Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Sept 1
-
Nanoparticles Emitted By Laser Printers May Be Harmful
Sep 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Nanoparticles emitted by laser printers may have the potential to cause adverse health effects, according to a US in vitro study. Previous studies have hinted at the possible toxicity of toner powders, although most have used raw powders rather than printer-emitted particles, explain the researchers. -
Comments Sought in EU on Chemicals That May Be Authorized
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The European Chemicals Agency has launched a 45-day comment period for seven chemicals that the agency and three European Union member states have said pose sufficient concern to have at least some of their uses subject to authorization. The agency, Austria, Germany and Sweden have nominated the seven chemicals as substances... -
Navajo Nation Preps Lawsuit Against EPA Over Mine Spill
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Kevin Cirilli
The Navajo Nation is preparing for a legal battle against President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The tribe contends that the EPA's Aug. 5 accident in Colorado, which made national headlines after turning portions of the Animas River bright yellow, also leaked hazardous substances into the San Juan River... -
Anxiety Spurs Alaska Plea for Obama to Fill Pipeline
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Wingfield
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) has a message for President Barack Obama: Fill the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System while you still can. The U.S. agreed in August to allow Royal Dutch Shell Plc to resume Arctic oil exploration, yet state officials say it may not be enough to save the 800-mile... -
Obama, EPA Defend Clean Power Plan Against States’ Challenge
Aug 31, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Andrew M Harris
The Obama administration has called a multistate effort to delay its 15-year plan to reduce carbon emissions “premature” and “unwarranted.” The states face no irreparable harm from the deadlines proposed in the Clean Power Plan, the government said in court papers filed on Monday. -
Colorado to Join Challenge to EPA Clean Power Plan
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Colorado will join other states in a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency over the agency's Clean Power Plan once the rule is published in the Federal Register, state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said. Coffman said Aug. 30 that the EPA's rule is “an unprecedented attempt to expand the federal government's... -
Making Sense Of Methane Regulation
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Richard Revesz
The Obama administration's efforts to address climate change continue to stoke controversy, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new regulations to limit methane emissions from the oil and gas sector have sparked a wave of criticism from industry groups. Some claim that regulation is unnecessary since companies... -
EPA Proposes Tweaks To Hazardous Waste Guidelines
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking to change two hazardous waste regulations, the agency announced on Monday. The new rules are designed to provide more flexibility for the healthcare sector and waste producers within it, Mathy Stanislaus, the assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste... -
EPA Climate Rule Could Take Two More Months To Become Official
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
It could take up to two months for the Obama administration to make its climate rule for power plants official by publishing it in the Federal Register. The Department of Justice, working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told a federal appeals court Monday that the regulation’s formal publication is coming... -
General Mills Has Big Plans To Go Green
Aug 31, 2015 | Fortune
By John Kell
Cheerio greenhouse gases. General Mills has outlined a plan to cut carbon emissions by nearly 30% over the next decade, an ambitious goal that will require the cereal maker to lean on farmers and suppliers to make that vision a reality. The maker of Cheerios and Lucky Charms cereals on Monday ... -
Ozone Rule to Receive Expedited OMB Review
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The White House Office of Management and Budget will have just more than one month to review the Environmental Protection Agency's final decision on whether to revise or retain the current national ambient air quality standards for ozone in order for the EPA to meet a court-ordered deadline for signing the rule. -
In Arctic, Kerry Calls for Urgency on Climate Change
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio and Dean Scott
Secretary of State John Kerry used the backdrop of a rapidly warming Arctic to call for “a heightened sense of urgency” in global efforts to fight climate change. “What we can decide here,” Kerry said Aug. 31 in Anchorage, Alaska, at the opening of an international meeting of policy makers, scientists and businesses... -
EPA Sued Over Ferroalloy Emissions Standards
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The two companies that operate manganese ferroalloy production facilities in the U.S. asked a federal appeals court to review the revised national hazardous air pollution standards covering the industry (Felman Prod. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1296, 8/28/15; Eramet Marietta Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1298, 8/31/15). -
Power Company Knocks EPA Arguments Against Mercury Rule Exemption
Aug 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The operator of a small Colorado coal-fired power plant says that EPA's extension of a key deadline last week doesn't affect its request to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for an exemption from EPA's mercury rule. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association said in a filing this morning that the court should still grant its request... -
Climate Change Bills Would Add Costly Burden To Business
Aug 31, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By Tom Scott
Much to the dismay of small business owners across the state, the authors of two major pieces of climate change legislation refuse to take responsibility for the massive cost increases should their bills become law. Senate Bill 32 would extend AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) by another 30 years and stack the more aggressive... -
Judge Seeks Briefing On Scope Of EPA CWA Jurisdiction Rule Injunction
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A federal district court judge is asking EPA and states to submit briefs on whether his recent injunction blocking implementation of the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule should apply nationwide or only in the 13 states that filed suit in his court to halt the rule, as EPA seeks to limit the order's scope to those states.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Nanoparticles Emitted By Laser Printers May Be Harmful
Sep 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Nanoparticles emitted by laser printers may have the potential to cause adverse health effects, according to a US in vitro study.
Previous studies have hinted at the possible toxicity of toner powders, although most have used raw powders rather than printer-emitted particles, explain the researchers.
Led by Philip Demokritou from the Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health's Center for Nanotechnology and Nanotoxicology, the team has developed a printer exposure generation system for making and sampling airborne printer-emitted particles (PEPs) for analysis.
The team initially used its platform to evaluate 11 laser printers on the market. They found that the particle concentration of PEPs varies widely but can be as high as 1.m particles per cubic centimetre. The results, they say, confirm that printer toners are “nano-enabled” products.
The researchers went on to assess the physico-chemical properties of a number of toner powders. They then exposed three types of human cells to PEPs at a range of doses. Low doses related to short-term exposure for consumers, for example over a period of eight hours. High doses repesented accumulated exposures over hundreds of hours.
The in vitro tests suggest that PEPs can damage cell membranes and increase production of reactive oxygen species. The researchers also found preliminary evidence of epigenetic modifications that “might translate to pulmonary disorders”.
Macrophage cells, which engulf foreign materials, appeared to be particularly sensitive to PEPs, proving to be more toxic than a well known lung irritant. The PEPs could impair the macrophages' clearance mechanism, suggest the researchers.
The team is now testing the PEPs on mice, including by whole-body inhalation. The researchers hope that their studies will uncover the biological interactions of PEPs following typical consumer exposure.
The study is published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has warned that printers and photocopiers can affect the health of office staff (CW 12 May 2008). It advised companies to use products with minimal emissions identified by the German Blue Angel ecolabel.
-
Comments Sought in EU on Chemicals That May Be Authorized
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The European Chemicals Agency has launched a 45-day comment period for seven chemicals that the agency and three European Union member states have said pose sufficient concern to have at least some of their uses subject to authorization.
The agency, Austria, Germany and Sweden have nominated the seven chemicals as substances of very high concern (SVHC), a classification that would mean specific uses of each would have to be authorized under REACH, which stands for the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals regulation ((EC) No 1907/2006).
European manufacturers of the chemicals include 3M, Arkema France and BASF SE.
Comments are due Oct. 15.
Under REACH, chemicals may be classified as SVHC for reasons including their carcinogenicity, their potential to harm reproduction or development and their persistence and propensity to accumulate up the food chain.
Recommendations that ECHA may eventually make concerning the seven chemicals will be sent to the European Commission, which makes the final decision about which chemicals are subject to authorization.
Seven Chemicals Addressed
The chemicals are:
• 1,3-propanesultone, Chemical Abstracts Service No. 1120-71-4;
• 2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-(5-chlorobenzotriazol-2-yl)phenol (UV-327), CAS No. 3864-99-1;
• 2-(2h-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(tert-butyl)-6-(sec-butyl)phenol (UV-350), CAS No. 36437-37-3;
• dicyclohexyl phthalate, CAS No. 84-61-7;
• hexamethylene diacrylate (hexane-1,6-diol diacrylate), CAS No. 13048-33-4;
• nitrobenzene, CAS No. 98-95-3; and
• perfluorononan-1-oic acid (2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9-heptadecafluorononanoic acid and its sodium and ammonium salts, CAS Nos. 375-95-1, 21049-39-8 and 4149-60-4.
Not All Uses Would Be Subject to Authorization
Not all uses of every nominated chemical would be subject to authorization, according to the reports that accompany each chemical.
For example most uses of 1,3-propanesultone would not be subject to authorization.
ECHA nominated the chemical because of its carcinogenicity.
BASF SE, Raschig GmbH and another company that kept its identity confidential registered the chemical under REACH for production or importation volumes ranging from 0 to 10 metric tons per year (0 to 22,046 pounds). Its primary application is to make other chemicals, including light-sensitive dyes for photographic and radiographic films. Authorization wouldn't be required for such uses, ECHA said in its report.
1,3-propanesultone also is used as an ingredient in mixtures such as being part of the electrolyte fluid of lithium-ion batteries.
The chemicals used in mixtures generally and in the electrolyte fluid of lithium ion batteries used at industrial sites—not those used by consumers—would be subject to the proposed authorization, ECHA's report said.
UV Chemicals, Phthalate Nominated
Germany nominated two structurally related chemicals, UV-327 and UV-350, because it said they are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB).
Neither chemical is yet registered under REACH, so specific production and importation volume isn't available, Germany said in reports for the two chemicals.
According to previous data, 59.8 metric tons (131,835 pounds) of UV-327 were imported into the EU in 2010, while 890.1 metric tons (1.96 million pounds) were exported out of the EU that same year.
Both chemicals are used to stabilize UV light in plastics, rubber and vehicle and other coatings. They also are used in cosmetics for sun protection.
Sweden nominated dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), because the chemical is classified as having the potential to damage an unborn child, in particular by harming the reproductive potential of males, and because of its reported endocrine-disrupting properties.
AkzoNobel and COIM SpA have registered dicyclohexyl phthalate for an annual production or importation volume of 100 to 1,000 metric tons (220,460 pounds to 2.2 million pounds).
Registered applications include to help soften plastic so it can be poured into molds, to make sealants and to make rubber.
Workers Reported Skin Problems
Sweden also nominated hexamethylene diacrylate (hexane-1,6-diol diacrylate), called HDDA, saying studies from laboratory animals and occupational case reports show some forms of the chemical damage skin, causing mild to severe allergic contact dermatitis.
“Occupational exposure to HDDA can for example occur when people are exposed to acrylic based printing inks and artificial nail products,” Sweden said in the report that accompanied its nomination.
3M, Allnex SA/NV, Arkema France and BASF SE are among the companies that registered HDDA for a total production and importation volume ranging between 1,000 and 10,000 metric tons (2.2 million pounds to 22 million pounds) annually.
Uses of HDDA in Nordic countries include to make adhesives, inks, nail gels, paints, varnishes, surface treatments and other chemicals, Sweden's report said.
Few Uses of Nitrobenzene Would Be Covered
Austria nominated nitrobenzene, because it's classified as being hazardous to reproduction.
Companies including Afkem AG; BASF; Bayer MaterialScience, now called Covestro; and the Dow Chemical Co. are among the companies that registered nitrobenzene for a total production and importation volume ranging between 1,000 and 10,000 metric tons (2.2 million pounds to 22 million pounds) annually.
It's primarily used as an intermediate, meaning companies use it to make other chemicals.
These intermediate uses wouldn't be covered under Austria's nomination.
Non-intermediate uses would be covered such as nitrobenzene's use as a processing aid or solvent.
The final chemical for which ECHA is accepting comments is perfluorononan-1-oic acid (2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9-heptadecafluorononanoic acid and its sodium and ammonium salts (PFNA)).
Sweden nominated PFNA because it is classified as toxic to reproduction, and because Sweden said the chemical is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT). The chemical is among the group of long-chained perfluorinated carboxylic acids already subject to global scrutiny and detected commonly in people and animals around the world.
PFNA Not Registered in EU
PFNA has not been registered in the EU, so information about its production volume or manufacturer is not available, Sweden said in the report accompanying its nomination.
The chemical has been manufactured for about 40 years to use in lubricating oils, fire extinguishers, cleaning and waterproofing chemicals and other purposes, Sweden said.
“A recent study from Germany on perfluorinated chemicals in consumer products shows that PFNA is present in nanosprays and impregnation sprays, outdoor textiles, carpet, gloves, leather, awning cloth, paper-based food contact materials and ski waxes,” Sweden's report said. “High concentrations were found in some paper-based food contact materials (maximum 478 grams per kilogram (g/kg) and some ski waxes (maximum 678 g/kg).”
-
Navajo Nation Preps Lawsuit Against EPA Over Mine Spill
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Kevin Cirilli
The Navajo Nation is preparing for a legal battle against President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The tribe contends that the EPA's Aug. 5 accident in Colorado, which made national headlines after turning portions of the Animas River bright yellow, also leaked hazardous substances into the San Juan River — one of the Navajo Nation's primary water sources.
Now, they've hired law firm Hueston Hennigan LLP to represent them in what some are predicting could be a multibillion-dollar lawsuit expected to be filed in the coming weeks, as lawmakers on Capitol Hill prepare for a round of hearings examining the issue.
And heading their legal team is powerhouse attorney John Hueston, who was the lead prosecutor in the 2006 case against former Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, who were found guilty of fraud and conspiracy.
Russell Begaye — president of Navajo Nation, which totals roughly 300,000 people — also sent a letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials on Monday, calling on them to appoint a FEMA official to coordinate their efforts in the response to the spill.
"This expansion into Navajo lands via the San Juan River has critically impacted the River and its dependent ecosystems including wildlife, fish populations, and the land base adjacent to the River," Begaye wrote in the letter, first obtained by The Hill.
He said that "the nature of this toxic chemical spill will acutely and chronically impact the River and dependent ecosystem if immediate and effective corrective actions and remedies are not taken."
Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch said in a statement that the hazardous-material spill "has been devastating to our culture and economy, as well as to the peace of mind of our people.
"With unknown amounts of this fine sediment in our water we now face the risk of reliving this nightmare with every major increased water flow event affecting the river,” she said in a statement.
EPA officials have previously announced that they've launched an internal investigation into the spill.
Navajo leaders say EPA officials accidentally released about 3 million gallons of water contaminated with arsenic, lead and cadmium after officials were inspecting a mine.
-
Anxiety Spurs Alaska Plea for Obama to Fill Pipeline
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Wingfield
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) has a message for President Barack Obama: Fill the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System while you still can.
The U.S. agreed in August to allow Royal Dutch Shell Plc to resume Arctic oil exploration, yet state officials say it may not be enough to save the 800-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline, Alaska's economic lifeline for the past 40 years. Efforts to limit drilling and dwindling volumes on the line may eventually make it difficult to move crude at all.
“We have an oil pipeline that's two-thirds empty,” Walker, a Republican-turned-Independent, said in a telephone interview from Anchorage. “It's easy for people to predict what will or won't happen, but as governor I can't take that chance. Right now, about 75 percent of our revenue comes from that oil pipeline.”
Spanning mountains, rivers and caribou ranges, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline—the world's largest private-construction project when built for $8 billion in the 1970s—symbolizes the paradox of an energy- and wilderness-rich state. Obama is visiting Alaska this week for an Arctic perspective on climate change (see related story).
“The actions of this administration seem destined to shut down our Trans-Alaska Pipeline,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in February after the Interior Department announced plans to restrict drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and curb development in federal Arctic waters.
End of North Slope Oil?
A halt in pipeline operations “would spell the end of oil on the North Slope for a very long time,” Gunnar Knapp, an economics professor at the University of Alaska in Anchorage, said in a telephone interview. He referred to the region in northeast Alaska where most of the state's oil originates.
The U.S. risks being “short of resources” by the 2020s and 2030s if it doesn't develop its Arctic oil fields, said John Hofmeister, former president of Shell's U.S. operations, in an interview on Bloomberg Television Aug. 31.
Environmental groups say they're not buying the doom-and-gloom scenario for the pipeline, known by its acronym, TAPS.
“There's always a sky-is-falling mentality associated with TAPS,” Lois Epstein, Arctic program director in Anchorage for The Wilderness Society, said in a telephone interview. “We don't need these new oil reserves to keep the pipeline going for many decades.”
Transitional Period
In his Aug. 29 weekly video address, Obama said he realizes the U.S. economy will rely on oil and gas as it transitions to other forms of energy. At the same time, he said his administration will allow Arctic oil exploration at only the “highest safety standards possible.”
“I share people's concerns about offshore drilling,” he said.
Shell has said its newly approved Arctic wells may not begin production for at least another decade. Alaska has about 38 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude reserves, according to data from the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. Energy Department's statistical arm.
“The pipeline is not shutting down any time soon,” Pamela Miller, head of the research firm Arctic Connections in Fairbanks, Alaska, said by phone. TAPS can run “for another 30 to 50 more years without opening up special areas.”
Falling Volumes
Volume on the pipeline, which funnels crude to Valdez in the south from Prudhoe Bay in the north, has declined with North Slope oil production during the past three decades. Flows are dropping about 5 percent a year and slid to 513,441 barrels a day in 2014 from a peak of 2 million in 1988, according to operator Anchorage-based Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
Alaska in April projected North Slope crude production would tumble to about 320,000 barrels a day by 2024.
A drop below 300,000 barrels a day would likely trigger a “fundamental change” in operations, including smaller-batch shipments and additional pump stations to keep the line running, Alyeska President Thomas Barrett said by telephone.
Associated costs are unknown, although they depend on factors such as fuel prices and the rate at which the oil flows, Katie Pesznecker, an Alyeska spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Alyeska already is using heat to prevent freezing and water pooling in the line and small devices called “pigs” to remove wax that can build up when volumes are low, Barrett said.
“It's not like there's some shutoff point, some magic flowthrough,” the University of Alaska's Knapp said. “The smaller the flowthrough, the higher the cost.”
Company Involvement
Three major oil companies—BP Plc, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp.—mostly fund Alyeska, and Chevron Corp.’s Unocal unit has a 1.4 percent stake.
“It is difficult to forecast when it will no longer be feasible to operate the pipeline,” because that depends on variable factors including taxes and the price of oil, Andrea Urbanek, a ConocoPhillips spokeswoman, said by e-mail.
Spokesmen for BP and Exxon Mobil said they are working to encourage more North Slope resources to increase pipeline flows. Erika Conner, a Chevron spokeswoman, declined to comment.
“I think that he'll have a better appreciation when he's up here, kind of what the need is in Alaska,” Gov. Walker said.
-
Obama, EPA Defend Clean Power Plan Against States’ Challenge
Aug 31, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Andrew M Harris
The Obama administration has called a multistate effort to delay its 15-year plan to reduce carbon emissions “premature” and “unwarranted.”
The states face no irreparable harm from the deadlines proposed in the Clean Power Plan, the government said in court papers filed on Monday.
The new regulations, announced by the administration and the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month, aim to slow climate change by dropping U.S. power plant carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent below their 2005 levels by 2030.
Fifteen states, led by West Virginia, asked a federal court in Washington to issue an order delaying deadlines for submission of their plans to reach that objective. The new regulations give the EPA authority to impose its own regime on states that fail to comply.
The Clean Power Plan is one of three EPA initiatives under fire in multistate lawsuits filed in recent weeks. A North Dakota federal judge last week put on hold rules meant to determine what waterways are subject to federal oversight. States are also fighting new measures governing power plant emissions. Coal Reliance
While the first emissions reductions required by the Clean Power initiative don’t take effect until 2022, state officials maintain they need to start planning now to meet those targets.
They also contend reducing reliance on coal -- the most carbon-intensive fuel -- will drive up electricity rates and threaten power grid reliability.
In its filing today, the U.S. said the new regulations won’t take effect until 60 days after they’re published in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred.
“Although the Rule instructs the states to submit plans to implement those standards, and imposes a September 2016 deadline for the submission of a state plan, a state may obtain a two-year extension of that deadline by submitting, by that same date, a minimal initial submittal,” the government said.
The filing follows South Carolina’s request to join the case on the states’ behalf. The court hasn’t yet ruled on that petition.
The case is In re State of West Virginia v. EPA, 15-1277, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (Washington).
-
Colorado to Join Challenge to EPA Clean Power Plan
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Colorado will join other states in a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency over the agency's Clean Power Plan once the rule is published in the Federal Register, state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said. Coffman said Aug. 30 that the EPA's rule is “an unprecedented attempt to expand the federal government's regulatory control over the states' energy economy.” Colorado's economy “could be forever changed” by the rule, she said, “and that will be reflected in lost jobs, higher utility rates, and an altered energy industry.” She said a federal court needs to settle the matter of whether the rule is legal. Fifteen states, led by West Virginia, have already filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to block implementation of the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) even though the final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277, order filed 8/24/15; (165 DEN A-1, 8/26/15).
-
Making Sense Of Methane Regulation
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Richard Revesz
The Obama administration's efforts to address climate change continue to stoke controversy, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new regulations to limit methane emissions from the oil and gas sector have sparked a wave of criticism from industry groups. Some claim that regulation is unnecessary since companies already have an incentive to capture methane that is released during production and distribution: methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a valuable product that can be sold profitably. In essence, these groups suggest that the EPA is ignoring economics and creating needless rules.
But, in fact, it is the industry opponents of the rule who are disregarding economics. Methane regulation is necessary precisely because energy companies don't face the right incentive to reduce the adverse social consequences of their activities. The new EPA rule seeks to address this distortion. Unfortunately, though, the rule does not go far enough to properly tackle a problem that seems to be larger than previously thought.
Accounting for externalities
In many cases, the value of captured methane already does motivate oil and gas companies to rein in fugitive emissions (emissions from the sector have dropped 16 percent since 1990 while production has increased, though some of this reduction can be attributed to other EPA regulations). But what happens if the cost of action to reduce methane leaks is higher than the market value of the gas that will be captured? In such cases, companies can be expected to maximize their profits and let these emissions escape into the atmosphere.
Methane emissions are a classic economic externality: The costs of these emissions are borne by outside parties rather than by the emitters. And methane emissions have tremendous social costs. Methane is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. Slashing methane emissions will be critical in the effort to contain climate change, and the environmental benefits of reducing emissions are currently ignored when companies consider when to capture methane.
The EPA's new rule aims to internalize this externality. By regulating methane emissions, the EPA compels companies to act in the best interests of the public and to reduce emissions, even if individual controls aren't immediately profitable.
Is this rule sufficient?
While the EPA rule solves one economic issue by addressing an externality, it might create another by exempting existing emissions sources from regulation. The methane rule focuses only on new and modified sources, meaning that many existing wells, pipelines and storage tanks that leak methane will be able to continue doing so indefinitely.
This "grandfathering" approach has undercut the effectiveness of many past Clean Air Act regulations. Older, heavily polluting facilities have often been exempted from EPA air pollution restrictions under the assumption that they'll soon shut down. But this assumption is often incorrect. A two-track regulatory structure that controls the emissions from new sources but exempts the emissions from existing sources gives the latter a powerful incentive to continue operating far longer than would otherwise be the case. Many of our dirtiest coal plants have used this comparative advantage to keep operating (and polluting) decades longer than was expected when new-source regulations were put in place.
Given that production from oil and gas wells tends to drop after the first one to three years of use, exempting existing wells from regulation may not be an enormous problem. But existing pipelines, compressors, valves, storage tanks and other equipment could prove to be persistent sources of methane emissions. The EPA can choose to regulate existing sources of pollution under a separate provision of the Clean Air Act, and this may be necessary to adequately control methane emissions.
The Obama administration has set a target of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. This proposed rule is a good start toward this goal, but more will be needed to reach it, including new policies governing methane capture on federal lands, and additional efforts to target sources outside the scope of this rule. Industry groups rightly point out that methane is a valuable resource that companies already work to capture. The EPA needs to ensure that these companies also account for the social value of capturing methane from all possible sources.
-
EPA Proposes Tweaks To Hazardous Waste Guidelines
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking to change two hazardous waste regulations, the agency announced on Monday.
The new rules are designed to provide more flexibility for the healthcare sector and waste producers within it, Mathy Stanislaus, the assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, wrote in an agency blog post. One of the new rules is designed to protect waterways by preventing the flushing of hazardous waste from pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The rule would ban healthcare facilities from flushing waste pharmaceuticals down toilets or sinks, something the agency said would prevent more than 6,400 tons of hazardous waste from entering the water supply.
“Pharmaceuticals entering the environment, through flushing or other means, are having a negative effect on aquatic ecosystems and on fish and animal populations,” Stanislaus wrote in his blog post.
“Our proposal is keeping pace with today’s environmental issues by banning the sewering, or flushing down the toilet or sink, of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from healthcare facilities.”
The other rule looks to improve the labeling of materials that produce hazardous waste. The rule, the EPA said, would give healthcare facilities clearer information about how to deal with the waste products.
The EPA said the proposed rules are based on consultation with states, healthcare facilities, manufacturers that generate hazardous waste, retailers and others.
“In order to keep our world safe and healthy, regulations should not only effectively manage sources of environmental harm, but also be flexible and clear enough for newcomers to understand,” Stanislaus wrote.
The new rules will go through a 60-day public comment period before they’re finalized.
-
EPA Climate Rule Could Take Two More Months To Become Official
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
It could take up to two months for the Obama administration to make its climate rule for power plants official by publishing it in the Federal Register.
The Department of Justice, working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told a federal appeals court Monday that the regulation’s formal publication is coming soon but could take months.That schedule significantly delays any attempts to block the rule through the court system or through Congress, because the regulation is not official — and cannot be formally challenged — until it appears in the Register.
President Obama unveiled the full regulation Aug. 3, but the administration did not say until Monday’s court filing that it would take months to be published.
Attorneys for the federal government cited the delay Monday in arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should ignore the pleas from multiple states to temporarily block the rule. Any challenges to regulations can only come after they are published, the government said.
“Publication in the Federal Register, while shortly forthcoming, has not yet occurred,” they wrote. “Thus, both the plain terms of the [Clean Air] Act and this Court’s binding precedent compel dismissal of these petitions.”
Later, the attorneys said that publication “should occur within a period of less than two months.”
Multiple states, led by West Virginia, plan to sue to block the regulation once it is published. But they also filed earlier this month for a judicial stay so that their states would not be harmed by the rule’s requirements while they are fighting it.
But the Obama administration said the stay request is premature.
“Petitioners once again prematurely attack EPA’s Clean Power Plan and attempt to bypass the straightforward, and soon available, judicial review procedures in the Clean Air Act ... by invoking the All Writs Act,” the administration wrote in its filing.
“This Court has already concluded in a decision issued earlier this summer that Petitioners must adhere to those procedures in challenging the Rule,” they said, citing the decision in Murray Energy v. EPA earlier this year, in which states and energy companies tried to challenge the proposed regulation before the final version was even announced.
The states have been asked to file a response to the EPA’s brief later this week, and the court will consider the stay after that.
-
General Mills Has Big Plans To Go Green
Aug 31, 2015 | Fortune
By John Kell
Cheerio greenhouse gases.
General Mills has outlined a plan to cut carbon emissions by nearly 30% over the next decade, an ambitious goal that will require the cereal maker to lean on farmers and suppliers to make that vision a reality.
The maker of Cheerios and Lucky Charms cereals on Monday said it wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28% across the company’s supply chain – which encompasses “farm to fork to landfill” – over the next 10 years.
General Mills GIS -0.65% says it will invest more than $100 million in energy efficiency and clean energy, an investment level that is in line with the work the company has done to reduce emissions since it first moved to be more environmentally friendly in 2005. At that time, the focus was on the food company’s direct operations. Over the past decade, General Mills was able to cut emissions within its own operations by 13%.
But today, General Mills says it will have to work with the company’s partners to achieve its goals. That’s because nearly two-thirds of General Mills’ total greenhouse gas emissions occur beyond its direct operations.
“We know our greatest impact is outside our four walls – particularly in agriculture, ingredients and packaging,” said Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills. To reduce emission levels, he said the company would need to work with growers, suppliers and industry partners.
-
Ozone Rule to Receive Expedited OMB Review
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The White House Office of Management and Budget will have just more than one month to review the Environmental Protection Agency's final decision on whether to revise or retain the current national ambient air quality standards for ozone in order for the EPA to meet a court-ordered deadline for signing the rule.
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in an Aug. 31 e-mail that the agency will issue its final ozone rule by Oct. 1. The agency submitted the rule to the OMB for interagency review on Aug. 28.
The American Petroleum Institute, one of the most vocal opponents of the EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standards, was quick to criticize the Obama administration for truncating the interagency review process. The trade association released a statement raising concern that the administration is “rushing” the ozone rule through a shortened review process.
“This is clearly a very significant rule in everyone's eyes,” Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the API, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 31. “It's surprising that the administration is trying to move this through with a 30-day review.”
Feldman said that such a major regulation would typically receive a 60-to-90-day review, if not longer.
Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy and education at the American Lung Association, was less concerned about the effect of the Oct. 1 deadline on the OMB review process, noting that the administration has “great familiarity” with the ozone standards. He described this rulemaking as an “opportunity for the administration to correct a major failing” after President Barack Obama in 2011 chose to halt the EPA's reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standards. The EPA later revealed it was prepared to set the standards at a level of 70 parts per billion as a result of that reconsideration process.
“This is not plowing ground that people are not familiar with,” Billings told Bloomberg BNA. “There is plenty of time to get this work done and completed.”
During a July hearing before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee, Howard Shelanski, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said his office would conduct a “high-quality and rigorous” review of the ozone rule (137 DEN A-16, 7/17/15).
Advocates Plan for Meetings
The EPA in November proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current ozone standards of 75 ppb to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, a change the agency estimated could cost up to $16.6 billion annually while providing up to $38 billion in annual public health benefits.
That proposal was criticized by both industry groups, which have projected significantly higher economic costs than the EPA, and environmental and public health groups, which argued that the standards should be set no higher than 60 ppb in order to protect public health. Advocates on both sides told Bloomberg BNA in July that they planned to increase pressure on the administration, including plans to have many meetings with White House officials during the interagency review process (148 DEN A-4, 8/3/15).
Billings said he expected that the American Lung Association and other organizations would soon formally request meetings with the OMB on the ozone rule. He acknowledged that there could be some scheduling issues due to the short review window, but noted that even during longer reviews, the OMB tends to hold the majority of its meetings with outside groups near the end of the review process.
“There will be limited choices in scheduling, but they'll get it done,” Billings said.
Feldman said there will “obviously” be a push by advocacy groups to meet with officials with the OMB, though all of those meetings will need to be scheduled and occur within a manner of a few weeks.
Role of Other Agencies Raised
Feldman said that meeting with advocates is only one half of the OMB review process, with other federal agencies also getting an opportunity to provide input on the ozone standards.
The ozone rule will have widespread effects on a variety of sectors, including agriculture, transportation and energy, Feldman said. There has to be enough time provided for those agencies, as well as economic advisers, to weigh in on the ozone rule, he said.
When asked whether there is time for the EPA's rule to be changed as a result of the interagency review process, both Feldman and Billings said that there should be.
“That is the role of the interagency review,” Feldman said. “We're presuming that they can take that [input from advocates and other agencies] into account.”
Billings said since there is time for a full review of the ozone rule, it is possible that the rule the EPA submitted could be strengthened, though he also acknowledged that there is an “opportunity for mischief” for opponents of stronger standards.
-
In Arctic, Kerry Calls for Urgency on Climate Change
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio and Dean Scott
Secretary of State John Kerry used the backdrop of a rapidly warming Arctic to call for “a heightened sense of urgency” in global efforts to fight climate change.
“What we can decide here,” Kerry said Aug. 31 in Anchorage, Alaska, at the opening of an international meeting of policy makers, scientists and businesses, and “what we [can] make real in Paris and beyond, will profoundly impact the future of life on this planet.”
The meeting, organized by the State Department, focused on the many changes felt by the region, from melting ice to thawing permafrost, and how to deal with them. It comes less than 100 days before negotiators from around the world will gather at a United Nations summit in Paris to hammer out a climate deal that would for the first time commit both developed and developing countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change is hitting especially hard in the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe.
“Unless the global community comes together to address this challenge, the dramatic climate impacts that we're seeing in this part of the world will be a harbinger for every part of the world,” Kerry said.
Changes ‘Happening Now.'
John Holdren, the president's top science adviser, detailed how rising temperatures are reshaping the region—and the consequences of those changes in the Arctic and beyond.
As melting ice opens up new opportunities for shipping, fishing, tourism and oil and gas exploration, Holdren told the crowd, it also presents “new challenges” for search and rescue operations and international interactions on Arctic waters.
Open water instead of ice also means bigger waves and more coastal erosion—problems made worse by rising seas, he said. The northernmost reaches of Alaska are losing slightly more than a football field worth of land a day to coastal erosion and sea level rise, according to the administration.
“The bottom line is that climate change is not a distant threat for our children and their children to worry about,” Kerry said. “It is now. It is happening now.”
His comments echoed those made by other members of the administration in the lead-up to President Barack Obama's arrival in Anchorage later that day (168 DEN A-4, 8/31/15).
‘Wakeup Call' for Action
After making his own appearance at the State Department meeting, Obama will see climate impacts firsthand when he becomes the first sitting American president to venture north of the Arctic Circle.
Obama offered a preview for his three-day trip in his weekly address Aug. 29, saying the dramatic changes in the Arctic region should serve as “our wakeup call” to combat global climate change.
He said one of the things he will do while in Alaska is to call on other nations “to meet this threat” by curbing greenhouse gas emissions under the UN deal. “As as long as I'm president, America will lead the world to meet the threat of climate change before it's too late,” the president said.
While his focus on climate impacts during his Alaska trip drew praise from some environmental groups, many of them also took aim at his administration's Aug. 18 approval of Royal Dutch Shell Plc's proposal to resume exploratory offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska (159 DEN A-3, 8/18/15).
Timing Seen as ‘Ironic.'
“The timing of President Obama's trip to Alaska and the Arctic could not be more ironic, given that his administration just approved dangerous drilling plans that put the region's well-being in serious jeopardy,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in an Aug. 31 statement.
The president defended what he argued is a balanced approach to energy, saying in his weekly address that he has been “going all-in on clean energy sources.” But the U.S. economy “still has to rely on oil and gas, and as long as that's the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic [sources] than on foreign imports,” Obama said.
“Still, I know there are Americans concerned about drilling,” Obama said. “I share [those] concerns.”
But his administration doesn't “rubber stamp permits,” he said, and will work to ensure rigorous standards are applied to the Shell project.
“The bottom line is that safety has been and will continue to be my administration's top priority when it comes to oil and gas exploration off America's precious coasts, even as we push our economy, and the world, to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels,” Obama said.
-
EPA Sued Over Ferroalloy Emissions Standards
Sep 1, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The two companies that operate manganese ferroalloy production facilities in the U.S. asked a federal appeals court to review the revised national hazardous air pollution standards covering the industry (Felman Prod. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1296, 8/28/15; Eramet Marietta Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1298, 8/31/15).
Felman Production LLC and Eramet Marietta Inc. both filed lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's revised ferroalloy production standards in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Eramet Marietta filed a petition for review on Aug. 31, while Felman filed its lawsuit Aug. 28.
Ferroalloys, which are primarily used in iron and steel manufacturing, are compounds that contain iron and other elements. The EPA in June issued a final rule (RIN 2060-AQ11) revising national air toxics standards for the source category, a regulatory change that the agency projected would reduce air toxics emissions by about 77 tons per year (80 Fed. Reg. 37,366; 125 DEN A-17, 6/30/15).
There are only two facilities in operation in the U.S. that are covered by the revised standards: a Felman facility in Letart, W.Va., and an Eramet Marietta facility in Ohio.
The EPA rule established new emissions standards for mercury, formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from ferroalloy production facilities and set a requirement that facilities capture at least 95 percent of their fugitive emissions. The EPA gave facilities two years to come into compliance with the new standards.
The regulatory impact analysis prepared for the rule estimated that the new requirements would result in total capital costs of $14.9 million for Felman's facility. The Eramet Marietta facility was estimated to incur about $25.4 million in total capital costs as a result of the revised standards.
-
Power Company Knocks EPA Arguments Against Mercury Rule Exemption
Aug 31, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The operator of a small Colorado coal-fired power plant says that EPA's extension of a key deadline last week doesn't affect its request to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for an exemption from EPA's mercury rule.
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association said in a filing this morning that the court should still grant its request, even though EPA last week moved back the company's deadline to April next year to make a decision on whether to shut down the 110-megawatt Nucla plant or spend millions of dollars installing hydrochloric acid controls. Tri-State could then request from EPA a one-year waiver to protect grid reliability, an option the company dismissed on Monday.
It would need nearly eight months to order, install and test the controls ahead of the April 2016 deadline, meaning the plant could be in trouble if it makes a decision later on to install the control but EPA does not grant a reliability waiver.
EPA’s deadline extension “is not an adequate remedy” and it is "manifestly unfair" that Tri-State should have to make a decision before the mercury rule is fixed per the Supreme Court’s June ruling, the filing argued.
“Tri-State’s dilemma has nothing to do with whether Nucla is ‘reliability critical’ and could therefore obtain an extension under the Enforcement Policy,” the filing says. “It is caused by the fact that, according to the Supreme Court, EPA acted improperly when it failed to consider cost in making the ‘appropriate and necessary’ determination.”
-
Climate Change Bills Would Add Costly Burden To Business
Aug 31, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By Tom Scott
Much to the dismay of small business owners across the state, the authors of two major pieces of climate change legislation refuse to take responsibility for the massive cost increases should their bills become law.
Senate Bill 32 would extend AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) by another 30 years and stack the more aggressive carbon reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Small businesses are already grappling with how to comply with AB 32, cap and trade and stricter regulations without cutting jobs, services, or simply closing their doors.
Sadly, SB 32 only compounds these challenges for the average small business by increasing these requirements – all with no clear direction as to how those operators and owners can meet those goals without severe adverse fallout for the business and its employees.
Although the intent may not be to harm small business or the economy, the reality is that rushing into implementing this vast expansion of AB 32 would be devastating to everyone in California.
A recent study by the California Building Industry Association warned that SB 32 could affect the construction of new homes and drive up the cost of housing, increasing the cost of a typical new home by a whopping $58,281. Pricing 683,000 families out of the housing market does not seem thoughtful or sensitive to the needs of struggling Californians. It is irresponsible to give even more unfettered rule-making power to state bureaucrats – this is power that the voters have entrusted to their elected representatives.
A companion bill, SB 350, adds more bad news to the economic picture.
It mandates a 50 percent gasoline and diesel fuel reduction by 2030, and gives even more far-reaching power to the unelected, unaccountable California Air Resources Board.
The bill’s author accuses opponents of fear-mongering, but the cold, hard fact is that this legislation will hit the poorest Californians in the areas with the worst roads the hardest.
The bad news for all Californians is that if both of these bills become law, everyone – whether you own a business or not – will be affected.
If you drive a car, gas prices will be higher. If you want to buy a house, you very likely could be priced out of the market. Small business owners will have to raise prices in order to cover the increases in gas and delivery charges. In some cases, small businesses may have to close up shop all together, which would be the worst consequence – intended or not.
-
Judge Seeks Briefing On Scope Of EPA CWA Jurisdiction Rule Injunction
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A federal district court judge is asking EPA and states to submit briefs on whether his recent injunction blocking implementation of the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule should apply nationwide or only in the 13 states that filed suit in his court to halt the rule, as EPA seeks to limit the order's scope to those states.
“There appears to be a dispute between the parties as to the breadth of the court’s order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction,” Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota's Southeastern Division writes in an Aug. 28 order establishing a short briefing schedule. He directs the agency and the coalition of states critical of the rule to file briefs by 5 p.m. Sept. 1 on the reach of his injunction.
The briefs must address whether the injunction issued late Aug. 27 -- on the eve of the rule's Aug. 28 implementation -- “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.”
The coalition of 13 states opposed to the rule filed suit in the federal district court case States of North Dakota, et al. V EPA, et al., claiming the CWA jurisdiction regulation is unlawful. The rule, crafted jointly by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, aims to resolve uncertainty about the reach of the water law following Supreme Court rulings that created competing tests for jurisdiction and confusion about the CWA's scope.
The states urged Erickson to halt the rule pending resolution of the case, and last week he granted the states' motion seeking injunction. The judge also hinted he is likely to find for the states at the end of the suit, as he strongly criticized the regulation for being “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeding the agencies' authority.
In response to the injunction, EPA said it intends to honor the ruling in only a “limited geographic region” of the 13 states that filed the suit that Erickson is overseeing: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico and North Dakota. In those states, the agency plans to use George W. Bush administration guidance for making CWA jurisdiction determinations.
CWA Regulation
EPA said that in all other states it will push ahead with implementing its final CWA regulation, which also faces a host of legal challenges in other federal district courts and in federal appeals court.
EPA's response prompted the 13 states in the States of North Dakota case to then file an Aug. 28 notice urging Erikson to clarify that his injunction should apply nationwide. The states claim that EPA's position “is contrary to, and in defiance of, the Court's Order” issuing the injunction.
“Indeed, the Agencies’ defiance of this Court’s Order controverts the Agencies’ repeated claims before this and other courts that the Rule is of 'nationwide' scope,” according to the coalition of states. “Plaintiff States respectfully submit that the Agencies' [clean water rule] 'CWR Litigation Statement' is contrary to, and in defiance of, the Court’s Order,” they said.
The agency has not said whether it will challenge the judge's injunction, and in a statement last week an EPA spokeswoman said that it the agency is evaluating the order, along with orders denying injunction requests from federal district courts in Georgia and West Virginia, and “considering next steps in the litigation.”
The federal district courts in Georgia and West Virginia rejected separate requests from Georgia and a coal mining firm to stay the rule. Other litigation over the rule is pending in a host of federal district courts, and appellate suits over the rule have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. A handful of states that support the CWA rule Aug. 28 filed a motion seeking intervention in the 6th Circuit suit on behalf of EPA and the Corps. The states arguing that they support the rule because it protects their water quality, assists them in managing pollution control programs by dispelling confusion over the reach of the law and prevents harm to their economies by ensuring adequate CWA regulation. The states seeking intervention are Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, plus the District of Columbia.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested