truth on all climate topics. There are, of course, lots of reasons to mistrust the IPCC, including its past blunders, the conduct of its disgraced and discredited chair Rajendra Pachauri, and its clique-like report-writing process. But for now, let’s play the game and turn to the IPCC.
In 2012 the IPCC published a Special Report on Extreme Weather (SREX), gathering up the available knowledge on storms, droughts, etc, and their possible connection to climate change generally and carbon dioxide emissions specifically.
Contrary to McCarthy’s claim, the SREX singled out the U.S. as a region where “droughts have become less frequent, less intense or shorter.” Worldwide there is only “limited to medium” regional evidence regarding changes in floods because the records are sparse and the effects are confounded with changes in land use and engineering. “Furthermore,” they said, “there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.”
Does this sound like the level of confidence associated with the link between smoking and cancer?
Overall the IPCC’s attribution of a causal link between extreme weather and carbon dioxide emissions was the limpest possible: “There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.” But, they went on, there is only low confidence in attribution of tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences, and “Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging” – UN speak for “we’d go further if we could but even we can’t torque the evidence that far.”
They also made it clear that economic vulnerability to weather is a function of a nation’s wealth, adding “Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded.”
Do doctors say “trends in lung cancer have not been attributed to cigarette smoking, but a role for tobacco has not been excluded”? Of course not. McCarthy’s invocation of scientific certainty and prohibition on further debate was mere demagoguery.
After boasting about the extensive research and consultation that went into the rule, McCarthy then said that it will reduce household utility costs, a prediction based on engineering studies behind the energy efficiency rules in the Clean Power Plan. But do these programs really save households money?
A growing body of economic analysis over the years has indicated that the models overstate the potential savings from energy efficiency programs. New evidence from a large-scale randomized field experiment has confirmed this. Conducted by a team of economists from Berkeley and MIT, the study tracked more than 30,000 households in the federal Weatherization Assistance Program. Participants in the program went through household energy audits using a government-approved engineering model to estimate the savings from undertaking a fully subsidized efficiency upgrade.
By comparing before- and after-data, and comparing against households that did not undergo weatherization, the authors showed that the engineering models were way off, exaggerating the energy savings 2.5-fold, with the result that the renovations cost twice the value of the subsequent energy savings. Even taking account of social and environmental benefits the rate of return on the program was about -9.5 percent annually, in other words the costs greatly exceeded the benefits.
The authors also found that the implicit cost of carbon dioxide emission reductions in the program were about $330 per tonne, roughly ten times the administration’s own estimate of the Social Cost of Carbon. In other words, taking the administration’s science and economics at face value, a major component of their climate plan costs $330 per tonne for emission cuts they themselves value at $38 per tonne.
McCarthy told her audience not to question her science and to respect the research behind their climate policy. If you doubt her analysis, you will definitely find the policy plan misguided. The problem is that, even if you accept her science and economics, it’s still misguided.
McKitrick is professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
-
Judge Declines to Block Obama’s Water Rule
Aug 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal judge in West Virginia declined to block implementation of the Obama administration’s controversial water pollution rule, saying the court does not have jurisdiction.
Irene Keeley of the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled late Wednesday in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and refused to block the regulation, two days before it is set to take effect.
“Based on the prevailing interpretation of the relevant statute, this court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter,” Keeley wrote in her late Wednesday decision.
Keeley’s decision came in a challenge brought by coal mining company Murray Energy Corp., which says the rule, known as the Clean Water Rule, violates the Clean Water Act. Murray had asked Keeley to block the rule’s enforcement while its lawsuit is being considered.
More than two dozen states, as well as numerous businesses and interest groups, have also filed lawsuits against the rule, similarly arguing that it violates the plain language of the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court decisions.
The federal courts’ Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided in August that the 10 or so lawsuits should be consolidated and considered by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati. It chose the Cincinnati court at random.
That’s what spurred Keeley to decline Murray’s request to block the rule.
Other federal courts in Georgia and North Dakota may still step in to block the water regulation before Friday, but they could also defer to the Sixth Circuit.
The EPA unveiled the regulation’s final version in May, asserting federal pollution-controlling power over small waterways such as wetlands and streams.
It’s been controversial for years, and Republicans in both chambers of Congress are trying to force the EPA to go back to the drawing board on it.
-
Key Senate Democrat Skeptical About EPA's Ozone Proposal
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) yesterday criticized U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standard, asserting that he supports protections for public health but that the current plan "doesn't make sense on the ground."
Bennet made the remarks in an appearance at the Colorado Oil and Gas Association's annual Rocky Mountain Energy Summit, where he addressed a series of questions on energy policy along with fellow Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R).
The duo discussed issues including the Iran nuclear agreement and federal appropriations, as well as the Clean Power Plan, lifting the crude oil export ban and climate change policy generally.
Bennet raised his objections to EPA's proposed ozone regulations in response to a moderator's inquiry about whether lowering the national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb would be a "fair" move.
"I'm deeply concerned about it," Bennet said of the proposal, which would mark the first time the standard had been overhauled since 2008, during the George W. Bush administration. "This is a perfect example of applying the law but doing it in a way that doesn't make sense on the ground."
Bennet pointed to the fact that Colorado would have several "nonattainment zones" because of pollution crossing over from other Western states, including wildfires that often spread haze over thousands of miles.
Advertisement
"My hope is that we can work together to get to a rational outcome. But the one that's been proposed is not yet there," added Bennet, who is seeking re-election in 2016. Republicans would like to flip the Colorado seat -- and set up a repeat of last year, when they ousted then-Sen. Mark Udall (D) from the Centennial State -- but have yet to draw a marquee challenger.
Nonetheless, Bennet declined to say whether he would back a measure sponsored by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that would prohibit EPA from setting a more stringent ozone standard until 85 percent of the country had met attainment under the 2008 levels. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) inserted similar language into the Senate's fiscal 2016 spending bill for the Interior Department and EPA.
"I haven't seen it, so I can't say," Bennet said of the "Clean Air, Strong Economies Act," which was introduced in March. "What I support is rational decisionmaking and not just bills or votes."
Bennet also demurred when asked to cite a specific standard he would be comfortable with, stating: "I don't know the answer to that, but I do know is what I'd like is a standard that protects the public health while at the same time recognizing the particular circumstances of our state."
Gardner, who has previously voiced opposition to the increased standards, said it remained to be seen how Congress would work to block the rule, but pointed to the policy rider in the appropriations bill.
"What is clear is the economic impact this proposed regulation would have. It's the most expensive regulation ever proposed in history," Gardner added, asserting the new standards would cost Colorado up to $17 billion and eliminate thousands of jobs by 2040.
"We all recognize the need ... to make sure we have a clean environment to pass on to future generations, but shouldn't we at least meet our current standards?" Gardner added.
EPA faces an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to set a new national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone.
Bennet later stated that he does support the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut emissions from existing power plants, although he sought to distance himself from EPA.
"I do support the Clean Power Plan, and we do need to move forward. Look, I'm not betting on the EPA, I'm betting on the ingenuity of the people in this room," Bennet said.
He also voiced support for a "market-based system" to reduce carbon emissions but criticized the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" approved by House lawmakers in 2009.
"I don't think the system that was voted on in the House is the right way to go. I do think that over time figuring out a way to have a market-based solution here would be a heck of a lot better than regulation. ... It's a question of whether you can get such an important thing done in such a dysfunctional Congress," Bennet said.Climate debate's 'political corners'
During the panel, a moderator also asked Gardner to address whether he believes human activity contributes to climate change, but the first-term senator refused to answer the question -- asserting that doing so would be politically divisive.
"That gets into the fight over why we haven't been able to accomplish anything because immediately it forces people into their political corners," Gardner said, pointing to a Senate vote in January in which 98 lawmakers backed an amendment stating that climate change is real and not a hoax. That amendment, unlike two other measures that failed the same day, did not state, however, that humans contribute to climate change (E&ENews PM, Jan. 21).
"What we ought to do instead of fighting on, 'Well, is climate change caused by humans, or is it anthropogenic, is it this, is it that, I mean what's causing it?' Why don't we stop those arguments and actually start having arguments about good policy to lessen emissions and make sure we have an opportunity to do what's good for the environment," Gardner said, pointing to energy efficiency measures.
-
Most voters Oppose 'Just Say No' Strategy -- LCV Poll
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
The League of Conservation Voters released a new poll today showing scant voter support for states opting not to implement U.S. EPA's newly finalized Clean Power Plan.
The poll, conducted by Democratic polling firm Hart Research Associates and Republican polling firm Chesapeake Beach Consulting, found that 70 percent of respondents supported state implementation, compared with 17 percent who backed the "just say no" strategy.
Republicans in Congress say governors should hold off on implementing the existing power plant carbon rule, claiming it is likely to be limited by the courts in ways that will make compliance less costly. But the agency has already proposed a federal implementation plan that would be enforced in states that choose not to comply, and environmentalists say states can do more to secure their own interests if they construct their own plans or join in multi-state programs.
The survey also found that 60 percent of voters back the EPA rule, while 31 percent oppose it.
Support varied by region, but even among voters in the South and Midwest -- where coal use is prevalent and a handful of governors have already committed to "just say no" -- majorities backed the standard. Fifty-five percent of respondents from the South said they supported the rule, compared with 66 percent from the Northeast, where support was strongest. The Midwest and West fell in between, with 57 percent and 61 percent support, respectively.
The only group for which the poll showed stronger opposition than support for the rule was Republicans, who opposed it 46 percent to 42 percent, but "non-conservative" Republicans backed it 56 percent to 28 percent.
Advertisement
The survey of 800 registered voters was conducted Aug. 4-6, immediately after EPA released its final rule. It carried a 3.5-point margin of error.
-
Power Producer Plans to Shut Down 2 N.Y. Coal-Fired Plants
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
NRG Energy Inc. announced yesterday it will request to shut down its coal-fired Huntley Station in Tonawanda, N.Y., pending regulatory approval by March 2016.
"This is essentially three things: low natural gas prices because natural gas sets the price of electricity, low capacity payments in this part of New York and low energy margins for the electricity that we actually sell," said NRG Energy spokesman David Gaier.
Shutting down the plant will cost about 79 jobs in Tonawanda by March. In Dunkirk, 68 NRG employees will finish in January when the plant there is retired. The plants represent millions of dollars in property taxes.
"NRG is a coal-burning power plant, and it certainly has contributed to the air pollution challenge, though I have to say, in the last couple years, they really haven't been. It really has been market forces that have driven the plant. It's just not economical," said Clean Air Coalition Director Erin Heaney (George Richert, WIVB News 4, Aug. 25). -- KS
-
ECOS Eyes Next Steps For Oil & Gas Emissions Cuts After EPA Proposals
Aug 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) members will use their upcoming fall meeting to debate options for furthering cutting oil and gas sector emissions beyond the reductions expected from EPA's recently proposed air and climate rules for the industry, as well as debating a host of other controversial policies at the event.
Sessions slated for the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 meeting of ECOS, representing many state environmental agencies, in Newport, RI, include an interstate Shale Gas Caucus (SGC) discussion of EPA's drilling air rules and future steps that could include advanced monitoring and market incentives to reduce emissions.
Other items set for discussion include the agency's Clean Power Plan of greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for the power sector, enforcement issues, and waste and water policies, according to the agenda for the meeting.
The SGC meeting, taking place Aug. 31, "will tee up possible areas of focus for the second phase of the SGC's work. After having concentrated since last year on best practices to reduce methane and air toxics, the SGC now may turn its attention to topics including advanced monitoring, best practice verification, and market-based and regulatory incentives to promote best practice use in all media," the agenda says.
SGC is proceeding to its "second phase" after EPA Aug. 18 proposed new source performance standards(NSPS) for oil and gas facilities alongside a series of other measures targeting releases from the sector. The rule expands on requirements the agency first imposed in its 2012 NSPS that only targeted emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) but had a co-benefit of also reducing methane.
The proposal would require sources subject to the 2012 rule to control methane releases for the first time, while also subjecting some sources not regulated by the earlier rule, such as hydraulically fractured oil wells and downstream compressors and other equipment, to first-time controls for both VOCs and methane.
The SGC's focus on advanced monitoring and verification of best practices would dovetail with EPA's "next generation" compliance plan which aims to overhaul environmental enforcement to rely less on site inspections to force compliance, and more on advanced monitoring, electronic reporting and self-implementing rules.
Any proposals from the caucus to craft new incentives for implementing best practices beyond the EPA rule would be in line with acting agency air chief Janet McCabe's pledge during an Aug. 18 call announcing the rule to continuing searching for new ways to reduce emissions in partnership with other entities.
McCabe emphasized that other federal agencies are looking at a "variety of other options" for curbing methane from the oil and gas sector, referring specifically to steps that the Interior Department is taking to reduce flaring of natural gas at production sites, though that proposed rule has not yet been issued.
ECOS Meeting
ECOS members will also discuss "next generation" compliance efforts at the meeting, which will focus on "innovating to improve compliance results, even with fewer boots on the ground."
Electronic reporting, and the broader E-Enterprise framework, will also be the focus of a separate panel, which is slated to examine the role of "joint governance" between state and federal regulators in current projects and future rulemakings, which ECOS says has been greatly expanded by E-Enterprise.
The meeting's air panel will be dominated by EPA's contentious GHG standards for the power sector, and aims to discuss how regulators can maximize the environmental benefits of multiple rules that target the sector.
"[I]mplementing new and tightened requirements with reduced resources has states seeking additional opportunities to leverage regulatory actions and maximize secondary benefits reducing multiple pollutants. The Clean Power Plan gives new urgency and potentially new chances to create, document, verify, and claim credit for such reductions," the agenda says.
The meeting's water session is set to consider a broad range of topics, from nutrient pollution and the resulting toxic algal blooms that have become a high-profile problem in the Great Lakes, to stormwater concerns related to both infrastructure funding and pollution reduction.
Meanwhile, the ECOS budget panel will address funding concerns for infrastructure and regulatory programs in light of threats by congressional Republicans to cut EPA's budget -- including accounts that support loans and grants to states.
That panel will highlight provisions in EPA's fiscal year 2016-17 national program manager guidances designed to expand states' flexibility in implementing programs that require federal support, including novel methods for community outreach.
-
Activists Blast 'Hypocrisy' of Obama's Arctic Trip
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama's planned trip to the Alaskan Arctic next week to promote his efforts to contain global warming is "hypocrisy" given his administration's approval of oil exploration in the region, a climate advocacy group said today.
"Climate Leaders Don't Drill the Arctic," the group Credo said in a statement.
Credo, which also opposes approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, reconfigured the president's video message of a few weeks ago announcing his trip to Alaska to include amessage blasting him for approving Shell's drilling plans last week (E&ENews PM, Aug. 13).
The video accuses Obama of "trolling us" by using the Arctic to play up his climate message so soon after approving the drilling plans. The group also plans a campaign to protest the administration's approval of Royal Dutch Shell PLC's drilling plans ahead of Obama's trip. Credo has asked its online members to sign a petition to Obama demanding that he rescind the Shell permit.
The president is scheduled to arrive in Alaska on Monday, and his three-day trip includes an address at a conference in Anchorage hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry and visits to melting glaciers in the Kenai Fjords and climate-impacted majority-Native Alaskan communities.
The trip will also feature the first-ever presidential visit to the Alaskan Arctic (ClimateWire, Aug. 26).
Environmentalists say they hope the Anchorage conference will include a joint declaration calling for a strong international agreement in Paris this December, as well as statements about the importance of containing methane and black carbon that contributes greatly to Arctic warming. The gathering is not an official Arctic Council meeting but will include the group's representatives as well as observer nations.
Alaska's all-Republican congressional delegation, meanwhile, has released statements ahead of the visit warning the president shouldn't use his trip to mount an offensive against the state's oil industry.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) released an open letter to Obama earlier this week arguing that most of the strides Alaska has made in switching to renewable energy have been made possible by oil and gas revenues.
And Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) wrote in a column in the Alaska Dispatch News yesterday that Obama must not use the state as a "fancy photo on a postcard or a green screen backdrop for the anti-resource development agenda."
"Ultimately, this conversation must recognize the needs of people and include efforts to responsibly manage and develop our God given resources," he said.
-
Judge Denies Coal Giant's Bid to Block Obama Rule
Aug 27, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal judge yesterday denied a bid by a coal giant to block the Obama administration's controversial rule for establishing which waters qualify for federal protection from going into effect this week.
Judge Irene Keeley for the Northern District of West Virginia said the challenge from Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp. belongs in a federal appeals court.
Keeley, a Republican appointee, sided with U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, who claimed the Clean Water Act mandates challenges to the Waters of the U.S. rule be filed in appellate court and bypass district courts.
She added that Murray has simultaneously filed a lawsuit in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "simply as a protective measure."
The lawsuit is one of several brought by industry groups and more than 25 states seeking to block the water rule, which will expand the number of streams and wetlands that qualify for automatic Clean Water Act protections.
Two other district courts -- in North Dakota and Georgia -- have held hearings in cases brought by predominantly Republican-led states on whether to grant an injunction preventing the rule from going into effect tomorrow while litigation challenging the rule plays out. Those courts could issue an order any time (Greenwire, Aug. 11).
The government contends that the Clean Water Act directs challenges to the rule to be filed in appellate courts.
Keeley agreed, pointing to the language in the law that says challenges to any "other limitation" on pollutants or permitting issues should go directly to an appeals court.
Murray's approach, she said, is "contrary to the prevailing flexible approach utilized by many courts."
She added that "there is no dispute that the Clean Water Rule will have an impact on Murray's permitting requirements."
Several other lawsuits have also been filed in appeals courts and will be consolidated.
Click here for the opinion.
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
Add recipients
Suggested