Preview Newsletter
acc am 9/10
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA FY16 Report Language May Be Tied To Formaldehyde Study Proposal
Sep 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A proposal to test a controversial 2010 study of Chinese workers exposed to formaldehyde on the job may have spurred congressional report language attached to fiscal year 2016 EPA spending bills that call for the agency to fund an effort to replicate the study, which undergirds the conclusion in EPA's draft assessment that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia. -
(ACC Mentioned) Solana Beach to Draft Polystyrene Ban
Sep 10, 2015 | The San Diego Union-Tribune
By Phil Diehl
Saying it hopes to be the first city in San Diego County to ban polystyrene food containers, the Solana Beach City Council on Wednesday directed staffers to prepare an ordinance that would outlaw the plastic. -
Senate TSCA Bill Supporters Weigh Potential Filibuster-Proof October Vote
Sep 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss & Bridget DiCosmo
Supporters of a pending Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill are weighing a floor vote for the measure in October that they believe could secure more than 70 votes, easily enough to overcome a potential filibuster threat from a handful of Democrats who continue to have significant concerns about the legislation. -
Senate May Consider Chemical Bill After Iran: Aide
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Anthony Adragna
Legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemical statute is among the bills being considered for Senate floor action after the chamber acts on President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, a Republican leadership aide and several senators told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9. -
TSCA First, then Clean Power Plan -- Inhofe
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E PM
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said today that while he hopes the full Senate will vote to kill U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan before U.N. climate talks in Paris this December, a chemicals bill with broader support will likely move first. -
"Switch to Safer" with your Household Cleaning Products
Sep 9, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Saudia Davis
In a rare moment of solidarity, it appears politicians, industry executives and environmentalists are working together to make changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Finalizes Flame Retardant Alternate Analysis Despite NRDC Concerns
Sep 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has finalized alternative analyses for polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardant chemicals used in furniture foam and electronic circuit boards, downplaying concerns from environmentalists that the furniture analysis does not address all types of toxicity the traditional chemicals present, such as endocrine disruption. -
California Passes Bill to Ban Plastic Microbeads
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California lawmakers sent legislation to Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to ban the sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads, beginning Jan. 1, 2020. -
California Legislature Passes 'Strongest' Microbeads Bill in US
Sep 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The California legislature has passed a bill banning plastic microbeads from personal care products, effective 1 January 2020. -
Unilever And EPA Join For Animal-Free Chemical Testing
Sep 10, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Mike McCoy
The European consumer goods maker Unilever and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have formed a research collaboration aimed at assessing the safety of chemicals found in consumer products without using animal testing. -
99.5 Percent of Sites Clear Chemical Security Milestone
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Nearly every one of the more than 3,100 facilities regulated under the Department of Homeland Security's program designed to protect the nation's industrial facilities against the risk of terrorist attacks has completed at least the halfway point in the program, a fact sheet posted Sept. 8 shows. -
Bill to End Crude Export Bill Ready for its Audition
Sep 10, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Legislation to end the four-decade-old ban on exporting most U.S. crude will see its first House action today, a markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee's subpanel on energy and power. -
Move to Lift Export Ban Gains Ground On The Hill
Sep 10, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey, Geof Koss and Daniel Bush
Bipartisan momentum for lifting the crude export ban appeared to grow in the lower chamber yesterday, while Republican senators mulled a deal to bring their Democratic colleagues on board. -
Oil Exports Deal May Hinge on Green Compromise
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
Congress may be closer to ending the ban on crude oil exports than ever before, but its future in the Senate could hinge on whether lawmakers can reach a deal that offers a boost to green energy. -
Oil Group Launches Ads Hitting Crude Export Ban
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The oil industry’s top trade group is hitting the airwaves to promote legislation ending the ban on crude oil exports. -
Fuel Refiner Group Warns Vulnerable Senators against Oil Exports
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of petroleum refiners released surveys Wednesday to warn Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) against voting to lift the ban on crude oil exports. -
Dem Strategist Takes on Oil Industry -- Despite the Odds
Sep 10, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Democratic strategist Karl Frisch concedes he's outnumbered and badly outspent by the oil industry when it comes to waging a campaign to keep the nation's decades-old ban on crude exports intact. -
Gosar to Pursue Impeachment of EPA's McCarthy
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) will introduce a resolution Sept. 10 or 11 that would impeach Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy for alleged perjury in congressional testimony, his spokesman, Steven Smith, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9. -
Rep. Gosar Seeks to Impeach McCarthy over WOTUS Statements
Sep 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Annie Snider
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) is launching a bid to impeach U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy over statements she made to Congress about the Obama administration's contentious water rule. -
House Republican Aims to Impeach EPA's McCarthy
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Rep. Paul Gosar is pushing to impeach EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. -
GOP Lawmaker Looks to Impeach EPA Chief
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2
By Devin Henry
A Republican congressman is looking to impeach the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
Massive Biz Blitz Aims to Torpedo Ozone Rule
Sep 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Major business groups are in the midst of a coordinated, multimillion-dollar effort aimed at sowing opposition to the Obama administration’s smog pollution regulations. -
Federal Court Denies States’ Request to Temporarily Block EPA Carbon Rules
Sep 10, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Brent Kendall
A federal court denied a request by more than a dozen states on Wednesday to temporarily block the Obama administration’s carbon regulations while they mount a full legal challenge to the rules. -
Court Declines to Block EPA Carbon Rule, for Now
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today declined to block EPA’s Clean Power Plan before the rule is published in the Federal Register. -
Court Denies Initial Bid to Block Obama Climate Regime
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal appeals court today denied an initial effort by more than a dozen states and industry to block the Obama administration's landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants. -
Court Refuses to Block Obama Climate Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court declined requests Wednesday to block the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule for power plants. -
Clean Power Plan Lawsuits Dismissed by D.C. Circuit
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appellate court denied lawsuits brought by 15 states and Peabody Energy Corp. seeking to block the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277, 9/9/15; In re Peabody Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 15-1284, 9/9/15). -
Pennsylvania ‘Open to Everything' in Clean Power Plan
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania will not rule out multistate efforts like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as it formulates a state plan to comply with federal Clean Power Plan mandates, the state's top environmental regulator said Sept. 9. -
Gas Producer Seeking to Sell Utica Shale Assets
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Monks
Chesapeake Energy Corp., the natural gas explorer selling assets to raise cash, is seeking buyers for a big chunk of its operations in the Utica Shale basin, people with knowledge of the matter said. -
PHMSA Finalizes Special Permit, Approvals Rule
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration declined to further delineate what it means for a special permit or approval applicant to be deemed “fit” as part of its final rule that will be published Sept. 10, a rule intended to clarify and codify administrative and evaluation processes and criteria for those programs.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA FY16 Report Language May Be Tied To Formaldehyde Study Proposal
Sep 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A proposal to test a controversial 2010 study of Chinese workers exposed to formaldehyde on the job may have spurred congressional report language attached to fiscal year 2016 EPA spending bills that call for the agency to fund an effort to replicate the study, which undergirds the conclusion in EPA's draft assessment that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) formaldehyde assessment has remained in limbo after a 2011 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report criticized the agency's draft assessment and faulted IRIS procedures generally, prompting EPA to re-work the draft assessment largely from scratch.
The congressional report language, however, suggests that a new draft may be released next fiscal year, and again raises concerns about the controversial 2010 study that led EPA -- as well as the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer -- to conclude that exposure to formaldehyde could cause leukemia. "The Committee understands that EPA is likely to include the findings of the Zhang et al (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; Jan; 19(1):80--88) study for scientifically significant decisions in fiscal year 2016. The study, however, has drawn criticisms about its methods and interpretations," the reports from both the House and Senate appropriations committees say.
Industry has mounted an attack on the study, arguing that it has not been replicated, that its findings are unique and implausible, without a biological explanation. Several years ago, one industry source explained that while most would agree that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal cancer, the leukemia finding was more concerning to industries that make and use formaldehyde because of the much higher prevalence and risk associated with leukemia.
At an EPA workshop last year on formaldehyde, several speakers called for a replication of the Zhang study to definitively answer whether formaldehyde is a leukemogen.
The House Appropriations Committee appears to take up that call, directing EPA in its report to "develop a peer-reviewed protocol to replicate the scientific findings of this study. Following development of the protocol, the Agency is directed to issue a request for proposals and award a contract to conduct this replication study. Further, EPA is directed to incorporate the results of the replication study into any draft or final scientific assessments prior to making such assessments publicly available" (Inside EPA, July 3).
An emeritus University of Vermont medical professor, Richard Albertini, says he presented the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) months earlier with a proposal he says will test the Zhang study's findings. Albertini proposed developing a new cohort of formaldehyde exposed-workers, taking blood samples from them, and then submitting those samples to a test called the colony forming unit-granulocyte/macrophage (CFU-GM) assay.
The assay is used as a screen to predict the hematotoxic potential of chemicals, according to the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, which like a U.S. counterpart including EPA, validates new cellular, computational and other non-whole animal toxicity testing approaches.
In a recent interview, Albertini explains that the advantage of his approach is that it will distinguish whether any occurring aneuploidy -- too few or too may chromosomes in a cell -- arose in the workers, or occurred only after their cells were grown in petri dishes in the laboratory for the CFU-GM analysis.
"The way in which the [Zhang] study was conducted you can't tell if the aneuploidy was already present in the subjects or it came about only after the cells were out of the body and growing on the dishes," Albertini says. "If the study were done in a different way, and if the assertion that the aneuploidy actually did arise in the subjects' bodies [is correct], the distribution of the cells with aneuploidy will have a definite pattern."
Under Albertini's approach to the CFU-GM assay, when the cells taken from the workers are grown in the lab to test them, the individual colonies of the original cells would be maintained. Testing would be performed by cell colony, which would allow the researchers to determine the distribution of any aneuploid cells within and across cell colonies.
If there are colonies in which all of the cells are aneuploid, it is likely that the individual cells taken from the subjects already had the aneuploidy, Albertini explains. In this case, the chromosome changes really did arise in the bodies of the subjects.
But if the aneuploid cells are distributed in a way that a small number of them are found in all of the colonies but no colony is made up entirely of aneuploid cells, it is most likely that the aneuploidy arose in the dishes during the cells' outgrowth and the cells with aneuploidy did not originate in the workers, Albertini says.
He contrasts this approach with that used by Zhang and colleagues, who he says appear to have merged all of the cells from all of the colonies and then looked for aneuploid cells in the mixture. The result was then apparently compared to a mixture of cells from unexposed control subjects. But Albertini says it is aneuploid colonies, not cells, that is the marker of aneuploidy that arose in the body, and therefore of interest in a study to determine if formaldehyde has these chromosome effects on blood forming cells in humans.
"This cannot be determined from the study of Zhang et al," Albertini says, adding that the researchers should be congratulated for introducing the issue. "The importance of this question should push for a repeat study of formaldehyde exposed workers but performed in a manner where the important distinction between changes in the body or changes on petri dishes can be determined."
Albertini, who also attended EPA's formaldehyde workshop last year, says that researchers should stop arguing about the results of the Zhang study and their meaning, and instead, undertake the test he proposes. It would require finding a set of workers to sample, setting up a study review board which Albertini says should include Zhang or members of her team, EPA representatives and uninterested scientists to oversee the project. Further, he recommends that the CFU-GM testing be undertaken by a disinterested medical lab, such as one at the University of Cincinnati specializing in leukemia. Additionally, the analysis should be performed by uninterested, third-party statisticians, he says.
In his proposal to ACC, Albertini estimates that the study would cost around $200,000. The proposal is available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 184209)
Albertini says that ACC asked EPA to fund the study, and the agency declined.
Asked to comment, an ACC spokeswoman did not respond to the question, saying only, "[w]e fully support the replication of the Zhang study and encourage the EPA to follow-through on the NAS 2011 report and the 2014 workshop recommendations that the findings must be reproduced."
An EPA spokesman did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Zhang and colleagues at the University of California Berkeley have attempted to further investigate the findings of their earlier study with additional research. The most recent publication appeared in the journalCarcinogenesis in January, performing a broader chromosomal analysis to samples saved from the same workers included in the 2010 study. The study concludes that "our findings strengthen the evidence that leukemia-related aneuploidies and structural changes, especially in chromosomes 5 and 7, can arise in the myeloid progenitor cells of healthy workers exposed to [formaldehyde], and may be a potential mechanism underlying [formaldehyde]-induced leukemia."
Zhang and colleagues' newest publication -- which also employed the CFU-GM approach -- addresses Albertini's concern that the anueploidy observed in their studies could have occurred in vitro, rather than in vivo. The study acknowledges it as "a potential limitation of our study," but suggests that if so, this occurrence still supports the argument that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia.
"These events would therefore reflect a greater tendency for CFU-GM cells from workers exposed to [formaldehyde (FA)] to develop chromosomal abnormalities during cell growth compared to control workers who were unexposed to FA," the research team writes in the discussion section of their January publication. "Their significant association with FA exposure clearly shows the potential for FA-related genetic damage or DNA--protein crosslinks to manifest as leukemia-related chromosome changes in subsequent generations of myeloid cells arising from committed and early progenitors. Given the dynamic proliferation of stem cells and progenitor cells in human bone marrow during hematopoiesis, a greater tendency to develop chromosomal abnormalities would also support the leukemogenic potential of FA."
One of Zhang's co-authors, Martyn Smith, also a professor at Berkley, questions Albertini's approach in an email to Inside EPA. "His proposal to use a CFU-GM assay as we did, but to analyze single colonies instead of pooled ones, is interesting but would be much harder to do in practice (it is already very challenging to perform CFU-GM assays in the field) and would add little additional information in my view," Smith writes. "The important point is that the FA exposed workers had higher levels of aneuploidy in these CFU-GM cultures compared to matched unexposed controls. Replicating this finding would be of scientific interest but is not essential to regulatory action on formaldehyde in my view."
Smith adds that the research team shared the findings of their latest publication with EPA team conducting the formaldehyde IRIS assessment. "The science is clear in my view," Smith says. "Multiple studies have shown that formaldehyde causes chromosome damage in human blood cells and it is a reproductive toxicant harming the testes. If it can reach the testes to do harm, it can reach the bone marrow to cause leukemia." -
-
(ACC Mentioned) Solana Beach to Draft Polystyrene Ban
Sep 10, 2015 | The San Diego Union-Tribune
By Phil Diehl
Saying it hopes to be the first city in San Diego County to ban polystyrene food containers, the Solana Beach City Council on Wednesday directed staffers to prepare an ordinance that would outlaw the plastic.
“We don’t want to recycle it,” said Councilmember Peter Zahn, who proposed the idea. “We want it to not even appear in the waste stream.”
Dozens of California cities already ban or regulate the use of polystyrene, especially the expanded form of the plastic commonly know as Styrofoam and widely used for takeout and packaged foods.
The plastic is particularly harmful to the environment because it’s often used in single-use products and does not biodegrade.
Zahn suggested Solana Beach model its ordinance after one adopted in 2007 by Santa Monica, which prohibits businesses from dispensing food in expanded polystyrene or any non-recyclable plastic. Santa Monica also prohibits the plastics at all city events and functions.
Two plastics industry representatives sent letters to the Solana Beach council opposing the proposed ban — The American Chemistry Council and the California Restaurant Association.
Chris Duggan, director of government affairs for the Restaurant Association, said Wednesday afternoon by telephone that there are numerous reasons not to ban the plastic.
“There is a cost issue for some of the smaller restaurants,” he said, because most of the alternative materials are more expensive.
Duggan said efforts are under way to make polystyrene easier to recycle. One reason that’s difficult is because the plastic is often contaminated with food.
Councilmember Ginger Marshall cast the only vote against the resolution, saying recycling could be a solution to to the problem.
Encinitas City Council members agreed last year to consider a similar ban, and their proposed ordinance is expected in October, However, Solana Beach Councilmember David Zito said the Encinitas action may have stalled, and that a move by Solana Beach might spur Encinitas to “cross the finish line” with its ordinance.
-
Senate TSCA Bill Supporters Weigh Potential Filibuster-Proof October Vote
Sep 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss & Bridget DiCosmo
Supporters of a pending Senate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill are weighing a floor vote for the measure in October that they believe could secure more than 70 votes, easily enough to overcome a potential filibuster threat from a handful of Democrats who continue to have significant concerns about the legislation.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), opposes the bill because of its sweeping preemption of state chemical programs and other provisions. But the bill, S. 697, at press time had the backing of 23 Democrats and at least one Democratic senator expects that total to increase.
The bill should get “north of 70 votes,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said during a keynote address to the Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) fall meeting Sept. 2 in Newport, RI. Whitehouse and other Democrats that back S. 697 worked with the GOP to revise the bill to address a number of their concerns.
One Senate Republican source says “We're looking at hopefully before Columbus Day” on Oct. 12 for a floor vote. However, that date could change depending on other unrelated legislative priorities.
Supporters of the bill had urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to hold a vote before the full Senate before the upper chamber's August in-state work period from Aug. 10 through Labor Day on Sept. 7.
A spokeswoman for McConnell's office says, “We don’t have any scheduling announcements on that at this point,” but says the Senate is likely to first act on legislation to block the administration's pact with Iran under which the country has agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program in return for an easing of existing sanctions.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of EPW, has also said that his top priority is moving highway funding legislation that has cleared both chambers but still is awaiting a conference committee version.
If senators can process the bill to block the Iran deal and potentially a highway funding bill in the coming weeks, that could still put TSCA reform supporters on track for the target October date for a vote.
Democratic Sens. Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley (OR) and Cory Booker (NJ) worked with the bill's lead sponsors Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) on revisions to the bill, which included allowing states to be co-enforcers of chemical regulations and modifying the factors for when EPA designates a chemical as a “high priority.”
The changes to the bill have not been enough to appease Boxer, who has vowed to introduce dozens of amendments and possibly filibuster the measure due to her concerns about preemption and other provisions.
But the GOP source says that the bill is likely to have the support to get it through the Senate, saying the opposition is “such a small minority. . . . It doesn’t matter how much they stomp their feet.”
Vitter has said he wants to allow some amendments during floor debate, and supporters of the measure are working to ensure they have sufficient votes to defeat amendments that could derail the bill. Such amendments could be either riders to block unrelated EPA policies that the GOP opposes but Democrats support, or amendments that change the requirements of the legislation and cause current co-sponsors of the bill to withdraw their support in a final floor vote.
The bill cleared EPW in a 15-5 vote following an April 28 markup, with Sens. Boxer, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) voting against the legislation. S. 697 currently has 52 total co-sponsors: 23 Democrats and 29 Republicans including Vitter and Udall. A Markey staffer recently announced changes the senator wants made to the bill in order to secure his support.
Conference Committee
Even if the Senate holds a successful floor vote on S. 697 in October, lawmakers will still have to hold a conference committee to resolve differences between the bill and a narrower measure, H.R. 2576, that cleared the House in a 398-1 vote in late June.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who authored the House legislation, previously said that the two chambers have held "staff to staff meetings" to discuss the bills and options, including "informal conference, negotiating on the same bill, [or] formal conference.”
Boxer and some environmentalists opposed to the Vitter-Udall bill have recently urged the Senate to take up the lower chamber's legislation instead of S. 697, saying the Senate bill has too many problematic provisions including sweeping preemption of state chemicals programs.
However, the Senate GOP source says that the House bill is “more vague” than S. 697 and does not give EPA specific steps in the risk management process.
Whitehouse similarly told ECOS, “I think the Senate bill is a good one -- it certainly was worked very very hard. It's good right down to the details. . . . I'm hoping what we'll do is get into conference and start working out the differences and come out with a bill that everyone can get behind.”
Whitehouse said he does not know “how well the House bill would do by comparison” in a Senate floor vote, and hopes that the bill that would come out of the conference process would look like the Senate bill.
Pending Legislation
Both the House and Senate bills would overhaul the 1976 TSCA in order to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace, and eliminate legal hurdles in current law that have hindered the agency's ability to restrict dangerous chemicals, such as its 1991 failure to ban asbestos.
The House bill has narrower preemption of state toxics programs than S. 697. It would "grandfather," or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken effect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with new federal mandates. New state chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction under TSCA.
The Senate bill also contains more expansive language calling on EPA to seek data from industry where existing information is inadequate for the agency to determine whether a chemical is safe.
Speaking during a Sept. 2 panel at the ECOS meeting on industry approaches to sustainability, EPA toxics official David Widawksy appear to express support for data collection and risk-management provisions in the Senate bill that are absent in the House version. However, he did not specifically name the differences between the two bills to which he was referring generally.
“We're excited about the opportunities to then engage where we identify -- and it's not exactly certain -- but when we identify risks, to be able to manage those risks, with some of the language that's been introduced . . . We have our fingers crossed that we'll get some additional opportunities to work in that space,” said Widawsky, director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's (OCSPP) Chemistry, Economics and Sustainable Strategies Division.
Preemption Concerns
Also speaking during the ECOS meeting, OCSSP Deputy Assistant Administrator Louise Wise acknowledged that the potential of “preemption has been a big concern” for states tracking TSCA reform, but said EPA would prefer a bill that includes some measure of federal preemption of state toxics rules.
“We don't want to have the hard work and the good work of the states preempted prematurely. There may be a point, though, where once we act, consistency is not a bad thing,” she said.
Whitehouse said, “I think we're actually stronger on the preemption issue than most people think. The things that were provided on preemption are actually based on what the U.S. Constitution provides,” such as the supremacy clause.
But both Widawsky and Wise said EPA would prefer either reform bill to a continued stalemate on how to overhaul the decades-old toxics law.
“We appreciate the opportunities that have been discussed on the Hill for having access to more health and safety data so that we can make risk evaluations for chemicals. We're very excited about the opportunity to conduct those risk assessments so we can identify the chemicals we need to be focusing on for public, environmental and community health and safety,” Widawsky said.
Wise said, “We're hopeful that something will happen, because TSCA at this point is totally inadequate.”
-
Senate May Consider Chemical Bill After Iran: Aide
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter and Anthony Adragna
Legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemical statute is among the bills being considered for Senate floor action after the chamber acts on President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, a Republican leadership aide and several senators told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.In addition to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), other bills that could be brought up during the week of Sept. 21 are cybersecurity legislation (S. 754) and defense authorization legislation, the aide said.S. 697 would update the Toxic Substances Control Act, which governs industrial and other commercial uses of chemicals in the U.S. Supporters of the bill include Dupont, 3M, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, BASF Corp., Consumer Electronics Association, Dow Chemical Co. and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in August the bill, which would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since it became law in 1976, is an example of legislation considered ripe for consideration this fall (152 DEN A-1, 8/7/15).Narrow Window SeenThe Senate's scheduled recess for the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur on Sept. 23 creates a narrow window for action before the Senate's focus turns to the legislation to keep the government funded, which is expected the week of Sept. 28.“I really believe we're going to be right behind this Iranian thing,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters Sept. 9. “I think we're going to be ready to go. I feel very good about it.”A key obstacle to advancing the legislation is the degree to which Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will cooperate. The committee's ranking member and an opponent of the bill, Boxer has threatened to offer “hundreds” of amendments if the Senate does not use the narrower House-passed TSCA overhaul bill (H.R. 2576) as the starting point for debate.A spokeswoman for Boxer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.“She has very strong views but I'm hoping a robust amendment process will satisfy her,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a sponsor of the legislation, told Bloomberg BNA.Previous Efforts Fell ShortThe bill, which has 51 co-sponsors, would give the Environmental Protection Agency more authority to obtain toxicity and other information about chemicals and require it to evaluate chemicals that have been on the market for decades but were never subject to a safety review by the agency.Proponents of the bill hoped it would have been brought to the floor the last week prior to the Senate's adjournment for the fall recess, but McConnell opted, instead, to move ahead with the highway bill and cybersecurity legislation.“I'm encouraged we're still in the mix and we're going to keep pushing to make sure we get this done this year,” Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the measure's lead sponsor, told Bloomberg BNA. “The important thing is let's just get it on the floor. We're trying to work out an agreement so everybody gets the number of amendments that they want, and I think it'll work out best that way.”Inhofe ‘Feeling Good.'Inhofe also indicated to reporters that a TSCA revamp was likely to move before any other piece of environmental legislation. For example, S. 697 would move before any attempt to pass legislation (S. 1324) that would immediately kill off Obama's regulations to address climate change, the Oklahoma Republican said.“I know that Mitch McConnell would rather have something come up on the floor that we're going to win than something that we might win,” Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said. “I feel certain that we're going to win” on the overhaul of TSCA. -
TSCA First, then Clean Power Plan -- Inhofe
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E PM
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe said today that while he hopes the full Senate will vote to kill U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan before U.N. climate talks in Paris this December, a chemicals bill with broader support will likely move first.
The Oklahoma Republican told reporters he expects S. 697 -- an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act named for the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) -- to get a vote this fall ahead of legislation his committee has also passed to disable President Obama's signature carbon rule.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "would rather have something come up on the floor that we're going to win than something that we might win," Inhofe said, noting the TSCA bill's bipartisan list of 52 co-sponsors.
A vote ahead of Paris to kill the power plant carbon rule "would be helpful, sure," he said. But there are questions about when a vote might occur.
Already on the Senate floor schedule for this autumn is a resolution disapproving the Iran nuclear deal, legislation to fund the federal government and a reauthorization for highway funding, among other priorities. Inhofe said he expected TSCA to be "ready to go" after the Iran resolution, assuming it doesn't take two weeks.
Inhofe's panel has approved a bill, S. 1324, by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) that would disarm not only the Clean Power Plan but EPA's rules for new and modified power plants.
That measure is a possibility should the Iran resolution take less time than McConnell has allotted. But the majority leader has expressed support for using the Congressional Review Act to veto the Clean Power Plan -- a move that would allow a resolution to pass the Senate more easily with a simple majority, but that cannot occur until after the rule is published in theFederal Register.
EPA said last week the rule would be published by "no later than middle to late October." House and Senate opponents of the rule would have to wait until after that to use the CRA to register their disapproval.
While Obama would veto the resolution if it cleared both chambers, Inhofe said it is important to tell the parties to the U.N. conference that Congress doesn't back Obama's action on global warming.
"Most of the 192 countries that show up are not aware that we have a legislature to deal with, not just the president," he said. A vote on the Clean Power Plan, he said, will deliver that message.
-
"Switch to Safer" with your Household Cleaning Products
Sep 9, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Saudia Davis
In a rare moment of solidarity, it appears politicians, industry executives and environmentalists are working together to make changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The law, which was passed in 1976, has not seen any significant changes until now. According to a recent article in The Guardian, "Republicans and Democrats, along with environmentalists, the chemical industry, consumer product brands and retailers all say that the US needs a regulatory system that will restore consumer confidence in the safety of the products on store shelves."
Restoring consumer confidence is no small task, especially with documentaries such as "The Human Experiment" (now playing on Netflix!) showing us that we could quite possibly be part of the greatest chemical disaster of our time. As one reviewer stated, "We're all just lab rats, subject to endless clinical trials with every move, drink, bite, and breath."
According to the documentary, there are more than 80,000 chemicals available in the US--200 have been tested for safety, and only 5 have been regulated by the EPA. With health issues such as asthma, leukemia in children and ADHD increasing by more than 50 percent over the past 45 years, one could certainly make the argument that there is a connection between all those unregulated chemicals and the decline of our country's overall health and wellness.
For me, this documentary and those statistics hit very close to home. My grandmother was a housekeeper from the West Indies and inhaled toxic cleaning fumes for decades, eventually losing her battle with cancer. My family was convinced that those chemicals made her sick and it was the reason I started an eco-friendly cleaning company. And, it is the reason I am such a strong believer in the "Switch to Safer" campaign, an initiative launched by "The Human Experiment" to encourage consumers to switch to safer products made without toxic chemicals.
Here are 4 ways you can "Switch to Safer" with your household cleaning products:
Read Your Labels: Unfortunately, you don't have to prove a chemical is safe to get it into the market. For all-purpose cleaners, the Switch to Safer site recommends avoiding those that contain diethanolamine (DEA) and triethanolamine (TEA). "When these substances come into contact with nitrites they react to form nitrosamines - carcinogens that readily penetrate the skin." In addition do not use cleaners that contain "fragrance" which may have as many as 200 undisclosed chemicals. Checkout the EWG website for more information on decoding product labels.
Carefully Get Rid of Toxic Cleaners: Do not throw toxic chemicals down the drain or in the trash--if they are not safe for your home, they will not be safe for our environment. Visit the Earth911 website for great tips on how to recycle household cleaners--including where you can find local sites that will dispose of them properly. Also check with the Department of Public Works to see if there are specific collection days for your community.
Make Your Own DIY Products: Making your own cleaning supplies ensures you will always know what ingredients are in your products. Stock up on DIY basics such as baking soda, lemon juice and vinegar (click here for easy recipes) and turn your everyday kitchen ingredients into dirt fighting cleaning products.
Hire a Green Cleaning Service: If you don't have time to create your own all-natural cleaning supplies or even read through all those labels in the grocery store aisle, consider hiring an eco-friendly cleaning company. Be sure to ask exactly what cleaning products they will be using and inquire about their overall green practices (i.e. techniques they use to conserve electricity and water). Click here for 5 things you should consider when hiring a green cleaning company.
I encourage you to watch "The Human Experiment" and to take the first step towards "switching to safer", benefiting both people and our environment by choosing to use non-toxic products in your home.
-
EPA Finalizes Flame Retardant Alternate Analysis Despite NRDC Concerns
Sep 9, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has finalized alternative analyses for polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardant chemicals used in furniture foam and electronic circuit boards, downplaying concerns from environmentalists that the furniture analysis does not address all types of toxicity the traditional chemicals present, such as endocrine disruption.
EPA released Sept. 8 an update to its 2005 alternative analysis for pentabrominated diphenyl ether, a flame retardant used in furniture foam to meet government flammability standards. The new document, titled “Flame Retardants Used in Flexible Polyurethane Foam: An Alternatives Assessment Update,” explains that staff in EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program undertook the project in part due to ongoing flammability policy changes in California and at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the selection of several flame retardants as priorities for assessment in EPA's work plan risk assessment program as well as new alternative chemicals becoming available.
At the same time, EPA released a final version of its analysis of “Flame Retardants in Printed Circuit Boards,” and related response to comments document as well as a technical correction to its final 2014 alternative analysis of the use of bisphenol-A in thermal paper, such as printed receipts.
On its DfE website, the agency explains that staff “is concerned that certain PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment. The critical concern for human health is neurobehavioral effects.”
The furniture foam document explains that “[t]he impact of these [policy] changes in terms of flame retardant selection and use is as yet unknown; therefore, it is important that the most current information be available to decision makers, which requires an update of the chemicals and hazard data contained in the 2005 report.” The document adds that “[u]pdating the hazard and use information for these and related chemicals complements other assessment projects underway at EPA.”
The document points to California's 2013 update to its furniture flammability standard, known as Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117), which removed a requirement that furniture withstand an open flame for several seconds and instead replaced it with a smolder test intended to mimic a dropped cigarette. The change was intended to reduce the need to use flame retardant chemicals, though EPA's latest alternative analysis says that “for some fabrics, TB117-2013 will still require flame retardant coatings or other modifications.”
But, the document says that CPSC's following a draft national flame retardant standard, proposed in 2013, “may issue a performance-based standard that is more difficult to meet than TB117 (e.g., an open flame test); if they do, it may need to be met either with flame retardant inter-liners or with higher loads of flame retardants in foam . . .”
Chemical Comparison
EPA's updated report includes “16 flame retardant chemicals, one non-proprietary mixture, and 2 proprietary mixtures.” The report does not, however, include non-chemical alternatives to PBDEs, an issue that has dogged DfE alternative assessments for some years, including questions from members of a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed EPA's alternative analysis program and approach. Environmentalists have long pressed the agency to include other alternatives in their analyses, such as the use of barriers in furniture, rather than focus solely on alternate chemicals in the foam.
The new document says that “[b]ecause the DfE hazard criteria are developed for chemical-to-chemical comparison under a specific functional use, rather than material-to-material comparison, a life cycle assessment (LCA) might be a better tool for evaluating and comparing alternative materials . . .”
In its response to comments document, EPA defends concerns from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that the analysis “should clearly indicate which flame retardants do NOT have preferable profiles,” and that DfE staff reached conclusions about alternatives' toxicities with unadressed data gaps, including no analysis of endocrine disruption.
“All of the chemicals indicated as 'potentially preferable' are missing empirical data for at least half of the human health hazard endpoints, and none have any data available on potential endocrine disruption activity,” EPA summarizes the NRDC comments as saying. “We are very concerned that there are no data available for endocrine disruption for the entire category of flame retardants assigned lower levels of hazard in the other human health endpoints. This experience indicates that when there are significant data gaps associated with a chemical, caution is warranted and more study is needed before indicating that the chemical may be preferable.”
But EPA responds that its goal “is to provide access to the best information available -- including both empirical and modeled data -- that allows users to make informed choices and identify safer chemicals,” and it does so by providing the best information it can, based on data, modeling and the expert judgment of its staff. “If alternatives with complete data sets are the only alternatives considered for substitution, there would be few replacement options -- with limited opportunities to provide incremental improvements in terms of reduced hazards, and could steer users to better characterized but less safe alternatives.”
But EPA does, at NRDC's request, add to the document “to further acknowledge the possible formation of transformation products from flame retardant combustion.”
EPA also responds to comments from several companies regarding additional data for various chemicals to be included in the furniture alternative analyses, resulting in some changes to hazard level designations for individual endpoints. For example, EPA says that it changed its eye irritation hazard level for Benzoic acid, 2,3,4,5-tetrabromo-, 2-ethylhexyl ester from low to moderate after receiving an eye irritation study from chemical manufacturer Chemtura Corporation.
-
California Passes Bill to Ban Plastic Microbeads
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California lawmakers sent legislation to Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to ban the sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads, beginning Jan. 1, 2020.A.B. 888, sent to the governor Sept. 8, would make California the ninth state to impose restrictions on the use of the tiny synthetic particles in facial scrubs, body washes, soaps and toothpastes. California's law, however, would be the strictest, Assembly Member Richard Bloom (D), the bill's author, said in a written statement.Passed by the Assembly on a final vote of 64-12, A.B. 888 doesn't include exemptions for biodegradable plastic microbeads, or a process to exempt biodegradable plastic, as the other state laws provide, Californians Against Waste Executive Director Mark Murray told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.Such exemptions are “vague” loopholes, Murray said. “There is no such thing as biodegradable plastic.”A provision in A.B. 888 states that “plastic is not biodegradable into elements or compounds commonly found in nature like other organic materials, but, instead, upon exposure to the elements photodegrades into smaller pieces of plastic causing land and water pollution that is virtually impossible to remediate.”Used as exfoliates or colorants, plastic microbeads aren't captured by wastewater treatment systems. As a result, they end up being discharged to local waterways, posing a threat to marine life and potentially to those that consume fish that ingest the particles.“A single product can contain 350,000 microbeads,” according to the Californians Against Waste and other groups that support A.B. 888.“We're extremely pleased by the passage of A.B. 888,” Roberta Larson, executive director of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, said in a written statement. “Controlling these microbeads at their source is simply good public policy.”Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin have all enacted legislation restricting the use of plastic microbeads in personal care products. The Wisconsin and Connecticut laws don't include an exemption for biodegradable plastic but do offer a process for manufacturers to apply for such exemptions, Murray said.Meanwhile, some personal care product manufacturers, including Unilever PLC, the Body Shop, Johnson & Johnson, Beiersdorf, L'Oreal and Procter & Gamble, have agreed to phase out the use of microbeads within a few years. -
California Legislature Passes 'Strongest' Microbeads Bill in US
Sep 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The California legislature has passed a bill banning plastic microbeads from personal care products, effective 1 January 2020.
Unlike similar state laws aimed at curbing pollution from the tiny plastic exfoliants, California's more stringent measure AB 888 covers all plastic microbeads, including those made from biodegradable materials (CW 31 July 2014).
Blake Kopcho, campaign manager at 5 Gyres – an NGO that supported the bill – said AB 888 “closes the so-called 'bioplastic loophole' that we've seen passed in numerous other states, and it provides the strongest protection against plastic microbead pollution in the country” (CW 13 August 2015).
The personal care products industry has largely supported efforts to phase out “traditional”, non-biodegradable plastic microbeads. However, an industry coalition says the bill will have the "perverse effect of stifling innovation and slowing the transition to more environmentally friendly alternatives”.
Additionally, it could “create a legal quagmire, leaving the interpretations of the definitions and what is covered up to the courts,” according to opposition comments referenced by the legislature.
Bill opponents in the coalition include:the California Chamber of Commerce;Johnson & Johnson;Reckitt Benckiser; andProcter & Gamble.
In a joint letter, they say that although they have supported bills in other states, “the 'plastic microbead' definition in AB 888 will halt progress as it puts into question alternatives that are naturally derived or nature identical”.
Molly Morse, CEO of California-based biodegradable plastics producer Mango Materials, said the bill “will need to be amended to foster innovation and clearly allow environmentally friendly alternatives ... to enter the market,” The company produces polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), a naturally-occurring substance produced by certain bacteria used as an alternative to polyethylene.
Ms Morse added that some natural alternatives like walnut hulls or seeds “may first appear as environmentally sensitive substitutions”, but they may be persistent in ecosystems, cause allergies, or result in contamination when processed. She says the company “[encourages] clear definitions and also transparent tests and/or performance criteria to prevent regrettable substitutions”.
Although Mango Materials did lend its support to the bill, Micro Powders – which produces a polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) alternative – opposed it.
A previous version of the bill that failed in the Senate included provisions that would have:established an alternatives review process, whereby a manufacturer could seek approval from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on a plastic alternative that does not cause human health or environmental harm; andincluded a definition of “natural exfoliants,” that would be explicitly exempted from the phase-out.
According to Assembly member Richard Bloom, who authored the bill, industry failed to reach a consensus on the DTSC approvals process and the definition of “natural exfoliant,” and requested that the legislature remove the associated text.
However, according to Mr Bloom: “Myself, the bill supporters, and industry have all pledged to continue to work together in the next session to develop a policy and a process for reviewing and hopefully promoting alternatives that are effective without posing a threat to public health or the environment.”
5 Gyres said it is “confident” that Governor Jerry Brown will sign the bill into law.
-
Unilever And EPA Join For Animal-Free Chemical Testing
Sep 10, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Mike McCoy
The European consumer goods maker Unilever and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have formed a research collaboration aimed at assessing the safety of chemicals found in consumer products without using animal testing.
Under the program, the partners will choose five chemicals of mutual interest. EPA will use computer models and high-throughput screening to develop toxicity data on the chemicals. Unilever will use its consumer products knowledge to estimate human exposure to the chemicals.
“We can then marry these two—the dose and the exposure—to measure the health risks,” says Russell Thomas, director of EPA’s National Center for Computational Toxicology.
In 2012, EPA formed a similar program with the French firm L’Oréal that targeted 20 chemicals found in L’Oréal personal care products. With the Unilever collaboration, EPA seeks to introduce elements that have been missing from automated screening, such as incorporating information about how the chemicals being tested are metabolized.
Thomas says the collaborations aim to speed up testing of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. for which safety information isn’t known. Unilever and L’Oreal hope the strategy will reduce use of animal testing in the development of their products.
Jessica Sandler, senior director of the regulatory testing department at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an activist group, notes that EPA already used computation models in its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Sandler says she believes the Unilever collaboration will provide “valuable experience with these methods that is needed in order to eventually end the use of animals in painful chemical toxicity tests.”
-
99.5 Percent of Sites Clear Chemical Security Milestone
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Nearly every one of the more than 3,100 facilities regulated under the Department of Homeland Security's program designed to protect the nation's industrial facilities against the risk of terrorist attacks has completed at least the halfway point in the program, a fact sheet posted Sept. 8 shows.According to the data, 3,178 of the 3,197 dry cleaners, chemical manufacturers, universities, hospitals, warehouses and other sites covered under the program have had their site security plans authorized under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. That represents the halfway point in the process, followed by an authorization inspection and then ultimate approval of a plan to protect the site from terrorist threats.The DHS also said that nearly two-thirds of the sites—2,104 of the 3,197 currently regulated sites—had received approval for their site security plans.Companies subject to the regulatory requirements of CFATS include Dow Chemical Co., 3M, Eastman Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Dupont.Notable Progress in CFATSThe DHS has rapidly accelerated the pace of its review of site security plans over the last three years. In September 2012, the department told Congress it had authorized just 73 site security plans and approved just two of them.Steady progress in reviewing the security plans led Congress to grant the program a four-year reauthorization (Pub. L. No. 109-295) in December 2014. That legislation came after changes in leadership at Homeland Security improved the speed of security plan approvals and appeared to reduce wasteful spending.One aspect of the data that remains unexplained by the DHS is why so many facilities are no longer regulated under the CFATS program. In March 2014, for example, there were 4,199 regulated sites but there are now just 3,197 facilities.DHS officials have previously indicated sites could drop out of the regulatory program by reducing the volumes of chemicals they store on-site or by altering their production processes but have not specifically indicated what more than 1,000 entities have done to change their regulatory status.New PrioritiesDepartment officials indicated in July that chemical facilities would start seeing more compliance site visits this fall and winter as the CFATS program shifts into a new areas of emphasis (142 DEN A-5, 7/24/15).That commitment came as the Government Accountability Office said the department needed to verify information submitted by regulated entities and develop standardized procedures to address noncompliance under the CFATS program. -
Bill to End Crude Export Bill Ready for its Audition
Sep 10, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Legislation to end the four-decade-old ban on exporting most U.S. crude will see its first House action today, a markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee's subpanel on energy and power. Democrats may hold much of their fire on the exports issue, at least until a full committee markup next week. Meanwhile, lobbyists and lawmakers eager to keep the ban in place are looking ahead to a Senate firewall. That's because the prospects for ending the export restrictions for good rely on senators striking a deal that can get any bill to the magic number of 60 — and even though several moderate Democrats are in play already, a leadership aide told POLITICO that simply extending renewable tax credits won't be enough to bring the president's party on board.
If you go: The markup of H.R. 702, the House vehicle for lifting oil export limits, begins at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Blue Dogs want a bite at crude oil: The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 15 fiscally conservative Democrats in the House, announced it would support lifting the crude oil export ban. “It makes no sense that the U.S. can export refined oil products, but not crude oil," said Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration Kurt Schrader. http://1.usa.gov/1FynazZ
Oilies will flood the zone: Oil groups are timing a wave of advertisements to coincide with today's hearing. The American Petroleum Institute will launch a television and online campaign in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The ads use quotes from various media outlets to argue that lifting the ban on oil exports will be good for the economy. Another group, Producers for American Crude Oil Exports launched a digital and cable television ad campaign yesterday in four states that links the expected increase in Iranian oil production to the crude oil ban vote. The ad will run air through next week on cable news and digital channels in Chicago, Illinois; New York City; Davenport, Iowa; and Houston, Texas. http://bit.ly/1FyEUv4
On the other hand, what about the source? Lifting the crude oil ban without reforming the royalty system for public lands could cost taxpayers a cool half-billion dollars, according to a report from the Center for Western Priorities due out this morning. The report says royalty rates on federal lands were set in 1920 and are far lower than royalties on state-owned land. http://bit.ly/1JVlQsU
HOUSE GOP REVOLTS OVER IRAN DEAL; OIL TRADERS YAWN: Oil traders have largely priced in the idea that President Obama's deal with Iran over the country's nuclear program will survive whatever Congress can throw at it, including a revolt of House Republicans yesterday, said Jamie Webster, director of crude oil markets for IHS Consulting Services.
"Oil markets have assessed that the deal is likely to take place quite some time ago," Webster told ME. Instead, traders are far more interested in knowing just when Iran can meet its requirements to get sanctions lifted, and exactly how well it will recover from producing minimal oil since 2012. As Webster puts it, "How much can they bring and how fast can they bring it?"
-
Move to Lift Export Ban Gains Ground On The Hill
Sep 10, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey, Geof Koss and Daniel Bush
Bipartisan momentum for lifting the crude export ban appeared to grow in the lower chamber yesterday, while Republican senators mulled a deal to bring their Democratic colleagues on board.
Seven more House members, including a single Democrat, Rep. Rubén Hinojosa of Texas, lent their names to H.R. 702, legislation that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) introduced to end curbs on oil exports that were originally put in place in the 1970s. That added support arrived ahead of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power's markup of the language today.
The bill now has 120 co-sponsors, including 14 Democrats.
One of those backers, Rep. Brad Ashford (D-Neb.), said he considers himself a free-trade Democrat and hasn't felt any pressure to block Barton's bill from the left. Ashford added that he opposes bans on exports of any kind of U.S. energy and believes that allowing energy firms to sell abroad will ultimately foster diversification.
"I don't like bans on any of our exports," he said, adding that an oil boom has taken hold of the United States. "[The crude export ban] was put in during a time of shortage ... I just don't understand why we can't now refine oil, export oil. I'm not for bans."
The push to lift the ban is also being fueled off Capitol Hill by industry groups that have seized on the Iran deal to argue their case. The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's leading lobbying group, today launched a new television and digital ad campaign in a dozen states and the District of Columbia urging voters to back crude oil exports.
"We're speaking directly to the consumers and workers who will benefit from lifting these outdated trade restrictions," Louis Finkel, API's executive vice president of government affairs, said in a statement.
API's ads are running in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Washington, D.C. The ad blitz comes at a busy time for API, which is reportedly eyeing a merger with America's Natural Gas Alliance, another leading industry player (E&E Daily, Sept. 9).
But API isn't the only group actively lobbying Congress to lift the export ban. Producers for American Crude Oil Exports (PACE) also launched a television and online campaign today calling on House lawmakers to back Barton's bill.
"This policy is outdated and no longer needed in this new era of energy abundance," a female narrator says in the three-minute spot. "If the price of international crude oil comes down, you guessed it -- so, too, will the price at the pump here in the U.S."
PACE Executive Director George Baker said the ads, which are running in Chicago, New York City, Houston and Davenport, Iowa, are part of an "ongoing education and engagement process" to bring lawmakers on board with Barton's stand-alone export legislation.
But less straightforward is the debate in the Senate, where a possible deal between Republicans and Democrats appears to be firming up.
Republican critics of the Iran deal in the upper chamber continue to argue that letting Tehran export oil while keeping American domestic export restrictions in place is unfair to U.S. producers.
"If the president wants to lift the ban so that Iran can export crude oil, then he ought to lift the ban in the United States, as well," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told E&E Daily yesterday. Barrasso said he wants to see legislation ending the export ban, which passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July and also expands offshore revenues with coastal states, brought to the floor.
However, Barrasso said he'd be willing to discuss a deal with Democrats that would lift the ban in exchange for helping renewables, as well. "I'm always happy to listen to colleagues that work together on legislation which I'd support," he said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last month said he'd be willing to discuss such a compromise. "And I would hope that we can get something in return if we're willing to do that," he said. "There's a lot of things that we could do, with more tax credits and things of that nature" (Greenwire, Aug. 25).
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) this week said she was aware of Reid's comments but that she had yet to discuss them with other lawmakers. "I haven't talked to a live human being about it to determine if it's real or if it's just a statement, so we'll find out," she told reporters Monday.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday that the Iran argument is resonating with some Democrats. "That conversation has been taking place in our caucus for a long time," he told E&E Daily. "Sen. [Heidi} Heitkamp [D-N.D.] feels very strongly, and there's others, too."
Durbin opened the door to legislation that would allow some exports, although he also expressed some hesitation.
"I'd like to see some limits on it," he said. "Forgive me, but it hasn't been that long ago that we were the victims of the OPEC embargoes, and although things have changed dramatically, some of us are still reluctant to say, 'Well, we don't have to worry anymore. We're energy independent forever.' So there's a little bit of reluctance on my part and some others to just say, 'Forget the past.' I wouldn't do that."
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Energy Committee, said protecting consumers is "first and foremost" in her mind in discussions on lifting the ban. "We want to make sure that both the industrial users who need affordable energy get it and that consumers get it, as well," she told reporters Monday.
Still, a deal remains murky, with some senators who have voiced interest in a renewables sweetener still awaiting word about a potential compromise. "I haven't heard of any [deal], but I'm waiting," said independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who earlier this year said he would negotiate on the ban if offered wind and solar tax incentives.
And some Republicans rejected the need to bargain.
"I don't think it necessarily deserves having to ... cave in on something you otherwise wouldn't have," Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters yesterday. "I think it's a good enough deal; there are no losers."
-
Oil Exports Deal May Hinge on Green Compromise
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
Congress may be closer to ending the ban on crude oil exports than ever before, but its future in the Senate could hinge on whether lawmakers can reach a deal that offers a boost to green energy.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told POLITICO last month that he wants to "come up with a deal" on crude exports, but Democrats signaled this week that they will set a high bar for any compromise that would repeal the decades-old prohibition on overseas sales of U.S. crude.
A senior Democratic leadership aidesaid that simply extending renewable energy tax credits in exchange for lifting the ban is "not enough" to secure liberal lawmakers' support. But the aide declined to discuss other policy measures that would win over Democrats, and warned that eliminating the restrictions on crude exports would result in a "windfall" for the oil industry — a sign that top Democrats are wary of lifting the ban.
Meanwhile, Republicans are deeply skeptical that Democrats are serious about a compromise and they are worried about the types of concessions liberals might demand. For now, they are hoping they can peel off enough moderates to pass a stand-alone crude exports bill without having to strike a deal with Democratic leadership.
"We feel so strongly about it that I don't think it necessarily deserves having to cave in on something you otherwise wouldn't" support, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in an interview, calling an end to the export ban "a good enough deal" without having to negotiate with critics who "want to kill fossil fuels."
But even Democrats' biggest climate hawks in the Senate aren't ruling out a deal that lets the domestic oil industry ship their product abroad. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said he might oppose a stand-alone export bill, but he added he would "never say never about the possibility of a deal that makes sense."
For now, both Senate Democrats and Republicans say they're waiting for the other side to make the first move.
“I’ve not heard any offer," one GOP aide said. “What concessions does Reid want? This universe is pretty vague.”
The Democratic leadership aide offered a similar sentiment, saying it was "hard to know what a compromise looks like when [Republicans] haven’t really offered anything yet."
Exporting crude freely for the first time since the restrictions were put in place in the 1970s in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo appeared to be an overly ambitious goal for the industry at the beginning of the year.
But developments outside the Beltway have contributed to the momentum, fromthe swoon in oil prices that sent crude to the lowest levels in nearly seven years — a drop exacerabated by Saudi Arabia's refusal to pare its exports — to the pendingnuclear pact that could see sanctions on Iranian oil exports lifted.
A measure ending the ban authored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is set to reach the House floor as soon as the end of September, following debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee that kicks off with an expected subpanel vote on Thursday.Still, that momemtum could prove short-lived if opponents of the ban fail to find a path to the 60 votes necessary to get a bill through the Senate.
"This bill is in for a tough sled, especially when and if it gets to the Senate," said Jay Hauck, executive director of the pro-ban coalition Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Crude. "To get over 60 is a very steep hill to climb."
If every Senate Republican votes in favor of the bill, at least six Democrats would need to follow suit. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) has been working behind the scenes for months to convince Democrats to back the effort to lift the ban, sources said, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is also a strong supporter of elimintating the crude export limits.
Backers of crude exports are eyeing several other Democrats — including Sens. Martin Heinrich, Bob Menendez, Tom Udall, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine and Michael Bennet — as possible converts to a potential deal. Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, is also on their list.
Heinrich, Bennet and King have all said they are open to lifting the ban as long as it is done as part of a broader package that focuses on renewable energy development and climate change, while Warner has indicated openness to an exports package that also includes infrastructure and energy security elements.
Kaine is "carefully studying" the issue, a spokeswoman said, "and analyzing what the net impacts would be for U.S. jobs, energy prices, and national security."
Menendez has said he would support "licensing the strategic export of American oil to allied countries struggling with supply" while much of Iran's oil is locked up by sanctions. But his office clarified that "in no way does he support a blind expansion of crude exports to enhance the profits of Big Oil and possibly force U.S. consumers to pay even more at the pump."
Heitkamp, through a spokeswoman, said she is "very encouraged" by her colleagues' willingness to engage on the exports issue.
The American Petroleum Institute's top lobbyist, Louis Finkel, said in an interview that "it’s premature to speculate about what other policy matters might bleed into" any future Senate debate on crude exports. But he declined to close the door outright to pairing an exports bill with measures to promote renewable energy, saying that "it's something policymakers have to decide for themselves, whether these two matters are related or not related."
Finkel made clear, however, that API would strongly oppose any proposal on crude exports that would impose a per-barrel fee on oil sales or raise the cost of oil production.
Even if a package of green incentives -- such as an extension of perennially embattled tax credits for wind and solar -- were to win 60 votes for a bill ending crude exports, the deal would face significant resistance among House conservatives who want to see the ban removed without sweeteners for the left.
"Republicans would have to be morons to agree to that deal" marrying oil exports to renewables and climate language, GOP energy lobbyist Mike McKenna said in an interview. "We may have a Republican president in 16 months. Making a deal in 2017 may be a necessity. Making a deal now is not a necessity."
Hauck's pro-export ban coalition sought to sow some nervousness among Republicans with new polling on Wednesday that found voters in the key swing states of Illinois and Pennsylvania more likely to punish than reward lawmakers who vote for exports.
The lobbying coalition working to end the ban, Producers for American Crude Oil Exports, or PACE, pushed back with a new TV ad campaign in the cities of Houston, Chicago, New York and Davenport, Iowa, as well as a lengthy list of Obama administration veterans who have recently come out in favor of overseas oil sales, from former White House adviser Larry Summers to Jason Bordoff, the National Security Council's former senior director for energy and climate change.
"I don't have a crystal ball," PACE Executive Director George Baker said in an interview, but "given where we were in January," the growing ranks of Democrats in favor of crude exports represent "a major statement on the maturity of the issue."
-
Oil Group Launches Ads Hitting Crude Export Ban
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The oil industry’s top trade group is hitting the airwaves to promote legislation ending the ban on crude oil exports.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is launching television ads in 12 states and the District of Columbia this week calling on Congress to pass a bill allowing crude oil exports for the first time since the 1970s.
API released two ads, one noting the support for lifting the ban from newspapers and labor unions around the country and another saying it would be important for national security.
“Who loves the ban on U.S. crude oil exports? Iran and Russia, not exactly our best friends,” thatad says.
“Lifting the ban would increase domestic oil production, and that strengthens our national security. With America’s energy boom, our allies don’t have to rely on energy from Iran and Russia.”
The ad buy — which an API spokesman described as “significant” — comes as the U.S. House begins debating legislation to lift the ban this fall.
A House Committee will consider a bill from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) on Thursday to end the ban, something endorsed by most members of GOP leadership.
In the Senate, members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted to lift the ban in August.
“We’re speaking directly to the consumers and workers who will benefit from lifting these outdated trade restrictions,” said Louis Finkel, API’s executive vice president for government affairs.
“The House and Senate are considering bipartisan legislation to lift the ban, and it’s important to share the facts on how free trade in oil could create new jobs, put downward pressure on fuel costs, and strengthen our energy security.”
Environmental groups, some oil refiners and many Democrats oppose lifting the ban, arguing that, among other things, it would increase oil consumption and prices in the United States.
Boosters of ending the ban say that’s not true, pointing to a federal report on gas prices that came out last week.
-
Fuel Refiner Group Warns Vulnerable Senators against Oil Exports
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A coalition of petroleum refiners released surveys Wednesday to warn Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) against voting to lift the ban on crude oil exports.
Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, or the CRUDE Coalition, commissioned the polls, which show that significant numbers of voters in Illinois and Pennsylvania — though not majorities — want to keep the ban on oil exports in place.
Kirk and Toomey are among the most vulnerable senators up for reelection next year, and are two top targets for Democrats hoping to take back the Senate majority.
“It is clear from these results that the export ban on crude oil is a complicated issue that is tied closely to core concerns of a diverse collection of ideological and demographic groups,” Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research, which conducted the polling, said of the Illinois results.
In Pennsylvania, the firm concluded that “voters will indeed be using their fear of foreign dependency on oil when casting their votes this election season.”
Among Illinois voters, 46 percent said they favored keeping the 40-year-old export ban in place, compared with 42 percent opposed.
In Pennsylvania, 49 percent support the ban on exports, and only 39 percent want to lift it.
Similar numbers of voters in both states said that they were likely to vote for Senate candidates who agreed with their positions.
-
Dem Strategist Takes on Oil Industry -- Despite the Odds
Sep 10, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Democratic strategist Karl Frisch concedes he's outnumbered and badly outspent by the oil industry when it comes to waging a campaign to keep the nation's decades-old ban on crude exports intact.
But that's not stopping the 37-year-old syndicated columnist, former Capitol Hill staffer and principal of the new nonprofit Allied Progress from trying to educate the public about why he believes lifting the ban is dangerous.
"We don't have the oil and gas industry's wealthy lobbyists up on the Hill," Frisch said during an interview yesterday. "[But] prior to getting involved in this effort, this whole thing was happening basically behind closed doors with a few stories here and there. Nobody was talking about this issue because the oil and gas industry wanted to get this done quietly so nobody would have time to form opposition or to speak out about the impacts that repeal would have."
Last month, Frisch launched Allied Progress, which is running a bare-bones $37,000 ad campaign in Colorado, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and New Mexico calling on people to urge their senators to vote against any attempt to repeal or weaken the 1970s export ban.
The campaign began in New Jersey targeting Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez. The new ads target Sens. Michael Bennet (D) and Cory Gardner (R) of Colorado, Susan Collins (R) and Angus King (I) of Maine, Jon Tester (D) and Steve Daines (R) of Montana, Kelly Ayotte (R) and Jeanne Shaheen (D) of New Hampshire, and Tom Udall (D) and Martin Heinrich (D) of New Mexico.
Frisch's message arrives as momentum grows in the House to lift the ban -- a markup on a bill to do just that is taking place today -- and key senators signal a willingness to negotiate in return for hefty renewable tax incentives. But Frisch is quick to note that Allied Progress doesn't have the muscle of oil interests on Capitol Hill nor is it a lobbying group. Instead, the nonprofit relies on "hard-hitting research and communication firepower," he said.
Allied Progress came to life using money from the nonprofit New Venture Fund, a 501(c)(3) based in Washington, D.C., established in 2006 to serve as a platform for launching and operating charitable projects. Donors and foundations go through the fund to support projects like Allied Progress, helping provide management services like payroll and benefits.
New Venture Fund is led by a board of directors that includes President Eric Kessler, a former national field director for the League of Conservation Voters and White House appointee who helped manage conservation issues during the Clinton administration. Kessler owns a few popular D.C. restaurants, including G, Graffiato and Kapnos. Other staffers and board members have been affiliated with the conservation group ecoAmerica.
Frisch said his career, which has spanned both sides of the aisle and both coasts, is helping him play hardball with special interests.
"I don't come to this not knowing how things work on the Hill," he said. "I worked on the Hill maybe only for a year, but when big policy changes are pursued, people pushing those policy changes would like it if the American people didn't know about it."Path to Washington
Frisch was born and raised in Los Angeles. His father was a police officer, and his mother worked as a waitress.
He landed his first political job working for Republicans after graduating from high school.
In 2000, he did press advance and field work for Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. That gig would land Frisch a spot on CNN talking about his long hours and lack of sleep to rouse voters.
Frisch later came out of "two closets," according to his online bio -- once as a gay man and again for being a progressive Democrat.
He has worked for an array of Democratic politicians and campaign committees, including former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Frisch worked as a communications director and then as a senior fellow from 2006 to 2011 at Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog.
Frisch later was a partner at the D.C.-based communications firm Bullfight Strategies through the summer of 2014 before branching out solo, becoming principal of Karl Frisch Associates LLC, for a little more than a year. That's when Frisch took on New Venture Fund as a client, setting the stage for Allied Progress.
But Frisch's political career also means he's worked for members of Congress who now support lifting the crude export ban. McCain recently penned an op-ed in Foreign Policycalling on Congress to lift the 40-year-old ban.
Despite his early days of canvassing for the Republican, Frisch was unmoved.
"[McCain] has been wrong on a lot of issues," Frisch said. "I've seen the light since 2000; I wish he had, too."
-
Gosar to Pursue Impeachment of EPA's McCarthy
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) will introduce a resolution Sept. 10 or 11 that would impeach Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy for alleged perjury in congressional testimony, his spokesman, Steven Smith, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.Gosar alleges McCarthy committed perjury when testifying about the agency's Clean Water Act jurisdictional rulemaking during three congressional hearings: July 9 before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee; July 29 before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; and Feb. 4 before the Senate Environment and Public Works and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.“Administrator McCarthy committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings, and as a result, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors—an impeachable offense,” Gosar said in a draft ‘Dear Colleague' letter obtained by Bloomberg BNA. “This bill holds Administrator McCarthy accountable for her blatant deceptions and unlawful conduct.”The EPA declined to comment on the Gosar resolution.Specific AllegationsAccording to the draft letter, Gosar believes McCarthy made false statements about how the EPA worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop its clean water rule (80 Fed. Reg. 37,054). In particular, the Arizona Republican said McCarthy made false statements Feb. 4 about its engagement with states in crafting the regulation.Additionally, Gosar said the EPA head made false statements about how the agency developed a 4,000-foot threshold to evaluate federal regulatory jurisdiction for certain waterways in the final rule (RIN 2040-AF30). During the July 9 hearing, the administrator said the threshold was based on “both the knowledge and expertise of our staff, the information that we received from the public and comments, and the science that's available to us.”That's not true, Gosar said. Leaked memos from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers show that the 4,000-foot threshold was arbitrary and not based on any scientific threshold, he said.Gosar further took issue with comments made July 29 by McCarthy in which she said the EPA had addressed serious concerns from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in preparing the final rule. Leaked memos from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers later showed McCarthy's statements to be false (132 DEN A-1, 7/10/15).Two Distinct Steps Required for RemovalRemoving McCarthy from office would require two distinct steps. A majority of House members would first have to approve articles of impeachment in the form of a resolution, and then two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote to convict her following a trial.No Cabinet-level official has ever been successfully impeached. Just eight of the 19 federal officials impeached by the House were actually convicted and removed from office.As Gosar prepares to circulate his letter to garner support for impeaching McCarthy, one of the agency's most vocal critics in the Senate said he didn't believe impeachment was appropriate.“I've never believed that anyone pursuing impeachment gains anything if they don't win,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters. “The House makes their decision and we make ours.”Inhofe acknowledged he was “disappointed” by McCarthy's tenure as the head of the EPA and said she was more difficult to work with than prior EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. -
Rep. Gosar Seeks to Impeach McCarthy over WOTUS Statements
Sep 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Annie Snider
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) is launching a bid to impeach U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy over statements she made to Congress about the Obama administration's contentious water rule.
Gosar, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Natural Resources committees, has been circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter to members charging that several statements McCarthy made about the Waters of the U.S. rule during testimony were false and that, as such, she "is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors -- an impeachable offense."
Gosar spokesman Steven Smith said by email this afternoon that the congressman is planning to introduce legislation that would kick off impeachment proceedings before the end of the week.
Among the statements the Arizonan takes issue with: McCarthy's response to a question during a July 9 hearing before the House Space, Science and Technology Committee about how a 4,000-foot boundary for jurisdictional waters was set in the final rule. McCarthy said that justification for the provision "is available in the docket" and that the agency relied on "both the knowledge and expertise of our staff, the information that we received from the public and comments, and the science that's available to us."
But Gosar contends in his "Dear Colleague" letter that leaked memos from Army Corps of Engineers experts show that McCarthy's statement was false and that the limit was not based on science (Greenwire, July 27).
His letter also claims that statements McCarthy made before other committees about whether the corps' concerns about the final rule were addressed, and whether the final rule would increase federal authority, were false.
Last month, several Republican members of the House Space, Science and Technology Committee sought clarification from McCarthy about some of these statements, warning that further "investigative action" may be taken if she did not respond (E&ENews PM, Aug. 12).
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment until the legislation is filed.
Impeachment is a two-step process that begins in the House with articles of impeachment in the form of a resolution. It takes a simple majority to pass such legislation, after which the accused has been impeached. Then the Senate can try the official, with a two-thirds majority required for conviction. If that passes, the accused is removed from office and additional punishment may be levied.
It does not appear as if there is much appetite in the Senate for an impeachment bid, though, even among EPA's staunchest critics.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters today that he was not part of any such plans.
"I've never believed that anyone pursuing an impeachment gains anything if they don't win," he said. "The House makes its decision, we make ours. I'm not a part of it."
But Inhofe stopped short of saying whether he thought McCarthy deserved to be impeached, although he made it clear he is not a fan of hers.
"I was very fond of her predecessor, Lisa Jackson, and I've been disappointed in her," Inhofe said. "But I don't want to say 'impeached.' I don't want to say the 'I' word."
-
House Republican Aims to Impeach EPA's McCarthy
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Rep. Paul Gosar is pushing to impeach EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The Arizona Republican's resolution alleges that McCarthy is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and thus should be forcibly removed by Congress. It specifically accuses her of committing perjury while testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 29, as well as making "false statements" before the House Science Committee on July 9 and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 4. The resolution doesn't detail the allegedly false statements.
A "Dear Colleague" letter from Gosar asking for support for the resolution specifies statements made about the development of the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Gosar expects to introduce the resolution soon but is still working with leadership to finalize timing, a spokesman said. It remains to be seen whether it would actually receive a vote. A senior House GOP aide said there are no plans to vote to impeach McCarthy.
An EPA spokesperson was not immediately available to comment.
-
GOP Lawmaker Looks to Impeach EPA Chief
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2
By Devin Henry
A Republican congressman is looking to impeach the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) is circulating a resolution calling for the impeachment of EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, accusing her of perjury while testifying before Congress this year.
“Perjury and making false statements to Congress are an affront to the fundamental principles of our republic and the rule of law, and such behavior cannot be tolerated,” Gosar wrote in a letter to colleagues looking for co-sponsors for his resolution.
“This bill holds Administrator McCarthy accountable for her blatant deceptions and unlawful conduct.”
In the letter, Gosar accused McCarthy of perjuring herself several times while testifying before congressional committees since February.
In each case, McCarthy was discussing the agency’s rule expanding its regulatory power over waterways, something Gosar and other Republicans deeply opposed.
Many of Gosar’s accusations center around disagreements between the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers — the two agencies that wrote the water rule — and the way McCarthy discussed the formulation of the rule during her testimony.
“Administrator McCarthy committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings, and as a result, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors - an impeachable offense,” Gosar alleges in the letter.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency has no comment on the resolution.
Gosar has long been crticial of McCarthy and the EPA in general. His resolution is the latest Republican attack on the EPA over the water rule.
The House passed a bill this summer to stop the rule, which the EPA finalized in May.
When a federal judge issued a injunction against the rule last month, Gosar called it “a job-killing, overreaching new regulation that would be a dream killer for future generations and result in significant job losses.”
The EPA has defended the rule’s legality and said the federal government has a responsibly to aggressively protect waterways from pollution.
-
Massive Biz Blitz Aims to Torpedo Ozone Rule
Sep 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Major business groups are in the midst of a coordinated, multimillion-dollar effort aimed at sowing opposition to the Obama administration’s smog pollution regulations.
The organizations, led by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), have been working for at least two years to discourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from changing its standard for ground-level ozone. NAM and its allies say the rule — to be finalized next month — would dramatically increase their costs and put up new hurdles to expansion.
The main opposition plan involves grassroots advocacy, reaching out directly to the people who would be impacted by the regulation and using their arguments to convince administration officials and lawmakers to act to stop the regulations.
The efforts, which ramped up greatly over Congress’s August recess, have also seen a heavy emphasis on swing states, states with tough Senate election battles and states the groups believe would suffer the most under the regulations. The rule is in the administration’s hands, but opponents are also appealing to Congress to stop the EPA.
For NAM, the operation is unprecedented in scope, said Ross Eisenberg, the group’s vice president for energy and resources policy.
“It’s a multi-pronged, multifaceted approach, which integrates the policy folks, the lobbying department, but also heavily depends on grassroots, grasstops, external relations resources and paid and earned media as well,” said Eisenberg.
“It’s been about making sure that we had people on the ground in all of these states, talking to the people that needed to be heard that would have to live with this regulation once it was in place.”
The other groups in the effort have included lobbying heavyweights such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council’s Center for Regulatory Solutions.
The lobbyists hope to stop, or at least soften, an EPA proposal from November to restrict the allowable ground-level ozone concentration to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, from the current 75.
As ozone is a byproduct of pollutants that come from burning fossil fuels, state and local officials are likely to try to curb fossil-fuel use in order to bring areas into compliance with the standards.
Ozone has been linked to respiratory ailments, including asthma. The regulations have the strong backing of environmental, public health and medical groups, who cite the EPA’s estimate that the rule would bring $38 billion in benefits to the country.
The EPA has agreed in court to make the rule final by Oct. 1, so lobbyists have a few precious weeks to influence the Obama administration’s decision. The White House Office of Management and Budget started its final review of the standard on Aug. 28.
A NAM-commissioned study by Nera Economic Consulting found that compliance with a 65 parts-per-billion rule would cost $1.1 trillion, making it the most expensive rule ever. The EPA estimated a $16.6 billion annual cost by 2025.
Each opposition group has used its particular strengths in the effort, whether it’s lobbying Congress, meeting with the EPA or the White House, reaching out to state governors or state regulatory officials, talking with journalists or shelling out millions of dollars for advertisements, including a NAM ad during the blockbuster Republican presidential debate on Fox News in early August.
Many of the groups have also worked with state affiliated groups and municipal associations, resulting in a letter-writing campaign to the White House earlier this year from a bipartisan group of state and local politicians and small-business executives.
“The strategy of the campaign is to highlight state and local voices, whether they’re Democrat or Republican, that have significant concerns with EPA’s proposal,” said a public relations consultant working on the issue for many of the business associations.
Specifically, the businesses are focusing on people and constituencies to whom they believe President Obama would listen, including people in big cities, black leaders and Democrats in swing states.
It’s a strategy that was largely informed by Obama’s sudden 2011 decision to stop the EPA’s ozone standard revision. The White House cited concerns about costs, small businesses and development, among other issues, so opponents to this rule are hopeful they can convince Obama to do it again.
“They’re going to listen to people that they trust, and a lot of that is going to be in states that matter to them, which are the states we’re running ads in,” said Eisenberg.
So far, major ad campaigns from NAM have targeted Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Washington, D.C.
The coalition notched what they saw as two major victories in Colorado in August when Sen. Michael Bennet (D) came out in opposition to the regulation and Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) said he was skeptical.
The American Petroleum Institute’s piece of the strategy has focused mainly on lobbying and paid advertising, said Howard Feldman, the group’s senior director of regulatory affairs.
Feldman and his colleagues have also been holding meetings in cities around the country to explain why cities are more likely to violate strong ozone standards.
“We ran ads during recess in select states and we will be moving those ads back into the Beltway,” Feldman said. “The data do not compel EPA to be tightening this standard.”
It’s an uphill battle for the business groups to fight the rule, since the Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA must update the standard every five years to a level that protects public health, and it is not allowed to consider the costs.
NAM and its allies argue that the current ozone standard is sufficient to protect human health, but the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has unanimously said otherwise.
Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, predicted that the Obama administration would side with health experts and restrict the standard to at least some degree.
“In a political sense, it’s obviously a David and Goliath struggle,” O’Donnell said of the opponents’ efforts.
“The business groups are spending huge amounts of money in an attempt to either block EPA or minimize EPA’s actions,” he said, adding that the campaign appears to be “very comprehensive.”
-
Federal Court Denies States’ Request to Temporarily Block EPA Carbon Rules
Sep 10, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Brent Kendall
A federal court denied a request by more than a dozen states on Wednesday to temporarily block the Obama administration’s carbon regulations while they mount a full legal challenge to the rules.
The decision is an early victory for the Environmental Protection Agency, which completed the rules last month calling for carbon emissions from power plants to be cut 32% by 2030 from 2005 levels. The regulations are the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s climate plan, and Wednesday’s ruling is an early legal salvo in what is expected to be a yearslong court battle over Mr. Obama’s climate agenda.
Last month, 15 states asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to issue an emergency stay blocking the rules, noting that they would be required “to spend significant and irrevocable sovereign resources now” to be in a position to meet the initial deadline of Sept. 6, 2016 for states to submit compliance plans to the EPA. The court also rejected a request for an emergency stay brought by coal producer Peabody Energy Corp.
The court, in a one-page order issued Wednesday, said the challengers had not met the high legal requirements needed to win an emergency stay of a government regulation.
The states are mostly from the South and Midwest, including Ohio, Michigan, Florida Georgia, West Virginia and Nebraska. Much of the electricity in these states is produced at coal-fired power plants, which emit the most carbon and are expected to be affected the most under the rule.
Legal observers on both sides expected the decision to be in favor of the EPA, in part because judges don’t routinely block regulations before litigation has begun.
Lawsuits from these states and others are expected as soon as the EPA publishes the final rule in the Federal Register, which is typically required before courts consider lawsuits and requests for stays. The EPA said in court documents filed late last month that it wouldn't publish the rule until at least the middle of October. At least 17 states are expected to sue the EPA over the rule, lawsuits which EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyhas predicted will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
-
Court Declines to Block EPA Carbon Rule, for Now
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today declined to block EPA’s Clean Power Plan before the rule is published in the Federal Register.
Sixteen states and coal producer Peabody Energy had asked the court for a rarely granted “extraordinary writ” to put the rule on ice now. But in a short order, Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers and Thomas Griffith said the challengers “have not satisfied the stringent standards” required for such a request.
The challengers will have to wait until EPA publishes the rule in the Federal Register to seek a stay. EPA has indicated it does not expect the rule to be published until mid-to-late October.
It is not clear whether the challengers will appeal the rejection of their request to the Supreme Court.
West Virginia and the others argued that the Sept. 6, 2016 deadline to submit initial plans to EPA meant states would have to begin work now, even before the rule is published. The judges disagreed with the assertion that such work constitutes “irreparable harm.”
EPA’s supporters believe the rule’s challengers will have a hard time winning a stay from the courts given that the rule does not take effect until 2022. And today’s ruling may indicate the judges are not inclined to see state officials working on a state plan as the type of harm that justifies a stay.
-
Court Denies Initial Bid to Block Obama Climate Regime
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal appeals court today denied an initial effort by more than a dozen states and industry to block the Obama administration's landmark greenhouse gas standards for power plants.
West Virginia and 15 other states last month sought an emergency stay to halt the Clean Power Plan while litigation challenging the regulations plays out (EnergyWire, Aug. 14).
But in a short order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the challengers "have not satisfied the stringent standards that apply" for "extraordinary writs that seek to stay agency action."
The emergency motion was the first move of what is expected to be lengthy litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan, which would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Granting such a request would have been unusual for the D.C. Circuit, so the order today is not unexpected.
The D.C. Circuit typically doesn't entertain challenges to air rules until they are published in theFederal Register. EPA has said the regime will be formally published at the end of October.
-
Court Refuses to Block Obama Climate Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal appeals court declined requests Wednesday to block the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule for power plants.
In a short, two-paragraph order filed just after 5 p.m., the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that West Virginia, more than a dozen other states and a coal-mining company do not qualify for a judicial stay that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing the regulation until the litigation is complete.
The three-judge panel ordered that the petitions be denied “because petitioners have not satisfied the stringent standards that apply to petitions for extraordinary writs that seek to stay agency action.
It’s the first major loss for the conservative states since President Obama announced the final version of the regulation in early August. It seeks a 32 percent slash in the power sector’s carbon emissions by 2030.
The ruling means the states will have to wait until the EPA publishes the final rule in the Federal Register, which it plans to do by the end of October, to file a lawsuit against it and ask for a judicial stay.
West Virginia led a similar group of states earlier this year in a challenge to the EPA’s climate rule before it was made final. The same judges of the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in the EPA’s favor, saying that proposed rules cannot be challenged in court.
The states filed for the judicial stay in August, only four days after Obama announced the new rule, and argued that the matter was so urgent that it demanded the court’s immediate attention before the EPA could publish the regulation.
The EPA said the challenge was premature.
“Publication in the Federal Register, while shortly forthcoming, has not yet occurred,” lawyerswrote. “Thus, both the plain terms of the [Clean Air] Act and this Court’s binding precedent compel dismissal of these petitions.”
-
Clean Power Plan Lawsuits Dismissed by D.C. Circuit
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appellate court denied lawsuits brought by 15 states and Peabody Energy Corp. seeking to block the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277, 9/9/15; In re Peabody Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 15-1284, 9/9/15).The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a cursory order said the petitioners “have not satisfied the stringent standards that apply to petitions for extraordinary writs that seek to stay agency action.” The order was issued by Judges Judith Rogers, Karen LeCraft Henderson and Thomas Griffith.The states, led by West Virginia, and Peabody Energy had asked the court to issue an extraordinary writ to block implementation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan before it is published in the Federal Register, arguing the rule is illegal on its face.Brian Potts, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, who wasn't involved in the lawsuit, called the challenges “more of a political ploy than having much chance of success.” Though Henderson and Griffith are widely viewed as sympathetic to opponents of the rule, the court didn't want to establish the precedent of allowing challenges to agency actions to proceed before they are officially final, Potts told Bloomberg BNA.The EPA told the court it expects the final rule will be published in late October (170 DEN A-2, 9/2/15).Neither West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the lawsuit, nor Peabody Energy could be reached for comment.The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), released Aug. 3, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state. State regulators will be tasked with developing plans to meet the targets, which will be phased in through 2030.Prior Challenges DismissedThis is the second time the D.C. Circuit has dismissed challenges to the EPA's Clean Power Plan as premature (In re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330, 2015 BL 180996 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).Both Griffith and Henderson had heard that prior argument as well. Though the court had dismissed those challenges, Henderson at that time had defended the court's authority to issue writs blocking agency proposals, though she had said one wasn't warranted in the Clean Power Plan lawsuits (111 DEN A-1, 6/10/15).Despite Henderson's defense of the court's All Writs Act authority, Potts said the latest West Virginia lawsuit didn't provide sufficient grounds for the court to exercise that extraordinary power.“It's just like a redo of the one they already brought and lost,” he said. “There really wasn't much different here than EPA posted the rule on the website.”Court Hasn't Ruled on 14 States' MotionThe D.C. Circuit has yet to rule on a motion by 14 states asking the court to rehear challenges to the power plant rule. The states had argued the court's decision represented too narrow a reading of its authority under the All Writs Act (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir. , No. 14-1112, petition for rehearing 7/24/15); (143 DEN A-2, 7/27/15). -
Pennsylvania ‘Open to Everything' in Clean Power Plan
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania will not rule out multistate efforts like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as it formulates a state plan to comply with federal Clean Power Plan mandates, the state's top environmental regulator said Sept. 9.“We are open to everything, attached to nothing,” said Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary John Quigley during a webinar about the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan. “In terms of multistate cooperation, RGGI is on the table, as is this idea of a trade-ready concept that the EPA has included in the rules.”Quigley said the department is “open to all alternatives at this point” and “we don't want to take anything off the table” without first gathering comments from all stakeholders. The DEP will hold 14 listening sessions across the state and collect public comment until Nov. 12.Under targets in the EPA's Clean Power Plan, Pennsylvania is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its existing power plants by 33 percent from 2012 levels by 2030, with interim targets starting in 2022, the DEP said.The agency is looking for input on whether compliance should be based on emissions rate or mass, how best to measure compliance and whether Pennsylvania should allow out-of-state trading. Other key considerations include the role of energy efficiency and renewable generation, electricity reliability and cost, use of indigenous resources, the state's status as a net energy exporter and protection of vulnerable communities who could be hurt by rising costs for fuels and electricity.Pennsylvania also has been having “active conversations” with a number of states in PJM, the regional transmission organization that coordinates movement of electricity through all or part of 13 mid-Atlantic states, Quigley said.Pennsylvania is not joining the 15 states that recently challenged the EPA's plan in court, and the state does not want to go into a federally issued plan, Quigley said.“The governor made it very clear that he wants our agency to craft a Pennsylvania-centric plan,” Quigley said. “Accepting a federal default plan is not something that we're contemplating.”The urgency to reduce emissions is underscored by recent studies that show Pennsylvania is getting warmer and forecasts an average temperature increase of 1 degree per decade between now and 2050, Quigley said. “That is a profound change,” said Quigley. “It will impact the water cycle, it will impact agriculture, it will impact the economy, it will impact our quality of life.” -
Gas Producer Seeking to Sell Utica Shale Assets
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Monks
Chesapeake Energy Corp., the natural gas explorer selling assets to raise cash, is seeking buyers for a big chunk of its operations in the Utica Shale basin, people with knowledge of the matter said.The Oklahoma City-based company may fetch at least $2 billion for the assets, based on the market value of similar types of properties, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Chesapeake is working with Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. to solicit bids, the people said.The operations are in what is known as the basin's dry gas window or land in the eastern slice where wells pump out gas with few by-products, the people said. Tudor Pickering recently began sending potential bidders teasers or documents outlining the basic parameters of the assets up for grabs, the people said.Representatives for Chesapeake and Tudor Pickering didn't respond to requests for comment.The potential sale is part of Chesapeake Chief Executive Officer Doug Lawler's broader plan to fix the second-largest gas producer in the U.S.Since taking over two years ago from ousted co-founder Aubrey McClendon, Lawler has set out to shift the company's focus to crude oil while taking steps to preserve cash amid slumping commodity prices. In the past two months, it has cut its quarterly dividend and renegotiated a key shipping contract.A Chesapeake affiliate sold $840 million of assets in Oklahoma in July, and last year the company raised about $5 billion selling land in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to Southwestern Energy Co.Company Seeing Strong DemandChesapeake, which will continue to sell assets, is seeing strong demand in the marketplace, Lawler said this week.“I think it's important to note that Chesapeake is not desperate,” he said on Sept. 8 during a presentation at a Barclays Plc-sponsored industry conference, according to a transcript. “We are not going to have a fire sale on any asset.”Chesapeake has about 300,000 net acres in the dry gas window of the Utica, according to a slide presentation prepared for that conference. It has more than 1 million acres across the Utica Shale basin, the presentation shows. -
PHMSA Finalizes Special Permit, Approvals Rule
Sep 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration declined to further delineate what it means for a special permit or approval applicant to be deemed “fit” as part of its final rule that will be published Sept. 10, a rule intended to clarify and codify administrative and evaluation processes and criteria for those programs.The agency did, however, make some changes in response to other industry concerns on its initial proposal, including by adding a definition for what constitutes a “sufficient corrective action” when determining whether a permit or approval holder is fit to keep a permit. The agency maintained that the rule wouldn't add costs for special permits and approval applicants and recipients because it is codifying—not changing—current standard operating procedures and criteria, it said.“PHMSA has articulated these conditions [used to determine whether an applicant is fit] to the extent possible in this final rule,” the agency said. “However, too many variables exist among those who affect the safe transport of hazardous materials to state with certainty what [hazmat rule] violations or previous incident history will be found and to what extent they will affect the status of an applicant's fitness.”The agency receives approximately 30,000 applications annually for special permits—permits where PHMSA allows individual entities to transport hazmat in a way that it isn't codified under the hazmat rules but maintains equivalent safety levels—and approvals—hazmat transport activities allowed under the regulations that require written consent from the agency, the rule (RIN 2137-AE99) said.Some of the other notable steps taken by the agency include: the agency clarified the difference between the completeness and evaluation phases of its application process; it declined to make a separate process for small administrative changes to application; it agreed to reassess how it should use certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data and; it said it intends to update its technology to make two of its hazmat databases public so that, for example, regulated entities may review and, if needed, correct information (204 DEN A-12, 10/22/14).Congress required PHMSA to conduct a rulemaking on this issue under Section 33012(a) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. No. 112-141). The rule, which the agency said will include transparency, application completeness, application processing times and support U.S. trade competitiveness, takes effect Nov. 9.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested