ACC AM 9/29

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Production Ticks Up in August on Broad Gains

   Sep 28, 2015 | Zacks

   U.S. chemical output rose for the third straight month in August with gains witnessed across all chemical producing regions - according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC").

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Blog) Had We Been Given the Opportunity, Here’s What We Would Have Offered the NIEHS on Its New NTP RoC Handbook

   Sep 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

   By Nancy Beck, Ph.D.
   
   
   One way in which the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) could demonstrate its commitment to transparency is by seeking public comment on its guidance documents prior to finalizing and implementing them. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/09/had-we-been-given-the-opportunity-heres-what-we-would-have-offered-the-niehs-on-its-new-ntp-roc-handbook/
3. (ACC Mentioned) Links Between Health Problems and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Now Stronger, Statement Argues

   Sep 28, 2015 | Science Insider

   By Puneet Kollipara
   
   
   The list of health problems that scientists can confidently link to exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals has grown to include diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, a new scientific statement suggests.
4. (ACC Mentioned) SAB Weighing Specific Contaminant Recommendations In Draft CCL4 Review

   Sep 25, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Amanda Palleschi
   
   
   EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is examining whether it should make chemical-specific recommendations as part of its review of the agency's draft list of contaminants that may need regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, after industry commenters raised concerns about the draft list's inclusion of nonylphenol and toluene diisocyanates (TDI).
5. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure Linked to Increased Risk of Diabetes and Obesity

   Sep 28, 2015 | The Endocrine Society

   Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society - diabetes and obesity, according to the executive summary of an upcoming Scientific Statement issued today by the Endocrine Society.
6. Endocrine Disrupters Seen Causing Diabetes, Obesity Epidemics

   Sep 29, 2015 | James R. Hood

   By Consumer Affairs
   
   
   Evidence presented at a global meeting of scientists suggests that endocrine-disrupting chemicals -- like bisphenol A and phthalates -- may be to blame for the diabetes and obesity epidemics that are among the gravest public health threats facing the U.S. and other industrialized nations.
7. ICCA Releases Principles for Identifying Endocrine Disruptors

   Sep 28, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week

   By Michael Ravenscroft
   
   
   The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released a set of 11 recommendations related to endocrine disruptors.
8. California Releases Draft for Toxic Chemicals in Products

   Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel
   
   
   California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has released a draft document to help manufacturers and other regulated entities navigate the analysis required for “priority” products under the Safer Consumer Product Regulations
9. UN Authorities: Chemical Phaseout Falls Short

   Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Bryce Baschuk
   
   
   International chemical regulators are falling short in their efforts to phase out the global use of highly hazardous pesticides, according to a pair of United Nations human rights authorities.
10. US EPA Receives Test Data for Chemical Intermediate

    Sep 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch

    The US EPA has received test data for the substance 1,2-ethylene dichloride, in response to an enforceable consent order issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

11. Industry Dollars Flow to Aspiring House Leaders

    Sep 29, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Jennifer Yachnin
    
    
    House Republicans will soon hold new leadership elections, but one outcome is already clear: Energy industry-related donors claim a heavy investment in many of the GOP lawmakers vying for top posts.
12. Jeb Bush’s Energy Plan Includes Dropping Oil-Export Ban

    Sep 29, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Amy Harder and Beth Reinhard
    
    
    In his third policy announcement this month aimed at accelerating economic growth, Jeb Bush is calling to remove the nation’s 40-year-old ban on oil exports, approve the Keystone XL pipeline and eliminate a raft of environmental regulations.
13. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Fracking Opponents

    Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Leslie Pappas
    
    
    A county judge in Pennsylvania dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit that a housing developer filed against environmentalists opposed to fracking activities near township neighborhoods, saying the complaint was not specific enough.
14. What do EPA’s Methane Rules Mean for the Energy Economy?

    Sep 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Sean Wright
    
    
    Around the country, people are talking about methane. Last week hundreds showed up to testify at public hearings in Dallas and Denver, weighing in on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to fight oil and gas methane pollution.
15. EPA Set to Tighten Smog Limits as Business Gears for Fight

    Sep 29, 2015 | AP (In The New York Times)

    By Matthew Daly
    
    
    Facing a court-ordered deadline, the Obama administration is preparing to finalize stricter emissions limits on smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness.
16. In Smog Battle, Industry Gets Help from Unlikely Source: Black Business Group

    Sep 28, 2015 | The Washington Post

    By Joby Warrick
    
    
    For years, the air over central Pittsburgh has ranked among the country’s dirtiest, with haze and soot that regularly trigger spikes in asthma attacks, especially among the urban poor.
17. The Ozone Rules That No One Will Like

    Sep 29, 2015 | National Journal

    By Jason Plautz
    
    
    Envir­on­ment­al­ists have been burned by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion be­fore on smog reg­u­la­tions. Now they’re wor­ried that it’s about to hap­pen again.
18. EPA To Model Trading Program In ESPS FIP On State Compliance Plans

    Sep 28, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Abby Smith
    
    
    EPA plans to shape the federal implementation plan (FIP) for its final power plant greenhouse gas rule on stakeholder discussions in states as they develop plans to comply with the underlying rule, a top agency official says, with the aim of creating an emissions trading system that is compatible with most state plans.
19. Environmentalists Likely To Sue EPA Over Potential 70 ppb Ozone NAAQS

    | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker
    
    
    Environmentalists will likely sue EPA if it sets a revised ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) at 70 parts per billion (ppb), says an environmental attorney who says such a limit -- weaker than the 60 ppb limit advocates favor -- would fall short of a Clean Air Act mandate that NAAQS be adequately protective of public health.
20. With Cap and Trade Plan, China Adopts Emissions Policy that Couldn’t Get Through U.S. Congress

    Sep 28, 2015 | The Washington Post

    By Steven Mufson
    
    
    China may be the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, but Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to make his new commitment to introduce a nationwide cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions a centerpiece of his speech at the United Nations General Assembly Monday morning.
21. Despite Pledges, Climate Action Seen Falling Short

    Sep 28, 2015 | AP (In The Washington Post)

    By Karl Ritter 
    
    
    The emissions pledges that countries have made ahead of a landmark conference in Paris have been a major boost to the slow-moving U.N. effort to fight climate change.
22. Environmentalists Defend EPA 'Emission Factors' Suit

    Sep 29, 2015 | InsideEPA

    Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court against scrapping their lawsuit seeking to force EPA to modify its “emission factors” used to estimate air pollution from industrial facilities, saying the fact they missed a deadline for filing a statement of issues to be raised in the litigation does not warrant dismissing the entire suit.
23. Official: EPA Will Prevail in Clean Water Rule Challenges

    Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Michael Bologna
    
    
    Stan Meiburg, acting deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, expressed optimism Sept. 28 that the agency would prevail in legal actions challenging the clean water rule and end jurisdictional disputes over protections under the Clean Water Act.

Transportation News

24. Nation’s Rail Service Is Threatened as Deadline for Safety System Looms

    Sep 28, 2015 | The New York TImes

    By Ron Nixon
    
    
    Even after spending nearly $6 billion, the rail industry says it will not be able to meet its year-end government-imposed deadline to install a system known as positive train control, which is intended to prevent collisions or derailments caused by excessive speed.
25. Industry Pushes Back in Face of Possible Pipeline Safety Bill

    Sep 29, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Hannah Northey
    
    
    The natural gas industry is slated to tell a Senate committee mulling pipeline safety legislation that it's too early to change the law with upgrades underway.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Production Ticks Up in August on Broad Gains

   Sep 28, 2015 | Zacks

   U.S. chemical output rose for the third straight month in August with gains witnessed across all chemical producing regions - according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"). 
   
   

   The Washington, DC-based chemical industry trade group said that the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index ("CPRI") ticked up 0.4% for the reported month following a 0.3% rise a month ago. The U.S. CPRI, which is measured using a three-month moving average, was created by Moore Economics to track chemical production in seven regions nationwide. It is comparable to the Federal Reserve's industrial production index for chemicals. 
   
   According to the ACC, activity for the U.S. manufacturing sector - the largest consumer of chemical products - edged up 0.3% in August following gains in the previous two months. The sector is a major driver for the chemical industry which touches around 96% of manufactured goods. 
   
   
   

   Within the manufacturing sector, production rose in several chemistry end-user markets in August including appliances, construction supplies, computers, plastic products, structural panels, apparel and furniture. 
   
   The August reading showed a rise in chemical output across all seven regions. Production in the Gulf Coast, where key building block materials are produced, rose 0.4% on a monthly comparison basis in the reported month. Production also went up 0.4% across Midwest and Northeast while both Mid-Atlantic and West Coast logged a 0.5% gain. Output rose 0.3% across Ohio Valley and Southeast. 
   
   By segments, chemical production was mixed in the reported month. Gains across organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, synthetic rubber, plastic resins, pesticides, industrial gases, coatings, consumer products and pharmaceuticals were neutralized by lower production of adhesives, fertilizers, manufactured fibers and other specialties.   
   
   Overall chemical production went up 3% year over year in August with all regions scoring gains. 
   
   The U.S. chemical industry, a more than $800 billion enterprise, is heavily linked to the overall condition of the nation's economy. It has been consistently leading the U.S. economy's business cycle due to its early position in the supply chain. The industry is on the slow road to recovery after being shaken up by the global economic crisis. 
   
   Notwithstanding headwinds from a stronger greenback, sluggishness in China and depressed demand in energy markets, the U.S. chemical industry is poised for growth this year and the next. The ACC expects U.S. chemical production to rise 3.2% this year and 3% in 2016, both higher than 2% growth seen in 2014. Production is expected to pick up pace on the heels of new capital investments and capacity additions. 
   
   The shale gas boom and abundant supply of natural gas liquids have provided the U.S. petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The ACC expects this competitiveness to drive export demand and new capital investment in the country. 
   
   The shale bounty has incentivized a number of chemical companies including Dow Chemical DOW

    , LyondellBasell Industries LYB

    , Eastman Chemical EMN

    , Celanese CE

    and Westlake Chemical WLK

    to ramp up capacity in the U.S. New capacity is expected to provide a significant boost to chemical production as these investments come on stream in the coming years. 
   
   Some industry-specific challenges, Eurozone's tepid recovery and concerns over China's future growth remain sources of near-term uncertainties for the chemical industry. Nevertheless, the industry is expected to continue to recuperate through the balance of 2015, supported by strong momentum in the automotive market, an upswing in the housing sector and continued recovery in commercial construction.
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. (ACC Blog) Had We Been Given the Opportunity, Here’s What We Would Have Offered the NIEHS on Its New NTP RoC Handbook

   Sep 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

   By Nancy Beck, Ph.D.

   One way in which the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) could demonstrate its commitment to transparency is by seeking public comment on its guidance documents prior to finalizing and implementing them. Not only would this help NTP to develop a robust approach, but it would also allow outside experts, all with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, to contribute what they have learned over the course of decades of experience.

   When the National Research Council (NRC) conducted their review of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in 2014, they stressed the importance of ensuring broad and diverse stakeholder engagement in the IRIS process. There is no reason for the NTP program to be held to different standards, especially when developing new approaches that are relevant to multiple agencies and stakeholders.

   With the publication earlier this summer of its new “Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs,” NTP missed a valuable opportunity to increase confidence in the program’s accountability to the public and ensure its approaches and conclusions are based on the best available methodologies and information.

   What the Handbook is and why it matters

   The Handbook provides guidance and instructions for developing the Report on Carcinogens (RoC)—specifically, preparing monographs (focused evaluations) for substances the NTP considers for listing in the RoC. The monographs are the product of a literature-based review and evaluation. The Handbook is designed to provide a clear and formal process for NTP to follow in creating the RoC.

   The Handbook is important because many stakeholders see the RoC as an authoritative body on the state of the science for a particular chemical or substance. RoC listings inform decisions by outside groups, including states and other federal agencies, to help manage the safety of certain chemicals and whether they should be present in products.

   While NTP has always described its process for conducting literature reviews, the Handbook is essentially the first of its kind. It describes the actual approach for conducting a scientific evaluation for the RoC and includes sections on identifying and selecting studies, extracting data from studies, and evaluating the quality and utility of individual studies. It essentially spells out a process for NTP to follow that will determine the fate of a specific chemistry.

   Although ACC views the current version of the Handbook as a needed addition to the NTP chemical review process, the guidance is not as strong as it should be—or as it could have been, if NIEHS had allowed other experts to offer their feedback first.

   Below, there are three areas where NTP delivered improvements with its Handbook and seven significant and impactful areas where it could have delivered more improvements had it taken full advantage of the vast expertise outside of NTP.

   What the Handbook deliversStandardized Approach: One important benefit of the new Handbook is that it creates a standardized approach for preparing RoC monographs. In theory, this approach would allow any third party to follow the guidance provided by the Handbook and conduct an independent review. It also enables interested parties to evaluate the monographs against the Handbook’s standards. If the standardized approach falls short, however, the scientific evaluations will suffer.Quality and Utility Discussions: Another benefit the Handbook delivers is its emphasis on the importance of clearly articulating the standards for judging quality and utility of research before beginning an assessment. When conversations about quality and utility take place prior to an assessment, scientists can ensure everyone is on the same page before beginning the hard work of conducting reviews, rather than afterwards.Sound Decisions (potentially): Most importantly, if the guidance provided is sound, the Handbook can help ensure the decisions the NTP makes about RoC candidate chemicals are well-informed, based on a robust evaluation of the scientific evidence, consistent with one another, and relatively simple to evaluate and understand.

   What the Handbook missedTransparency: As mentioned earlier, the NTP could have demonstrated its commitment to transparency and accountability to the public by inviting outside comment on the Handbook prior to publishing it. Although the Handbook was subject to review by five individuals, two of them are former NTP board members, and, it appears, none of them specialize in the systematic review approaches NTP is trying to implement. In addition, the five reviewers do not represent a diverse set of stakeholders and scientific perspectives.Weight-of-Evidence: NTP doesn’t explain how negative evidence or conflicting evidence will be considered during the data integration step, nor does NTP emphasize that the highest quality/utility studies should be given the greatest weight. For instance, in NTP’s example of presenting tumor data from animal studies, the figure does not take study quality into account. Thus readers of the figure can come away with a misleading interpretation of the data. Similarly, the evidence-based tables should include the overall quality determination for the study.Mechanistic Data: For mechanistic data (critical information that may explain how chemicals act in animals and in humans), NTP seems to only rely on authoritative and secondary reviews. It is not clear why NTP would discount primary literature that would be extremely helpful. NTP also discusses relying on characteristics of carcinogenesis; however, the publication NTP relies on here is not publicly available, another example of NTP falling short when it comes to transparency. In addition, mechanistic data is useful for more than helping to interpret other studies, yet NTP does not seem to take full advantage of the utility of mechanistic data.Strength of Association: It is disappointing that NTP does not consider the strength of an association to be critically important. The Handbook suggests that for human studies, there could still be causal associations even though the strength of evidence (e.g., relative risk ratio) is weak. It’s not clear how NTP can infer causality if an association is weak.Listing Criteria: The NTP missed an opportunity to update the listing criteria for known and reasonably anticipated carcinogens. The current standards used by NTP do not consider the weight of all the available evidence but follow an incomplete “strength of some evidence” approach. If it is not clear why this is radically incomplete, imagine if a trial judge instructed the jury to follow the same protocol: “Ignore this piece of conflicting evidence and focus instead on whether these bits seem convincing enough—by themselves”!Confounding: When evaluating human studies, it is normal to consider factors that may confound a study result; NTP does not consider confounding as part of the study quality/utility evaluation but treats it separately. As the ability to understand and dissect confounding influences on a study relate directly to the value and quality of a study, these findings should be incorporated into the overall study quality/utility rating.Animal Studies: NTP focuses predominantly on the evaluation of human studies and spends less time discussing animal and mechanistic studies, which are often more widely available than data from human studies. Unfortunately, NTP does not consider these information streams as sufficiently informative or important to help inform human health hazards. The current NTP listing criteria can be fulfilled with two positive animal studies, which are assumed to be relevant to humans unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. However, NTP does not explain its standards for what constitutes compelling evidence, and this gap decreases the transparency of their decisions.

   There is no doubt that NTP’s previous “black box” approach for developing the RoC needed to be changed, and the creation of its Handbook is a step in the right direction. However, it would be premature to view it as complete. It should be treated as a work in progress that could greatly benefit by incorporating review and comments from additional experts.

   There is broad recognition in the NRC comments and elsewhere of the value of public input and dialogue, and so we strongly encourage NIEHS and other federal agencies that are developing and incorporating systematic review practices into their chemical specific evaluations to ensure that “handbooks,” “guidance documents,” and other important tools benefit from stakeholder input and dialogue.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) Links Between Health Problems and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Now Stronger, Statement Argues

   Sep 28, 2015 | Science Insider

   By Puneet Kollipara

   The list of health problems that scientists can confidently link to exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals has grown to include diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, a new scientific statement suggests. The statement, released today by the Endocrine Society, also adds support to the somewhat controversial idea that even minute doses of these chemicals can interfere with the activity of natural hormones, which play a major role in regulating physiology and behavior.

   But the report—which updates a similar statement released in 2009—is drawing sharp criticism from the chemical industry.

   An executive summary of the new statement, which synthesizes 1300 studies on endocrine disrupters, posits that scientists are more confident than ever before in linking these substances to a host of known health issues, including reproductive and developmental problems, thyroid impairment, certain reproductive cancers, and neurodevelopmental problems such as decreased IQ. But studies suggest those links can now be extended to heart and weight problems, and diabetes, says the executive summary's first author, Andrea C. Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas, Austin. Six years ago, scientists couldn’t make such a strong case for those links, Gore says, because there weren’t enough good studies. “But this has really been an emerging field where there is much stronger evidence now,” Gore told reporters today on a conference call.

   Still, some toxicologists and industry groups have long disputed the assertion that endocrine disrupters can trigger effects at minimal doses; this idea can be tough to test in lab animals, which are usually exposed to high doses in toxicology studies. And critics of the new report say it doesn’t appear to clarify the 2009 version’s vagueness about what it means for an endocrine disruptor to cause an "adverse effect."

   The summary of the new report "makes broad, unsupported claims about the relationship between certain chemicals and disease," the American Chemistry Council, the largest trade group for the chemicals industry, argued in a statement. Regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still haven’t embraced the idea that minute doses of endocrine disrupters can cause health problems, the Washington, D.C.–based industry group adds. And the Endocrine Society has failed to clarify when a chemical causes a scientifically proven “adverse effect,” the council argues (versus merely displaying endocrine activity).

   The National Research Council has launched a multiyear review of whether EPA’s current chemical assessment practices properly capture low-dose endocrine-related effects. In the meantime, Gore rejects the criticism that the Endocrine Society has not adequately defined “adverse effects.” She notes that in studies on lab animals, some toxicologists mistakenly assume that endocrine disrupter–related health problems must show up right away. But such health problems can take years or even decades to manifest in humans, she says, and months in lab animals. And the specific disease that the chemicals may induce in the animals often isn’t always known from the study’s outset, she adds. "I think the issue has been resolved for endocrinologists and for many toxicologists," she says.

   The Endocrine Society executive summary strongly emphasizes studies involving bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyl ethers, and flame retardants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers. "These chemicals had the greatest depth and breadth of available information," the executive summary says.

   But the summary adds that most industrial chemicals released into the environment—numbering in the tens of thousands—have never been tested for endocrine-disrupting potential. Moreover, Gore added, scientists are increasingly finding that some chemical replacements for BPA and other suspected endocrine disrupters display endocrine-disrupting potential themselves. These conclusions, the summary says, highlight the need to test chemicals before they enter commerce and to better educate the public and policymakers on how to prevent exposures.

   Emerging testing methods, such as high-throughput screening assays, could help researchers identify which of the thousands of chemicals in the environment now need the most scientific scrutiny, the summary suggests. (EPA is currently exploring the use of these methods to prioritize which chemicals merit full-fledged animal testing for endocrine-disrupting effects.)

   The Endocrine Society also calls for more endocrine research funding in general, arguing that the benefits to society will far outstrip the costs. Funding agencies should emphasize "team science" projects, not simply individual studies by individual scientists, the summary argues.

   The society recommends several areas for expanding research. Researchers should increase the range of studied hormone receptors—proteins that receive chemical signals from hormones—to see how endocrine disrupters might affect them. And future research could increasingly target sex-specific responses and the effects of mixtures of multiple endocrine disrupters, the summary says.

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. (ACC Mentioned) SAB Weighing Specific Contaminant Recommendations In Draft CCL4 Review

   Sep 25, 2015 | InsideEPA

   By Amanda Palleschi

   EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is examining whether it should make chemical-specific recommendations as part of its review of the agency's draft list of contaminants that may need regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, after industry commenters raised concerns about the draft list's inclusion of nonylphenol and toluene diisocyanates (TDI).

   During a Sept. 24 teleconference of the chartered SAB, panel members and industry commenters agreed that “a small group of volunteers” from the drinking water committee would work with that panel's chair, Kimberly Jones of Howard University, on revising SAB's recommendations to address possibly the two chemicals of concern to industry.

   EPA has asked SAB to examine whether its draft contaminant candidate list 4 (CCL4) and its support documents clearly explain the approach used to place contaminants on the list, whether there are additional data EPA should consider, and whether there are any contaminants on the draft list that should be added or removed.

   A June version of SAB's draft report to EPA raised concerns about nonylphenol's inclusion, noting that a public commenter had noted there was an editorial error in the data that EPA used to determine whether nonylphenol should be included on the CCL4. “The SAB recommends that the agency assess the primary source of the nonylphenol data to confirm or refute this claim and update the assessment for this contaminant accordingly,” the June 30 draft report said.

   But that language was removed from a Sept. 4 draft of the report, drawing industry concern during the Sept. 24 teleconference.

   SAB member Jeanne VanBriesen of Carnegie Mellon University explained to American Chemistry Council (ACC) representatives that the language had been removed from the Sept. 4 draft because the advisory board did not want to spend a lot of time answering EPA's charge to come up with specific chemicals for consideration.

   VanBriesen said that “while important issues were brought up [during the initial CCL4 comment period] and raised to our attention, we felt there was a need for fact checking and those were on the chemicals that happened to be presented to us, so we opted again to say it was beyond our purview to do that kind of fact checking. We preferred to focus on the charge questions that we could do and focus on the processes and principles.”

   But the advisors agreed to reconsider following presentations from ACC and the Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council (APERC).

   TDI Toxicity

   During public comments, Robert West, an environmental scientist with Dow Chemical speaking on behalf of ACC, argued that TDI “does not exist in water long enough to be toxic” and is only toxic “when placed in a non-aqueaous medium that facilitates its transformation to another chemical not present in fluid.” TDI is a chemical commonly used in foam applications in furniture, bedding carpet and packaging as well as in coatings, sealants and adhesives.

   “Reactivity of this substance in water precludes its appearance in drinking; exposure in drinking water does not pose a health hazard. Until the SAB drinking water panel addresses this charge question, we suggest the chartered SAB [panel] should not approve the draft report,” West said.

   Additionally, ACC's Kimberly Wise expressed disappointment during public comments that SAB's drinking water panel considered during an Aug. 3 public teleconference to recommend that EPA reconsider the data on TDI but then decided not to make any recommendations regarding specific chemicals.

   Wise noted that one of the charge questions was whether there are any chemicals that do not merit inclusion on the list, and added that the decision not to address TDI is inconsistent with other parts of the draft report where the drinking water committee makes recommendations “with respect to other contaminants that do or do not merit inclusion on the list including pathogens, estrogen hormones and disinfection byproducts.”

   ACC has previously raised concerns about TDI's inclusion on the CCL4 since chemicals on the CCL may be brought into the domain of EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

   Nonylphenol Data

   Other commenters during the Sept. 24 teleconference asked the panel to review the available data for nonylphenol -- a chemical used in the preparation of lubricating oil additives, resins, plasticizers and antioxidants for plastics and rubber.

   Barbara Losey, APERC deputy director, said during the teleconference that EPA based its draft CCL4 value for nonylphenol “on an erroneous Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level value . . . by reviewing the primary source related to this value.”

   “As a result, an incorrect toxicity category was derived for [nonylphenol],” Losey said. Losey said the error demonstrates the problems related to EPA's reliance on one specific database.

   This echoes prior comments from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), who told EPA in April 3 comments that the process the agency uses to conduct the CCL should be updated, as it is too simplistic and requires too few resources: “We believe such an approach is flawed because it does not reasses whether the state of scientific knowledge on remaining CCL3 contaminants has or has not been changed, nor does it identify other contaminants of emerging concern that may not have been nominated,” AWWA wrote.

   ACC's Wise also reiterated one of AWWA's prior concerns that EPA's CCL list was too large, and that SAB has not adequately responded to EPA's charge to recommend specific chemical substances to be removed from the list.

   “While the CCL4 is extensive, public commenters have presented compelling toxicity, occurrence, biomonitoring, environmental persistence and chemical properties information for several substances (i.e., nonylphenol, toluene diisocyanate, n-butanol, ethylene glycol, and ethylene oxide) which warrant the SAB’s recommendation that the Agency undertake a review of these substances for listing reconsideration,” Wise notes in its comments submitted to SAB Sept. 24. “The SAB has provided no compelling arguments for ignoring scientifically valid information which has been presented by the public to inform the review. It is also the SAB’s responsibility to respond to all charge questions. By choosing to not respond the SAB has unduly narrowed the charge it received from EPA.”

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure Linked to Increased Risk of Diabetes and Obesity

   Sep 28, 2015 | The Endocrine Society

   Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society - diabetes and obesity, according to the executive summary of an upcoming Scientific Statement issued today by the Endocrine Society.

   The statement's release comes as Society experts are addressing a global meeting, the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), in Geneva, Switzerland, on the importance of using scientific approaches to limit health risks of EDC exposure.

   The statement builds upon the Society's groundbreaking 2009 report, which examined the state of scientific evidence on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and the risks posed to human health. In the ensuing years, additional research has found that exposure is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes and obesity. Mounting evidence also indicates EDC exposure is connected to infertility, hormone-related cancers, neurological issues and other disorders.

   EDCs contribute to health problems by mimicking, blocking or otherwise interfering with the body's natural hormones. By hijacking the body's chemical messengers, EDCs can alter the way cells develop and grow.

   Known EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings and cash register receipts, phthalates found in plastics and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides. The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on Earth has been exposed to one or more. An economic analysis published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in March estimated that EDC exposure likely costs the European Union €157 billion ($209 billion) a year in actual health care expenses and lost earning potential.

   "The evidence is more definitive than ever before - EDCs disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health," said Andrea C. Gore, Professor and Vacek Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin and chair of the task force that developed the statement. "Hundreds of studies are pointing to the same conclusion, whether they are long-term epidemiological studies in human, basic research in animals and cells, or research into groups of people with known occupational exposure to specific chemicals."

   The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed to EDCs. Animal studies found that exposure to even tiny amounts of EDCs during the prenatal period can trigger obesity later in life. Similarly, animal studies found that some EDCs directly target beta and alpha cells in the pancreas, fat cells, and liver cells. This can lead to insulin resistance and an overabundance of the hormone insulin in the body - risk factors for Type 2 diabetes.

   Epidemiological studies of EDC exposure in humans also point to an association with obesity and diabetes, although the research design did not allow scientists to determine causality. The research offers insights into factors driving the rising rates of obesity and diabetes. About 35 percent of American adults are obese, and more than 29 million Americans have diabetes, according to the Society's Endocrine Facts and Figures report.

   The Scientific Statement also examines evidence linking EDCs to reproductive health problems, hormone-related cancers such as breast and ovarian cancer, prostate conditions, thyroid disorders and neurodevelopmental issues. Although many of these conditions were linked to EDCs by earlier research, the number of corroborating studies continues to mount.

   "It is clear we need to take action to minimize further exposure," Gore said. "With more chemicals being introduced into the marketplace all the time, better safety testing is needed to identify new EDCs and ensure they are kept out of household goods."

   In the statement, the Society calls for:Additional research to more directly infer cause-and-effect relationships between EDC exposure and health conditions.

   Regulation to ensure that chemicals are tested for endocrine activity, including at low doses, prior to being permitted for use.

   Calling upon "green chemists" and other industrial partners to create products that test for and eliminate potential EDCs.

   Education for the public and policymakers on ways to keep EDCs out of food, water and the air, as well as ways to protect unborn children from exposure.

   The statement also addresses the need to recognize EDCs as an international problem. Society members are currently meeting in Geneva for the fourth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4). Attending members, including Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, MD, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Liège in Belgium, emphasize key principles of endocrinology that are confirmed by recent research need to be taken into account when developing policies for identifying and regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

   "Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals during early development can have long-lasting, even permanent consequences," said Bourguignon. "The science is clear and it's time for policymakers to take this wealth of evidence into account as they develop legislation."

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Endocrine Disrupters Seen Causing Diabetes, Obesity Epidemics

   Sep 29, 2015 | James R. Hood

   By Consumer Affairs

   Evidence presented at a global meeting of scientists suggests that endocrine-disrupting chemicals -- like bisphenol A and phthalates -- may be to blame for the diabetes and obesity epidemics that are among the gravest public health threats facing the U.S. and other industrialized nations.

   The Endocrine Society said in a prepared statement that the chemicals contribute to health problems by mimicking, blocking, and otherwise interfering with the body's natural hormones. By hijacking the body's chemical messengers, the chemicals can alter the way cells develop and grow.

   Bisphenol A is commonly found in the lining of food cans and on cash register receipts, while phthalates are used in plastics and cosmetics. Flame retardants and pesticides also contain endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)."More definitive"

   "The evidence is more definitive than ever before - EDCs disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health," said Andrea C. Gore, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin and chair of the task force that developed the statement. "Hundreds of studies are pointing to the same conclusion, whether they are long-term epidemiological studies in humans, basic research in animals and cells, or research into groups of people with known occupational exposure to specific chemicals."

   The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed to EDCs, the statement indicated. Animal studies found that exposure to even tiny amounts of EDCs during the prenatal period can trigger obesity later in life.

   Similarly, animal studies found that some EDCs directly target beta and alpha cells in the pancreas, fat cells, and liver cells. This can lead to insulin resistance and an overabundance of the hormone insulin in the body risk factors for Type 2 diabetes, the statement said.

   The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on earth has been exposed to one or more of them, previous studies have found.

   The statement was presented at the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), in Geneva, Switzerland, on the importance of using scientific approaches to limit health risks of EDC exposure.Reproductive health

   The statement also examines evidence linking EDCs to reproductive health problems, hormone-related cancers such as breast and ovarian cancer, prostate conditions, thyroid disorders, and neurodevelopmental issues. Although many of these conditions were linked to EDCs by earlier research, the number of corroborating studies continues to mount.

   "It is clear we need to take action to minimize further exposure," Gore said. "With more chemicals being introduced into the marketplace all the time, better safety testing is needed to identify new EDCs and ensure they are kept out of household goods."

   Gore’s statement was endorsed by Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, MD, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Liège in Belgium."Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals during early development can have long-lasting, even permanent consequences," said Bourguignon. "The science is clear and it's time for policymakers to take this wealth of evidence into account as they develop legislation."

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. ICCA Releases Principles for Identifying Endocrine Disruptors

   Sep 28, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week

   By Michael Ravenscroft

   The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has released a set of 11 recommendations related to endocrine disruptors. The organization’s “Principles for Identifying Endocrine-Active and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals” is aimed at promoting reliability, consistency, and scientific integrity in the screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine activity and endocrine disruption, ICCA says. The principles were published during the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM), under the auspices of...

   Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

   Story can be found here: http://www.chemweek.com/sections/news_briefs/74017.html

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. California Releases Draft for Toxic Chemicals in Products

   Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel

   California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has released a draft document to help manufacturers and other regulated entities navigate the analysis required for “priority” products under the Safer Consumer Product Regulations.

   Made public Sept. 24, the draft Draft Stage 1 Alternatives Analysis Guide marks another step in the slow-moving implementation of regulations the DTSC adopted in 2013, which established a process for identifying and reducing exposure to toxic chemicals in products sold in California.

   The guide is not a regulatory document. Rather it is an advisory document for how to conduct the two-step alternatives analysis process the regulations prescribe, the DTSC said. It outlines useful approaches, methods, resources, tools and examples for the process.

   Right now, the draft guide only covers the initial phase of the alternatives analysis, Karl Parker, chief of the DTSC Safer Consumer Products branch, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 28. Additional chapters for the more complex second stage, which involves exposure assessments and life-cycle analysis will be released next year, he said.

   “The main thing we hope people will do is look at this guide in conjunction with our regulations and see what process they need to follow,” Parker said. “It's not a cookbook, or a checklist,” just a basic guide of options, he said.

   Multiple Audiences

   Product manufacturers, assemblers, importers and retailers are among the entities regulated under the Safer Consumer Products program, so the guide is designed for multiple audiences, according to the DTSC. The regulations outline the specific requirements for the alternatives analysis process, the agency said.

   Compliance obligations of the regulations are still a ways off, Parker said.

   To date, the DTSC has proposed only three product-chemical combinations as “priority” products: children's foam sleeping mats containing the flame retardant chlorinated Tris (TDCCP or TCEP); spray polyurethane foam systems with unreacted diisocyanates (MDI); and paint strippers containing methylene chloride.

   Parker said the official rulemaking for the children's sleeping mats should begin by the beginning of next year.

   Once the rulemaking is completed, manufacturers and sellers of the products will be required to conduct an initial alternatives analysis to determine if their product poses a significant health or environmental threat. The next stage involves how to make the product safer and then determine a regulatory response is needed.

   The DTSC is accepting public comment on the draft guide through Oct. 23 and has planned two webinars, 9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21, to review the document.

   ‘Paperwork Beast.’

   In a Sept. 25 blog, Alston & Bird attorney Maureen Gorsen urged manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to review the draft guide to determine if what the DTSC is asking is “doable and feasible” and to provide comments.

   “If your product is selected as a ‘priority product’ under the California Safer Consumer Product Regulations, then your company will be required to prepare and submit for public review an alternatives analysis (AA),” Gorsen, who represents the apparel industry, wrote. “An AA is a brand new paperwork beast.”

   A cornerstone of the state's Green Chemistry Initiative, the Safer Consumer Product Regulations established a four-step process for identifying product-chemical combinations that pose a significant threat to public health or the environment.

   So far, the DTSC has identified more than 1,100 chemicals that could become “chemicals of concern” under the program.

   Parker told Bloomberg BNA, the department will issue a rulemaking Oct. 2 to amend the list of chemicals to correct an error that failed to capture chemicals the European Commission identified as endocrine disruptors. The rulemaking also aims to include chemicals on the National Toxicology Program's updated Report on Carcinogens, he said.

    

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. UN Authorities: Chemical Phaseout Falls Short

   Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Bryce Baschuk

   International chemical regulators are falling short in their efforts to phase out the global use of highly hazardous pesticides, according to a pair of United Nations human rights authorities.

   Countries still trade and use harmful pesticides with long-term effects on humans and the environment despite a 2002 Earth Summit accord aimed at achieving the sound management of chemicals by 2020, said two UN special rapporteurs in a Sept. 28 statement.

   “Workers, children and others at risk continue to suffer severe impacts from hazardous pesticides,” said Baskut Tuncak, the UN Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. “It is imperative that states take collective action now.”

   Hazardous pesticides used in farming are inflicting significant damage on human health and impede an individual's right to access safe healthy food, said Hilal Elver, the UN's special rapporteur on the right to food.

   “Urgent action is needed,” Elver said. “States must reorient their methods of food production towards systems that inflict less harm, are more sustainable and truly contribute to the realization of all human rights.”

   The experts' comments came as international chemicals negotiators gathered in Geneva for the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4).

   ICCM4 participants of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management will engage in high-level meetings Oct. 1–2 to discuss their contributions to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.

    

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. US EPA Receives Test Data for Chemical Intermediate

    Sep 29, 2015 | Chemical Watch

    The US EPA has received test data for the substance 1,2-ethylene dichloride, in response to an enforceable consent order issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

    The substance is used primarily as a chemical intermediate in the production of vinyl chloride.

    The test data pertains to reproductive toxicity and neurotoxicity.

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

11. Industry Dollars Flow to Aspiring House Leaders

    Sep 29, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Jennifer Yachnin

    House Republicans will soon hold new leadership elections, but one outcome is already clear: Energy industry-related donors claim a heavy investment in many of the GOP lawmakers vying for top posts.

    The House Republican Conference is expected to set a date as early as today for new leadership elections in the wake of Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) surprise announcement Friday that he will resign from Congress at the end of October.

    That decision will trigger not only contests for the speaker's gavel -- which current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is widely expected to take up -- but intraparty battles for majority leader, Republican whip and Republican conference chairman.

    Given that the pool of contenders includes two Energy and Commerce Committee members as well as McCarthy -- who has described his district's Kern County as the "the heart of oil production in California" (EnergyWire, Jan. 24, 2014) -- it comes as no surprise that the oil and gas industry has already invested heavily in much of the House GOP's potential new leadership slate.

    McCarthy, who served on the Financial Services Committee before advancing to the majority leader's office in late 2014, is among the top recipients of funds from the oil and gas industry in the House this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    The fifth-term Republican raised more than $2.5 million for his re-election bid as of the end of June, including nearly $109,000 from individuals or political action committees related to the industry.

    Overall, McCarthy has claimed $188,100 from the energy and natural resources sector in the first two quarters of the 2016 cycle. But his top source of funds remains the financial sector, where he has raised $738,000, and the health industry, from which he has collected $381,000.

    During the 2014 cycle, McCarthy raised more than $535,000 from the energy and natural resources sector, including nearly $327,000 from donors or PACs in the oil and gas industry. McCarthy recorded the eighth-largest haul from oil and gas donors in the 2014 cycle among House lawmakers. Then-Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who was competing for the Senate seat he now holds, took the top spot with $702,000 from the sector.

    McCarthy also rated among the largest recipients of funds from electric utility donors in the 2014 cycle, with $120,000 in receipts. According to data compiled by CRP, McCarthy has raised more than $1.4 million from energy and natural resources-related donors and PACs since his first election in 2006.

    Florida Rep. Daniel Webster is the only other Republican to have expressed an interest in bidding for the speaker's gavel so far but reported significantly less support from the energy sector, according to CPR data.

    Webster, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, had taken in $371,000 for his campaign at the end of June, including $1,800 in contributions from energy and natural resources-related donors.

    During his 2014 campaign, Webster claimed close to $25,000 from the same sector, including $14,000 in donations from electric utility-related PACs.

    Webster ran a symbolic challenge to Boehner at the start of this Congress, garnering 12 votes. His House seat is imperiled due to the mid-decade redistricting underway in Florida, which was mandated by the state's highest court.Scalise a favorite

    Energy industry dollars are likewise prevalent in the expected two-way competition to become the next majority leader, with both Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, an Energy and Commerce Committee member and longtime ally of the oil and gas industry, seeking the position. Georgia Rep. Tom Price, who chairs the Budget Committee, is also vying for the post.

    Scalise, the current House majority whip, boasts the most prominent industry ties, with both Hess Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources among his top donors this cycle.

    Scalise had raised $992,000 at the end of June, including more than $145,000 from oil and gas industry related donors and PACs, making him among the House's largest beneficiaries of the industry this cycle.

    During the 2014 cycle, Scalise received nearly $252,000 from oil and gas donors, the 14th-largest take among all House members for that industry.

    He received a total of $417,000 in donations from all energy and natural resources-related supporters that cycle. His top donors included individuals or PACs tied to Edison Chouest Offshore, Entergy Corp., Bollinger Shipyards and Koch Industries.

    Scalise took over as majority whip when McCarthy was bumped up to majority leader. He has represented the New Orleans suburbs since winning a special election in May 2008.

    Price, a former orthopedic surgeon who reported significant support from health industry-related donors in both the current and prior election cycles, claimed the least support among the trio from the energy sector.

    Included in the $535,000 he raised through the second quarter, Price reported $6,500 from the oil and gas industry and $11,000 from the energy and natural resources sector overall.

    In his 2014 re-election bid, Price posted nearly $58,000 in donations from the energy and natural resources sector.

    Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the Republican Conference chairwoman, had been expected to run for majority leader but signaled last night that she wants to retain her post as the No. 4 ranking member of GOP leadership.Whipping up support

    The trio of lawmakers vying to be the next House Republican whip also reported filling their campaign coffers with assistance from donors with ties to the energy industry.

    Oklahoma Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R), who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, counts the oil and gas industry among his top supporters, giving nearly $60,000 of the $257,000 he has raised to date this cycle.

    Mullin's top contributors include individuals and PACs tied to Devon Energy and Primary Natural Resources. He similarly benefited from the oil and gas industry in his 2014 election, when he raised more than $125,000 from such donors as well as another $19,000 from the electric utility sector.

    North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry, who serves on the Financial Services panel and is also vying to be the next whip, has relied on the insurance and banking sectors for much of the $877,000 he has raised this cycle, but he also tallied $36,000 from the energy and natural resources sector.

    During the 2014 cycle, he raised nearly $48,000 from such donors.

    Florida Rep. Dennis Ross, who also serves on the Financial Services panel, reports the smallest share of energy-funded campaign cash, with $8,500 from the energy and natural resources sector so far this cycle.

    During his 2014 campaign, Ross reported nearly $58,000 from such donors, including $33,000 from donors or PACs tied to the oil and gas industry and $25,000 from donors with ties to electric utilities.

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Jeb Bush’s Energy Plan Includes Dropping Oil-Export Ban

    Sep 29, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Amy Harder and Beth Reinhard

    In his third policy announcement this month aimed at accelerating economic growth, Jeb Bush is calling to remove the nation’s 40-year-old ban on oil exports, approve the Keystone XL pipeline and eliminate a raft of environmental regulations.

    Mr. Bush is expected to outline his energy platform Tuesday afternoon at Rice Energy, a Pennsylvania oil and gas company. Mr. Bush is promising that this agenda, along with his plans unveiled earlier this month to lower tax rates and roll back regulations on business, would generate 4% annual economic growth—a target the U.S. hasn’t hit in a sustained way since the late 1990s.

    Mr. Bush’s energy ideas are mainstays among Republican presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail. All of the GOP candidates for president support the Keystone pipeline and many, including retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, businessman Donald Trump and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, support lifting the ban on crude-oil exports to foreign markets.

    When Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton said recently that she would oppose the Keystone pipeline, after many months of declining to weigh in, Mr. Bush said: “She favors environmental extremists over U.S. jobs.”

    In an online column being posted Tuesday on Medium, Mr. Bush also called Mrs. Clinton “extreme” for opposing drilling off the northern coast of Alaska.

    For the past several years, Republicans have been advocating a smaller role for federal government in energy production. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, proposed giving states power over the federal lands within their borders, a policy move that Mr. Bush will also endorse on Tuesday.

    Mr. Bush is singling out for repeal a handful of environmental regulations the Obama administration has implemented over the past couple of years, including limits on carbon emissions and stricter standards on hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technology that has helped unlock vast reserves of oil and natural gas throughout the U.S.

    Mr. Bush is also proposing to repeal tax breaks for all energy sources, including oil and natural gas.

    “We must create a level playing field for all energy sources including, but not limited to, nuclear, renewables, coal, natural gas, oil and alternative fuels,” Mr. Bush wrote in Medium. “We unnecessarily drive up energy costs on Americans when we play favorites and suppress the dynamism of free markets.”

    Mr. Bush has said he would repeal the renewable fuel standard, which requires biofuels such as ethanol to be blended into gasoline and diesel. The mandate is supported by many voters and political leaders in Iowa, a battleground state where corn, a key ingredient for U.S. ethanol, is a major crop. The mandate is opposed, however, by the oil and natural gas industry and the tea party faction of the Republican Party.

    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also opposes the mandate, while Mr. Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee support the fuel standard.

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Fracking Opponents

    Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Leslie Pappas

     A county judge in Pennsylvania dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit that a housing developer filed against environmentalists opposed to fracking activities near township neighborhoods, saying the complaint was not specific enough (Dewey Homes v. Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Pa. C.P., No. 15-10393, 9/22/15).

    In a court order filed in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas Sept. 22, judge Marilyn J. Horan said the plaintiffs have 20 days to file an amended complaint or the case will be dismissed.

    Dewey Homes and Investment Properties LLC and 12 local landowners filed a complaint May 22 against the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the Clean Air Council and five residents of Middlesex Township, alleging “tortious interference with contract,” according to the complaint. The defendants engaged in “an incendiary scorched earth campaign” to interfere with contracts that the plaintiffs had with oil and gas companies, filed ”frivolous” challenges against township ordinances to force delays in drilling activity and misused the legal process, the complaint says. All plaintiffs in the case are landowners in Butler County who had entered into oil and gas lease contracts with natural gas developers RE Gas Development LLC, Range Resources or Dale Properties LP, court records show.

    “We're definitely going to file an amended complaint” before the Oct. 12 deadline, attorney for the plaintiffs, Ronald D. Amrhein Jr., of Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace LLP, told Bloomberg BNA in a phone call Sept. 28. Amrhein said the court “did not rule or discuss the merits” of the case in any way, and simply asked for more facts.

    Attorneys for the defendants. who characterized the lawsuit as a strategy lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), called the judge's ruling a victory for free speech.

    The ruling “is a victory for the First Amendment, and for the right of Americans to speak their minds on important issues,” Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which helped the defense, said in a news release Sept. 25.

    The environmental groups and township residents had been trying to “protect our communities from dangerous pollution and hazards,” Maya van Rossum, of Delaware Riverkeeper, said in the release. “No one should be hauled into court for that.”

    Van Rossum told Bloomberg BNA in a telephone call Sept. 28 that even if the plaintiffs file an amended complaint, she is “confident that any judge will see we've been right” and the court will agree that the claims brought against the group are false. It is the first SLAPP lawsuit that the group has experienced, she said. “This is not a commonplace occurrence.”

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. What do EPA’s Methane Rules Mean for the Energy Economy?

    Sep 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Sean Wright

    Around the country, people are talking about methane. Last week hundreds showed up to testify at public hearings in Dallas and Denver, weighing in on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to fight oil and gas methane pollution.

    Tomorrow, EPA will hear from many more stakeholders in Pittsburgh, while a panel of experts that EDF is convening in Washington, DC, will discuss how we can cost-effectively reduce methane pollution using technologies already on the market.

    The public hearings have largely reflected the concerns of local communities impacted by oil and gas industry air pollution. This is important as an overwhelming majority of voters support EPA’s proposal and view new rules as reasonable and necessary. This is hardly a surprise considering the oil and gas industry wastes over 7 million tons of methane pollution into the air every year, representing enough gas to heat 5 million homes and $1.2 billion dollars (at current prices) that could otherwise help boost our local economies. This tonnage of methane leakage also packs the same short-term warming power as 160 coal-fired power plants each year.

    Though the energy waste and pollution is enormous, cutting methane emissions is not an insurmountable problem. That’s what you can expect to hear from tomorrow’s discussion hosted by The Hill titled, “Powering the Economy: A Discussion on Natural Gas, Methane Policy, and American Business.”

    Event speakers include leaders from the field such as Martha Rudolph, a Colorado regulator involved in issuing and implementing Colorado’s first-in-the-nation methane rules and Southwestern Energy, an oil and gas operator already integrating methane reduction into their business practice. A comprehensive national policy can provide a level playing field for the entire energy economy, which in turn can boost investor confidence in the energy sector, as speaker Bryan Rice of the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) will likely mention.

    FLIR, a company in the methane mitigation industry, will also be speaking about the the proven, straightforward and cost-effective solutions available to reduce methane pollution, and call attention to places where jobs have grown, including Colorado and Wyoming, despite tighter limits on oil and gas pollution being put into place.

    We expect tomorrow’s discussion on EPA’s proposal to be a lively one, bringing in a range of perspectives to discuss why it is important to reduce methane, what oil and gas operators can do to limit these emissions using available technology, what EPA’s proposal might achieve and how it can be implemented at manageable cost to industry, and the overall impact that these policies might have on the American energy economy.

    Join the conversation online via Twitter at #MethaneForum and by watching the live webcast.

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. EPA Set to Tighten Smog Limits as Business Gears for Fight

    Sep 29, 2015 | AP (In The New York Times)

    By Matthew Daly

    Facing a court-ordered deadline, the Obama administration is preparing to finalize stricter emissions limits on smog-forming pollution linked to asthma and respiratory illness.

    The move fulfills a long-delayed campaign promise by President Barack Obama, but sets up a fresh confrontation with Republicans already angry about the administration's plans to curb carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and to regulate small streams and wetlands.

    Business groups panned the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ozone rules as unnecessary when they were announced last fall, calling them the costliest regulation in history and warning they could jeopardize a resurgence in American manufacturing.

    But EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy argues that public health benefits far outweigh the costs and says most of the U.S. can meet the tougher standards without doing anything new.

    The rules are causing a ruckus on Capitol Hill even before the final plan is announced. The EPA is expected to act by Thursday to set a new ozone limit of 70 parts per billion or less in the atmosphere, down from the existing standard of 75.

    Janet McCabe, the EPA's top air regulator, will defend the rule on Tuesday at a Senate hearing called by Republicans who have vowed to "rein in" an agency they say has run amok.

    Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the ozone proposal will have negligible environmental benefits and comes with huge economic costs. Instead of creating a job-killing mandate, the EPA should focus on helping counties across the nation that have not yet met the current standards, he said.

    "A new standard at this time is not only irresponsible, but also impractical and economically destructive," Inhofe added.

    But Paul Billings, senior vice president of the American Lung Association, said EPA should not consider cost, but instead focus on protection of the public's health and safety.

    Once a standard is set that protects the public, then cost can be factored in, Billings said. The lung association has played a key role in development of ozone standards through a series of legal actions over the past two decades.

    "Less smog means better health for all of us," Billings said.

    The National Association of Manufacturers is leading opposition to the new rule and argues in TV ads that the current ozone rule works. The ad features a video clip of Obama saying the U.S. has largely "solved" the smog problem since the days when thick air pollution in Los Angeles and other big cities made it difficult to breathe.

    "With air quality the best it's been in decades and still improving, bipartisan leaders across the United States agree now is not the time for a new ozone rule," said Jay Timmons, the group's president and CEO.

    Cutting ozone emissions to 70 parts per billion would cost industry about $3.9 billion in 2025, the EPA estimated, while a stricter limit of 65 would push the cost up to $15 billion. A price tag that high would exceed that of any previous environmental regulation in U.S. history.

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. In Smog Battle, Industry Gets Help from Unlikely Source: Black Business Group

    Sep 28, 2015 | The Washington Post

    By Joby Warrick

    For years, the air over central Pittsburgh has ranked among the country’s dirtiest, with haze and soot that regularly trigger spikes in asthma attacks, especially among the urban poor. So it might have seemed odd that a black business group would choose this spot to denounce proposed restrictions on smog.

    But that’s exactly what the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce did this month. Chamber President Harry C. Alford appeared before some of Pittsburgh’s African American leaders to urge opposition to a White House plan for tougher limits on air pollution. Then he went on radio to deliver the same appeal.

    “Why do we impose these ­massive, arbitrary rules?” Alford asked.

    Despite the unlikely venue, the message was anything but unusual for Alford, a veteran of multiple campaigns to quash regulations intended to improve air quality or fight climate change. Since early summer, Alford has delivered the same pitch in multiple cities, blasting a plan to impose limits on ozone, a pollutant that contributes to urban smog and aggravates breathing disorders, particularly among the elderly and very young.

    Alford’s message — that the proposed regulations would hurt the economy and stifle job growth — is nearly identical to the one being broadcast widely by the rules’ opponents from business and industry. The National Association of Manufacturers has poured millions of dollars into a television ad campaign criticizing the proposal, which the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to adopt in final form Wednesday.

    But while the TV ads command the most attention, a more subtle effort is underway to reduce support for the regulations among blacks, Latinos and even the elderly — groups not usually regarded as natural allies for corporations fighting air-pollution laws.

    The National Black Chamber of Commerce, which acknowledges receiving strong financial backing from Exxon Mobil and other ­fossil-fuel interests, has specifically tailored its message to African American audiences, drawing anger from environmental and public health groups that say urban blacks would be among the biggest beneficiaries of tighter regulations.

    “The dirtiest utility plants pollute and hurt black communities,” said Evlondo Cooper, a researcher for the Checks and Balances Project, a watchdog group that investigates the use of corporate money in anti-clean-energy campaigns. Cooper, whose nonprofit organization has staged videotaped confrontations with Alford at two of his recent speaking events, said groups such as the NBCC have helped foster perceptions of a sharp divide among African Americans over whether stronger air-quality laws are needed.

    “He doesn’t speak for black people,” Cooper said, referring to Alford, “and nothing about his support for the fossil-fuel lobby or his attacks on clean energy has been helpful to our community.”

    Alford, who has boasted of accepting money from oil and other fossil-fuel companies, declined to respond to repeated requests for comment.

    He has argued that environmental regulations often harm minorities by slowing job growth.

    “I think you can have a balance,” Alford told a Pittsburgh radio station during his Sept. 2 visit. “What’s unfair is that the rules and targets keep changing.”‘The strictest ever imposed’

    The focus of Alford’s latest attack is an EPA proposal that would lower permissible limits for smog in cities across the country. Agency officials face a court-ordered deadline to promulgate a new ozone standard by Wednesday, but the law gives the agency some discretion in deciding exactly how tough it will be. A preliminary proposal unveiled last year called for changing the ozone limit from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to between 65 and 70.

    A lower number could have significant economic consequences: Cities that consistently fail to meet the standard could eventually face restrictions on certain kinds of industrial development.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. The Ozone Rules That No One Will Like

    Sep 29, 2015 | National Journal

    By Jason Plautz

    Envir­on­ment­al­ists have been burned by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion be­fore on smog reg­u­la­tions. Now they’re wor­ried that it’s about to hap­pen again.

    The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency is un­der a court or­der to fi­nal­ize a rule tight­en­ing stand­ards for ground-level ozone by Oct. 1. That’s the same air-qual­ity rule that was pulled by the White House in 2011 over eco­nom­ic con­cerns, a move that left the en­vir­on­ment­al com­munity in­censed.

    Deep in­to a second term where Pres­id­ent Obama has been ag­gress­ive on en­vir­on­ment­al is­sues, the ozone rule won’t be yanked again. But en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are now gird­ing them­selves for an­oth­er dis­ap­point­ment: that the stand­ard won’t be tight enough.

    Sources fa­mil­i­ar with the dis­cus­sions say that the EPA is push­ing to lower the ozone stand­ard of 75 parts per bil­lion to 70 ppb, the high end of the 65-70 ppb range that the agency pro­posed last fall.

    The White House could lower the fi­nal stand­ard down to 68 ppb, a seem­ingly minor tweak, but one that could re­quire dra­mat­ic­ally more pol­lu­tion con­trol. With days to go be­fore a de­cision comes out, en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are mak­ing the case that 70 ppb just won’t be enough, even as they pre­pare for it.

    A 70 ppb stand­ard “would be a be­tray­al of the Clean Air Act’s prom­ise of healthy air and a be­tray­al of the mil­lions of kids and seni­ors and asth­mat­ics who will not re­ceive the pro­tec­tion that doc­tors say they need by such a stand­ard,” said Dav­id Bar­on, a man­aging at­tor­ney for Earthjustice.

    Bar­on said there was a “good like­li­hood” that his group could sue the EPA if such a stand­ard was is­sued.

    The ozone stand­ard sets the lim­it for ozone pol­lu­tion, or smog, and re­quires states that vi­ol­ate the level to craft com­pli­ance plans. Ozone has been linked to asthma, res­pir­at­ory dam­age and a host of oth­er health im­pacts.

    Busi­ness and in­dustry groups have long op­posed any bid to lower the stand­ard, say­ing that it would plunge too many areas of the coun­try in­to non­at­tain­ment status. Com­ply­ing with the rule would re­quire states to craft plans that cut down on pol­lu­tion from cars and in­dus­tri­al sources, adding up to a rule that op­pon­ents say would be the most ex­pens­ive in his­tory.

    Ross Eis­en­berg, vice pres­id­ent of en­ergy at the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Man­u­fac­tur­ers, said that his group had not done an ana­lys­is of what would hap­pen un­der a 70 ppb stand­ard, but that any­thing be­low the cur­rent stand­ard would be a blow to its mem­bers. He did not say wheth­er NAM would con­sider a chal­lenge over a 70 ppb level, but ad­ded, “we’d have to do a lot of work to fig­ure out what this means for our mem­bers and what the costs would be.”

    “What I do know is that 68 ppb is markedly worse than 70 [ppb],” Eis­en­berg said. That seem­ingly small dif­fer­ence, he said, would re­quire new tech­no­logy to be ad­ded to man­u­fac­tur­ing sites and that more areas of the coun­try would be out of at­tain­ment.

    Op­pon­ents have pushed hard on purple states and mod­er­ate politi­cians in a bid to turn them against the stand­ard.

    But pub­lic-health groups say that the coun­try has too long been stuck on a 75 ppb stand­ard that’s in­suf­fi­cient for pub­lic health (it was first set un­der the George W. Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion, and greens sued be­cause they felt it was not tough enough). The EPA’s sci­entif­ic ad­vis­ory board, which ana­lyzes sci­entif­ic lit­er­at­ure on pol­lu­tion, said last year that 75 ppb was in­suf­fi­cient for pub­lic health, and that vul­ner­able groups such as chil­dren or the eld­erly would see pro­tec­tion only at 60 ppb.

    That’s the level where most of the mes­saging and lob­by­ing from the Left has centered, even after the EPA didn’t in­clude it in the pro­posed range that the agency was con­sid­er­ing.

    They’re used to dis­ap­point­ment on this. Ahead of the 2012 elec­tions, the White House yanked its last re­view of the ozone stand­ard over con­cerns that it would dam­age the eco­nomy. The move drove a deep wedge between en­vir­on­ment­al­ists and the White House, and has left them frus­trated on ozone.

    John Walke, clean air dir­ect­or for the Nat­ur­al Re­sources De­fense Coun­cil, said that there’s still hope that, with a few days to go, the White House will lower the pro­pos­al, say­ing it would be “be­wil­der­ing that ad­min­is­tra­tion would set an un­pro­tect­ive level … after hav­ing so many years to get this right.”

    “The mes­sage,” he ad­ded, “is that Pres­id­ent Obama should do bet­ter than EPA’s worst.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. EPA To Model Trading Program In ESPS FIP On State Compliance Plans

    Sep 28, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By Abby Smith

     EPA plans to shape the federal implementation plan (FIP) for its final power plant greenhouse gas rule on stakeholder discussions in states as they develop plans to comply with the underlying rule, a top agency official says, with the aim of creating an emissions trading system that is compatible with most state plans.

    “What we would like to see happen . . . is as the universe of stakeholders engage in discussions as to what the best approach is, those discussions will also be informing where we go from proposal to final with regard to the federal plan,” EPA air office attorney Joe Goffman said in his Sept. 24 keynote address at the Carbon Forum North America conference here hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).

    Goffman said that EPA, in some ways, “narrowed our own choices with respect to what we proposed in the federal plan,” because the FIP “by definition focuses solely on the implementation mechanism and not on the standard itself.”

    The remarks suggest that even though EPA offers the proposed FIP as a model rule for states looking to include a trading program in their plans, the agency may also be looking to states to resolve some of the unanswered questions regarding how such trading programs would function, rather than states receiving guidance from EPA.

    Even though EPA and other speakers at the conference are urging states to adopt trading programs to comply with the rule, some observers note that states “are not there yet” and are still assessing multiple compliance options.

    Once published in the Federal Register, alongside the final existing source performance standards (ESPS) and a companion rule for new and modified power plants, the FIP will be subject to public comment for 90 days. EPA then plans to revise the plan before finalizing it next summer.

    EPA says that it would then be in a position to impose the FIP on any state that refuses to submit an “initial” compliance plan by a September 2016 deadline.

    In the proposal, EPA included separate rate- and mass-based trading programs, though it says it intends to finalize only one program -- which some observers expect will be the mass-based program due to cost savings -- and that all states subject to the FIP would be placed in that program.

    Many stakeholders had assumed that states would look to the model trading rules in the FIP to craft their compliance plans to include an approach that would be easily approved by EPA.

    But EPA is now awaiting states' initial compliance plans, though some observers say the timing of the final federal plan next summer and the deadline for initial state plans next September could create challenges.

    “The timing is funny. States will work on plans now, and if they don't get a final [FIP] for a while, it won't be useful,” Sarah Jackson of Synapse Energy Economics told Inside EPA. “The proposal is there for them to build on, but the timing could be a bit more helpful.”

    But Goffman said state and other comments on the proposed FIP will ensure that the final version is compatible with state plans. He says that agency history “really favors some sort of credit or allowance trading,” citing the acid rain program and EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. He added that it is important for states subject to the FIP to be able to trade with other states that include emissions trading in their plans.

    Goffman also argued that a larger trading system is what utility industry groups recommended to EPA in comments on the proposed ESPS and interactions with the agency.

    “One of messages we think we're hearing is that utilities and investors are still asking for what they've always asked for: a consistent price signal when it comes to carbon markets,” he said at the conference, adding that providing that would require states to develop “broadly consistent approaches, presumably ones that included some form of trading.”

    Mass-Based Trading

    Goffman's trading comments were echoed by utility group representatives and other advocates at the IETA conference, who extolled the benefits of a mass-based “trading ready” compliance approach.

    Brian Wolff, senior vice president of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), said a consistent price signal is important for long-term industry planning, and as such the optimal approach for utilities is a mass-based cap-and-trade program.

    “It would be better when you're actually removing state borders and you're able to count things that exist elsewhere. It really is something that just makes sense for our industry, that we might have a trading program that is similar [to cap and trade]. And a mass-based program like that would work well,” Wolff said.

    EEI, which represents investor-owned utilities, had previously supported the trading program in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, while other utility industry groups have more strongly resisted climate policies.

    Bruce Braine, senior vice president of American Electric Power (AEP), said during a separate roundtable discussion that EPA “tilted the deck” toward a mass-based approach and that it would be “very tough” to set up a rate-based trading program.

    Many stakeholders at the conference similarly supported a mass-based trading approach as the most flexible and cost-effective means for states to comply with EPA's rule without having to gain additional approval from EPA to trade.

    And they say the option was eased with the “trading ready” option included in the final rule, in which each state crafts its own plan but includes a set of “common elements” that allow its power plants to trade with plants in other approved states.

    That concept allows for a “much more national conversation. The states are not limited to trading within their own regions” like in the proposed rule, says Lissa Lynch of the Georgetown Climate Center.

    EPA has also signaled its support for mass-based compliance, touting the option as far less expensive than rate-based plans. The agency also smoothed adoption of mass-based trading in its final rule, observers say.

    “We've made clear that if utilities and states want to create not just state-level trading markets, but also broad regional trading markets -- we've made getting onto that path quickly and with relatively low transaction costs readily available,” Goffman said at the IETA forum.

    'Not There Yet'

    Despite the widespread stakeholder support of mass-based trading, Lynch, who works with states on ESPS compliance, says states are not yet sold on that approach.

    “As market experts, I think a lot of people are zeroing in on mass-based, trading ready approaches as the best way to go. The states are not there yet,” Lynch said, adding that many states are also considering rate-based compliance. “There is a general sense that a mass-based, trading ready approach is going to be the most streamlined, but that is by no means the only option that states are considering.”

    Her remarks echo the dynamic from a recent meeting of Western states, in which stakeholders argued that trading would be the best compliance option but states were far from settling on a favored approach. Many Western states “are still pretty far behind in their thinking,” said a source at the recent meeting, noting there “certainly is not a lot in the way of getting down into the meat in terms of thinking about compliance choices and implementation options yet.”

    Lynch says part of the reason why states are taking a “hard look” at rate-based compliance is because they are concerned about a limited potential for growth under a mass-based emissions cap for existing sources, or a limit for existing and new plants using EPA's “new source complement.”

    Under existing source-only caps, Lynch notes, EPA included a “substantial amount of growth” to make them more equivalent to rate-based targets. That comes in the form of an “unneeded renewables” addition, which some sources have said accounts for about 12 percent of a state's overall mass-based target.

    Even so, Lynch says states “are still working through the math that went into that and really trying to understand how much growth and [are asking], 'Is it going to be enough for me?'”

    Further, states are not required to choose a compliance approach by next year's September deadline, Lynch says, noting that EPA's minimal requirements or initial plans allow a state to report that it is still considering both rate- and mass-based approaches. In an update due in 2017, states would be required to choose their desired compliance pathway, before submitting a final compliance plan in 2018.

    But she hopes advocates and power companies will encourage states to make a decision early -- “as early as possible, so as many states as possible are signaling” they will choose a mass-based trading approach.

    “If you get a critical mass of states to put that in their initial submission, then you have a much more certain world of trading than if everybody takes the opportunity to submit an initial submission that says, 'We're looking at all our options; we'll get back to you in a year,'” Lynch said.

    AEP's Braine, however, predicts that most states will not commit to an exact compliance pathway in their initial plans. But, he says, states will most likely “provide some indication, very much in the same way EPA provided indication [in the final ESPS], of what their preferred course is probably going to be. And I think a lot of those will be mass.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Environmentalists Likely To Sue EPA Over Potential 70 ppb Ozone NAAQS

    | InsideEPA

    By Stuart Parker

    Environmentalists will likely sue EPA if it sets a revised ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) at 70 parts per billion (ppb), says an environmental attorney who says such a limit -- weaker than the 60 ppb limit advocates favor -- would fall short of a Clean Air Act mandate that NAAQS be adequately protective of public health.

    However, any litigation over the setting of the standard faces slim prospects in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court in rulings in prior suits over various NAAQS for criteria pollutants has deferred to the agency's scientific expertize in the level at which it sets the standards. That legal deference also suggests problems for industry groups if they sue EPA for making any changes to the existing 75 ppb limit.

    EPA is poised to decide by an Oct. 1 judicial deadline whether to revise its NAAQS of 75 ppb established in 2008. The Clean Air Act mandates that the agency review its ambient air limits every five years, and environmentalists filed a deadline suit after EPA missed the 2013 deadline for reviewing the ozone standard.

    The agency in November proposed to tighten the limit to within the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb in order to meet an air law mandate that the NAAQS be adequate to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. While EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) backed a limit in the range of 60 to 70 ppb, environmentalists say only a 60 ppb standard would be protective of public health, and industry groups oppose any change to the standard.

    As Inside EPA has reported, the agency's final NAAQS still undergoing White House pre-publication review appears to lean to a 70 ppb limit while the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) is said to favor a stricter 68 ppb standard. Either standard would be more stringent than the 2008 NAAQS.

    Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee is seeking responses by Oct. 8 from EPA and CEQ over the alleged dispute about the NAAQS level. GOP lawmakers say there is no basis to tighten the standard and that it will impose massive costs on areas designated out of attainment with the limit. But EPA by law can only consider scientific data and not costs in setting ambient air standards.

    Ahead of the agency's public announcement of its final standard, environmentalists are reiterating calls for a 60 ppb limit and threatening potential litigation if the agency sets the NAAQS at a higher level.

    'Unlawful' Standard

    On a Sept. 28 call with reporters, David Baron, a managing attorney with environmental law firm Earthjustice, said “there is a good likelihood that we would sue” if EPA issues a final NAAQS at 70 ppb. Baron cited scientific evidence of harm to public health at levels well below that threshold. He said a 70 ppb standard “would be just blatantly unlawful,” as it would not be sufficient to protect public health according to many leading medical groups. This would be “a betrayal of the Clean Air Act's promise of healthy air,” and “is not defensible,” Baron said.

    Attorney John Walke with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said a NAAQS set at 70 ppb would be neither “credible” nor “responsible,” and said the ozone standard is a “legacy” issue for President Obama. In a blog post the same day, Walke said, “The president's decision will determine whether he leaves behind a positive and fully protective legacy on health standards safeguarding Americans against unsafe smog levels. Whatever he decides on is likely to remain the standard for many years to come, raising the stakes even further."

    Obama in 2011 made “his worst environmental decision” by ordering then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to shelve a reconsidered ozone rule that would have tightened the NAAQS to 70 ppb in 2011, Walke said on the call. At the time Obama said EPA had to scrap the discretionary rulemaking in order to provide regulatory certainty, given that the upcoming five-year Clean Air Act review was at the time slated to take place in 2013.

    Walke cited the opinion of CASAC as supporting environmentalists' case, though the advisors' suggested limit was in the range of 60 ppb-70 ppb and not just 60 ppb. But CASAC warned that a standard at 70 ppb would leave little room for the “adequate margin of safety” to protect vulnerable groups that the Clean Air Act demands, Walke said.

    Any litigation over the merits of the eventual final NAAQS faces tough odds in the D.C. Circuit, however, because the court in prior rulings has deferred to the agency's expertize on setting the standards.

    For example, the court in a unanimous May 2014 ruling rejected industry groups' lawsuit over EPA's 2012 decision to strengthen its fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air standards. The court said “we exercise great deference when we evaluate claims about competing bodies of scientific research,” and deferred to EPA, finding that the agency's interpretation of the science on PM2.5 and its health effects was sufficiently reasonable.

    Stricter Standard

    Meanwhile, on the call with reporters, NRDC's Walke also expressed optimism that some in the White House might be considering a tougher standard, which some sources say might be 68 ppb. “We take hope in reports that there are individuals within the White House who are considering whether to do better” than 70 ppb, he said.

    Opponents of a tougher ozone NAAQS among GOP lawmakers, however, have seized on this possibility as political interference in the standard-setting process, pointing to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's legal duty to set the standard based only on science and public health considerations.

    Critics of a stricter standard could potentially push legislation to reject the rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to scrap agency regulations with a majority vote -- similar to CRA resolutions EPA critics have pushed on other measures such as its Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule. However, it is unclear whether lawmakers would have the votes necessary to overturn an expected Obama veto of such a measure.

    Walke said if lawmakers pursue such an option then NRDC would strongly oppose the move, along with other public health campaigners. Any successful CRA attack on a NAAQS standard would leave a “radioactive spillover” that would leave EPA unable to pass a health-based NAAQS in the future, Walke said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. With Cap and Trade Plan, China Adopts Emissions Policy that Couldn’t Get Through U.S. Congress

    Sep 28, 2015 | The Washington Post

    By Steven Mufson

    China may be the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, but Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to make his new commitment to introduce a nationwide cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions a centerpiece of his speech at the United Nations General Assembly Monday morning.

    But far from the television lights of New York, the effectiveness of an emissions trading system, now being used by seven Chinese cities, will hinge on how the system is designed and implemented. Emissions trading has had a mixed track record in the European Union. And the rollercoaster year in China’s own equity markets raises questions about whether a market in greenhouse gas permits there can be any more stable and transparent.

    “On the surface, Communist China has the opportunity to create a far more economically efficient emissions reduction effort than the command and control regulations which the supposedly free market U.S. has adopted,” said Paul Bledsoe, an energy consultant and former Clinton White House official on climate. “But whether China can accomplish the transparency needed to instill market confidence is an open question.”

    Transparency – or lack of it – has been the major issue in China’s own pilot programs. In a government-created market, the rules government lays down for emissions levels and which emissions are targeted are critical. But people who have advised the Chinese government say the lessons from the pilot programs will make the nationwide plan stronger.

    “In the short term I don’t think it will be the major way China reduces emissions,” Song Ranping, climate expert at the World Resources Institute, said in an interview. “The main drivers will be other policies like energy efficiency policies and renewable energy policies. But over the long term, an emissions trading scheme does have the potential to be the main driver of carbon reductions.”

    The cap and trade scheme for controlling pollution was pioneered in the United States to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain. Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, the government established a mandatory cap on emissions and allowed companies the flexibility to figure out how to comply. The power companies ended up cutting emissions sharply and at much lower cost than anticipated. By 2013, sulfur dioxide emissions plunged 80 percent to a level well below the statutory requirement.

    But Europe’s cap and trade program for greenhouse gas pollution has failed in many respects. Launched in 2005, it covered 13,200 facilities, responsible for about half the European Union’s emissions. But the cap was set too high and was easily reached, especially after the 2009 recession and with lingering economic weakness in Europe. Carbon emission permit prices collapsed from around $40 per metric ton of carbon to single digits. Recently prices have crawled back up to about $10, still providing companies little incentive for cutting greenhouse gas output. The system currently has a glut of more than two billion emissions permits.

    In 2006, California adopted legislation setting up a carbon trading scheme, but it took a few years before the details could be ironed out. It aims to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, an 18 percent reduction from projected business as usual levels. It is still early going for the plan, but permit prices have been fluctuating between $15 and $20 a metric ton of carbon in the power sector.

    During Obama’s first year in office, the House of Representatives adopted a complicated cap and trade plan known as the Waxman-Markey bill, but the plan died in the Senate after an aggressive lobbying campaign led by oil and coal companies. It was never brought to the Senate floor for debate or vote. Many experts also cited the plan’s complexity and its assumption that technology developments would help firms comply.

    China’s own pilot projects in emissions trading have been varied. Guangdong’s is the biggest and only one to auction some emissions permits, providing the government there with extra revenue. Shanghai is the only one requiring domestic airlines to buy permits, something Europe has been looking to do but which has run into vociferous objections in the United States. And Shenzhen and Tianjin both allow individual investors and financial institutions to trade emissions permits, boosting trading volume – and possibly price volatility. Over the last six months of 2013, Shenzhen’s carbon price fluctuated from 28 renminbi to 130 renminbi ($4.50 to $20).

    Unlike many Chinese cities, Beijing and Shenzhen have small industrial sectors and large service economies. So in order to increase the percentage of emissions covered by their trading systems, both Beijing and Shenzhen have required key service firms to join the schemes. Beijing is the only pilot that requires annual absolute emission reductions for existing facilities in the manufacturing and service sectors. By this year, companies in Beijing will receive allowances for just 94 percent of their average emissions between 2009 and 2012, according to Song.

    The pilots carry some important lessons for a national program in China. “Since electricity prices are heavily regulated in China, power plants cannot pass their carbon costs on to consumers through electricity prices,” Song wrote last year . “This policy therefore provides little incentive for demand-side electricity management.”

    “These cities know that if they are going to have credibility that the underlying currency needs to be solid,” said Christopher James, a principal in the China programs of the Regulatory Assistance Project, a group of former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulators and former public utility commission members.

    James says that China’s President Xi’s announcement of “green dispatch” requirements was just as important as the cap and trade scheme. The “green dispatch” system will give non-carbon producing renewable energy projects top priority on the electricity grid even if that means cutting back on electricity produced with fossil fuels, usually at cheaper prices.

    Currently, all Chinese power generators are required to run 5,000 hours a year, regardless of economic or pollution costs. Thus a new efficient coal plant runs now more than an old, costly, highly polluting coal plant, said James. “From a grid operation viewpoint, I guess it’s pretty simple but it does not at all result in dispatching the most economic units first or reward efficiencies,” he said. He said several percent of the capacity of wind projects in northwest China were not connected to the grid.

    From 2006 to 2010, China closed down 72 gigawatts of inefficient coal plants – equal to three times the capacity of New England’s electricity grid. Under the 12th five year plan, China has shut down an additional 40 gigawatts, but many remain.

    The new green dispatch rules also will make room for new renewable projects, which China has vowed to double. While building coal plants at a breathtaking pace, for the past six years China has also been the world’s largest investor in renewables and other clean power sources and it is now number one in installed wind and soon will be for installed solar photovoltaic panels too.

    Once considered a laggard on climate issues, China has been frequently cited by American politicians and corporate executives as evidence of the futility of actions designed to limit greenhouse gases elsewhere. Now, however, China might not be so easy to use an excuse for inaction in the United States, Obama administration officials and others said.

    Carol Browner, former climate adviser to Obama and Environmental Protection Agency chief under President Clinton, said in an e-mail that “with China’s commitment, opponents of climate action here in the U.S. are running out of excuses, unfortunately not as quickly as the earth is running out of time.”

    But Chinese leaders have been motivated not only by President Obama’s relentless pressure for international action on climate change, but also by domestic anger over the severe bouts of conventional air pollution in China, much of it smaller than 2.5 micrometers, particularly harmful for respiratory illnesses.

    “It merits mention that success with the emission trading system can be a one-two punch helping to lower both CO2 and PM2.5-the latter the main source of the crippling pollution in Chinese cities,” said Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “The air pollution problem is a big motivator for Xi to push this and the cities to try to implement the emissions trading system — along with all the other regulations and rules coming out on air pollution.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Despite Pledges, Climate Action Seen Falling Short

    Sep 28, 2015 | AP (In The Washington Post)

    By Karl Ritter 

    The emissions pledges that countries have made ahead of a landmark conference in Paris have been a major boost to the slow-moving U.N. effort to fight climate change.

    Less so for the climate itself.

    With pledges to cut or curb greenhouse gas pollution on the table from all major countries except India, researchers say the world is on track for more than 2 degrees C (4 F) of warming this century.

    That’s a level that scientists say could result in profound and irreversible impacts on the climate system, including flooding of coastal cities and island nations, disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, and the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.

    However, climate experts say that it’s not game over yet, as long as the Paris agreement includes ways to step up the pace of emissions cuts over time.

    “Much of the underlying motivation for any emissions reduction agenda is that first steps lead to second steps, which lead to third steps. It is probably the case that first steps won’t solve the problem, but they start the journey,” said Chris Field, a candidate to become the next chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    An analysis presented Monday by Climate Interactive, a Washington-based climate research group, found the emissions targets presented by China, the U.S., the European Union, Brazil and other governments before the December conference in Paris leave the world on a path toward 3.5 degrees C (6.3 F) of warming compared with pre-industrial times. Temperatures have already warmed nearly 0.9 degrees C (1.6 F) from pre-industrial times to now, primarily because of emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, scientists say.

    That means warming would be 1 C (1.8 F) lower than what would happen if governments did nothing, said Andrew Jones, co-founder of Climate Interactive, but well above the international goal of keeping warming below 2 degrees C (3.6 ), which is 1.1 degrees C (2 degrees F) from now.

    Another analysis, by the European-based Climate Action Tracker, projects the world is on a path toward about 3 C (5.4 F) of warming. The difference is mainly due to guesswork on what happens after 2030, the end date for the current pledges.

    Niklas Hoehne, a researcher involved with Climate Action Tracker, said it’s still possible to limit warming to 2 degrees C if global emissions peak after 2030 as long as they drop quickly after that.

    “The question is whether it’s a politically feasible pathway or not. That’s a value judgment,” he said.

    Given the glacial pace of the U.N. climate talks in the past, the fact that just about all countries, rich and poor, are finally committing to do something about climate change is encouraging in itself, analysts say.

    A diplomatic solution seemed far away after a hyped 2009 summit in Copenhagen ended with a weak, voluntary agreement that pushed a more ambitious deal down the road.

    In Paris, the prospects of that deal coming together appear much greater, with all major emitters putting down emissions targets in advance. India is expected to do so this week, as the last of the top 10 greenhouse gas emitters.

    Still, it’s unclear whether the deal will include the tools to bend the emissions curves in the future enough to avoid dangerous levels of warming.

    Scientific models show that to stay below 2 degrees the world can emit no more than 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, a key global warming gas released when oil, coal and gas are burned for energy. At the current rate of emissions, that “carbon budget” will have been spent in three decades.

    But instead of figuring out ways to divide that budget in a way that reflects each nation’s historical responsibility for the problem, level of development and other factors, each country is self-determining the size of its share. That’s because countries cannot agree on what’s a fair distribution.

    “When every country’s definition of fair and ambitious uses different metrics you won’t easily get to a situation where you divide the carbon budget,” said Kelly Levin, of the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank.

    Even though they they’re not enough by themselves, many experts are optimistic that the pledges presented so far will lead to even greater emissions reductions going forward and ultimately a major shift toward a low-carbon energy system, with a much greater share of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

    It remains unclear, though, whether governments will ramp up their emissions cuts before the carbon budget runs out. While emissions have started to fall in developed countries, they are still rising fast in China and other fast-growing developing nations.

    Last week, Indian Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar told The Associated Press that any international deal must allow India’s emissions to grow as it expands its economy and fights poverty. He said that means richer countries that have polluted the atmosphere for much longer should make bigger cuts to their own emissions.

    “We are asking the developed world to vacate the carbon space to accommodate us,” Javadekar said. “It is our right as a nation. It’s our right as people of India, and we want that carbon space.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Environmentalists Defend EPA 'Emission Factors' Suit

    Sep 29, 2015 | InsideEPA

    Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court against scrapping their lawsuit seeking to force EPA to modify its “emission factors” used to estimate air pollution from industrial facilities, saying the fact they missed a deadline for filing a statement of issues to be raised in the litigation does not warrant dismissing the entire suit.

    “Petitioners’ single missed deadline in this case is of the minor type that does not warrant dismissal,” the environmentalists say in a Sept. 28 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court “should favor disposition of this case on the merits, and dismissal is a particularly harsh sanction that should be reserved for a pattern of particularly egregious or dilatory behavior.”

    The court in its own Aug. 27 motion said that the petitioners had to “show cause by September 28, 2015, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution” after missing the Aug. 12 deadline for filing its non-binding statement of issues, which would outline the questions advocates would raise in the suit. The Environmental Integrity Project, which is pursuing the suit, eventually filed the statement Sept. 1.

    Environmentalists are suing EPA because they claim that, despite a recent revision of emission factors by the agency, the factors are still flawed and could result in underestimates of pollution. Those figures would compromise emission limits in air permits, and otherwise undermine regulation of industry sectors, they say.

    EPA in a May 11 rule updated its emission factors for flares and other pieces of equipment for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by refineries and petrochemical plants. The factors are equations, developed from emissions testing at industrial sources and used by state regulators and air permit applicants to determine the likely pollution impact of a facility.

    The rule increased projected emissions from refineries to levels environmentalists say are more realistic. However, the environmentalists in their delayed statement of issues filed Sept. 1 say EPA has left in effect an older emission factor for total hydrocarbons (THC) in flares set in 1995 that is significantly less stringent than the new VOC limit.

    Retaining the older THC emission factor does not make sense because VOCs are a subset of THC, which was until recently used as a “surrogate” for VOCs, environmentalists argue. “EPA published a new emission factor based on data showing that petrochemical plant and petroleum refinery flares emit more than four times the amount of VOCs compared to THC estimates using the THC emission factor,” they say.

    EPA in the final revised emissions factors rulemaking “leaves the existing THC emission factor unchanged, and does not prohibit or advise against its use for estimating VOC emissions, despite having concluded that it does not accurately represent VOC emissions from industrial flares. Nor has EPA explained how or why the THC emission factor should continue to be used to estimate THC emissions,” environmentalists said. Leaving the THC emissions factor unchanged would therefore be “arbitrary and capricious,” and unlawful under the Clean Air Act, they argued.

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Official: EPA Will Prevail in Clean Water Rule Challenges

    Sep 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Michael Bologna

    Stan Meiburg, acting deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, expressed optimism Sept. 28 that the agency would prevail in legal actions challenging the clean water rule and end jurisdictional disputes over protections under the Clean Water Act.

    Meiburg acknowledged that the rule had been blocked in 13 states under a judicial order issued two weeks ago.

    The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota enjoined the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from implementing the rule in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming (N. Dakota v. EPA, D.N.D., No. 15-00059, order, 9/4/15).

    He said the EPA expects additional legal wrangling in the weeks to come. The rule has been challenged by additional states and business interests. Several district courts have stayed the challenges pending a decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all the cases (171 DEN A-14, 9/3/15).

    “We look forward to consolidating the remaining litigation,” Meiburg told water professionals meeting in Chicago at the 2015 Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (see related article). “We feel very confident about our position and resolving it as soon as possible to provide the clarity businesses and individuals seek in the application of the clean water rule.”

    ‘Really Important' Rule

    The clean water rule (RIN 2040-AF30) was jointly promulgated by the EPA and the corps on June 29. The rule seeks to clarify which waters and wetlands should be designated for Clean Water Act protections under federal permitting, oil spill prevention and state water quality certification programs.

    Meiburg called the proposal a “really important” rule, clarifying the scope of the Clean Waster Act.

    “It is based on the latest science about how water is connected and how pollution can flow downstream,” he said. “But it is also very practical and responds to the concerns we have that these jurisdictional determinations were incredibly complex.”

    Clean Water Infrastructure

    Much of Meiburg's presentation addressed clean water infrastructure issues, which is the primary focus of the annual exhibition and conference. Meiburg said the EPA is developing tools to assist municipalities and utilities working to overhaul the nation's water infrastructure.

    Meiburg used his WEFTEC presentation to announce the launch of the EPA's Green Infrastructure Wizard, GIWiz. Meiburg said GIWiz would serve as a repository of green infrastructure tools and resources aimed at supporting municipalities and utilities in their sustainable water management and community planning processes. He stressed that the resources available over GIWiz would help users fully understand their management, cost and financing options.

    “I hope users will find tools and information on all kinds of interests from the basics of green infrastructure to design options, financing mechanisms and developing public information campaigns,” he said. “It's a great resource and I am very pleased to make that announcement today.”

    Meiburg also touted the EPA's new Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center.

    The center, announced in January, operates as a resource to communities to improve their wastewater, drinking water and stormwater systems. The center is linked to the Build America Investment Initiative, which seeks to boost infrastructure investment through partnership opportunities for state and local governments and the private sector to collaborate.

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

24. Nation’s Rail Service Is Threatened as Deadline for Safety System Looms

    Sep 28, 2015 | The New York TImes

    By Ron Nixon

    Even after spending nearly $6 billion, the rail industry says it will not be able to meet its year-end government-imposed deadline to install a system known as positive train control, which is intended to prevent collisions or derailments caused by excessive speed.

    The technology is required on about 60,000 miles of railroad tracks by Dec. 31, and if it is not put in place, the result could be disruption of the nation’s rail service.

    After a major train accident in California in 2008, Congress gave railroad companies seven years to complete installation of the safety system.

    If the deadline is not extended, many railroads say they will not allow passenger trains like Amtrak to use their tracks because of the potential liability and possible fines the federal government could impose. Nor would they be able to carry hazardous chemicals or oil shipments, rail companies said.

    Congress has not passed an extension, and with a crowded agenda, it is unclear when lawmakers will take up the matter.

    “It’s hard to break through everything else that’s going on,” said Edward Hamberger, president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, an industry group. “But this needs to get done before the deadline or the industry will have to make some tough decisions.”

    The absence of the safety technology on freight and passenger trains came into sharp focus earlier this year when an Amtrak train derailment killed eight people and injured hundreds more in Philadelphia. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board said the new technology would have most likely prevented the deadly accident, which is believed to have been caused by human error.

    But the impact of failing to extend the deadline for installing the safety system goes well beyond passenger inconvenience.

    Each day, millions of tons of goods are moved by rail, from the bulk of coal to heat homes and businesses during the winter to the delivery of grains and produce from farms. Freight rail companies say they also would not be able to haul crude oil or other hazardous chemicals like chlorine or fertilizer.

    Some rail customers say they have started looking for other modes of transportation, like trucks or barges, to carry their goods to market, in case of a shutdown.

    “But there are no good alternatives,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, an Iowa-based agriculture group. “Neither of the alternatives have the capacity to ship as much as trains and at a cheaper cost.”

    Mr. Steenhoek said the impact of a potential railroad shutdown could be felt long before the deadline. For example, he said many farming cooperatives have made plans for fertilizer shipments for the spring 2016 planting season.

    “The lack of resolution to the positive train control debate is creating uncertainty in agriculture,” he said. “It’s hard to plan anything at this point.”

    But railroads, at this point, say they guarantee that they will be able to haul hazardous goods after the year-end deadline.

    Ann Warner, executive director of the Freight Rail Customers Alliance, a coalition of larger railroad customers, including the auto and chemical industries, said there was similar uncertainty among her members.

    “This could all be avoided if Congress extends the deadline now,” Ms. Warner said.

    Passenger rail companies have made similar statements. Metra, a commuter rail service in the Chicago area, the fourth-busiest system in the country, announced last week that it would have to cut service at the end of the year if the deadline is not extended.

    Metra officials said if the company did choose to operate without the technology in place, it would be subject to potential Federal Highway Administration enforcement actions brought by the Justice Department, including substantial civil penalties and injunctions or criminal penalties, according to an analysis by the company’s legal department.

    “This board will do all it can to avoid this crisis within the confines of the law as it exists today and continue to work with members of Congress on legislation that is needed to extend this unattainable deadline,” said Martin J. Oberman, chairman of Metra. “In the meantime, on advice of counsel, Metra cannot operate any of its trains under current law as of midnight on Dec. 31, 2015.”

    Officials at the Transportation Department insist that only Congress can extend the deadline.

    “On Jan. 1, we will enforce the deadline and the law,” Sarah Feinberg, the acting railroad administrator, told members of Congress during her recent confirmation hearing. She said the agency would work with the rail companies to help them with technical and financial challenges they face in trying to install the safety technology.

    Proponents of an extension have had their arguments bolstered by the release of a Government Accountability Office report earlier this month that recommended Congress pass an extension.

    The report said that several problems had contributed to delays installing the system, including that the technology is new and that there are a limited number of suppliers. The report said the government had also contributed to delays. For example, railroads had to stop construction along tracks with radio poles — which make the GPS technology work — because they had not gone through an environmental evaluation process.

    Pressure is mounting on Congress to pass an extension.

    A Senate bill passed in July would push the deadline to 2018. The bill would increase the Transportation Department’s budget to help the industry with installation of the technology because the equipment is expensive and time-consuming to install. The transportation spending measure in the Senate would require railroads to submit plans to the secretary of transportation that include installation of positive train control by the end of 2018.

    The House has yet to consider the measure.

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. Industry Pushes Back in Face of Possible Pipeline Safety Bill

    Sep 29, 2015 | E&E Daily

    By Hannah Northey

    The natural gas industry is slated to tell a Senate committee mulling pipeline safety legislation that it's too early to change the law with upgrades underway.

    Terry McCallister, chairman of the American Gas Association, wrote in prepared remarks ahead of today's Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee hearing that laws passed in 2006 and 2011 are still "maturing" and that pipeline upgrades are in the works.

    "Many of these programs are in the early stages, and we encourage Congress to allow them to mature. In the case of the unanimously passed 2011 Act, several required regulations have yet to be finalized," he wrote in prepared remarks. "Progress is being made and we believe it would be premature to make changes to the law at this time."

    The full Senate Commerce Committee is considering crafting a pipeline safety bill, and McCallister's remarks are part of the testimony the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security is gathering, said Lauren Hammond, a spokeswoman for the panel.

    The subcommittee will also hear from the Government Accountability Office, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (E&E Daily, Sept. 28).

    McCallister in his written remarks -- excerpts of which were provided by AGA -- notes that natural gas utilities spend about $19 billion a year in safety-related activities, and that half those funds are spent complying with federal and state regulations.

    "The other half is spent as part of our industry's voluntary commitment to pipeline system and community safety. Moreover, we are continually refining our safety practices to help improve overall safety and reliability," McCallister wrote.

    Both the industry and federal overseers have been in the hot seat in recent months over high-profile pipeline explosions and spills.

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has been blasted for failing to enact congressionally mandated pipeline safeguards, including spill notifications and the use of automatic and remote-control shut-off valves. The agency has responded by stepping up its pace in implementing the law and beefing up its staffing.

    Return to headline | Return to top