Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/05
-
Hearing To Examine the Potential Modernization Of The Strategic Petroleum Reserve And Related Energy Security Issues
Oct 6, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building / Time: 10:30 AM -
EPA’s CO2 Regulations for New and Existing Plants
Oct 7, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location:2123 Rayburn / Time: 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) First-Ever Global Report Aimed at Ridding Oceans of Plastic Waste
Oct 5, 2015 | Plastics Technology
A new global report that both identifies the origins of the global ocean plastic debris and how it leaks into the oceans and also outlines reduction solutions and their relevant economics, as well as how to trigger implementation of these solutions from the near-to-the-long-term. -
(ACC Mentioned) Brown Shoots Down Drone Bills
Oct 4, 2015 | Capitol Weekly
By John Howard
A squadron of drone bills that emerged from the Legislature wound up crashing on the governor’s desk. -
(ACC Mentioned) UN Members Renew Focus on Chemical Management Goals
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
International negotiators meeting in Geneva said Oct. 2 they won't meet their goal of achieving the sound management of chemicals by 2020 and adopted a series of resolutions aimed at prioritizing and building upon their work in the years ahead. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study Finds School Meals May Contain Unsafe Levels of BPA
Oct 4, 2015 | The Baltimore Sun
By Timothy B Wheeler
Students may be getting a less-than-nutritious extra ingredient in the lunches and breakfasts they eat in their school cafeterias, a new study suggests. Whether it's enough to worry about, though, is a matter of dispute. -
TSCA Bill Revisions Gain Democratic Backing For Filibuster-Proof Support
Oct 2, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget di Cosmo
Supporters of Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have agreed to revisions that include increasing industry TSCA fees and expediting some chemicals programs, prompting new backing from two key Democrats and ensuring the measure has a 60-vote level of support to overcome any filibuster threat. -
Toxic Substances Bill Filibuster-Proof … When It Can Get to the Floor
Oct 2, 2015 | Roll Call
By Niels Lesniewski
Whenever the Senate gets around to debating an overhaul of a toxic substance law, there will be 60 votes. But getting to the point of floor consideration has been complicated by the lack of a reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. -
Sixty Senators Now Back Chemical Reform Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
There is now a filibuster-proof number of senators backing legislation (S. 697) to overhaul the nation's primary chemical law after Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) announced Oct. 2 they would support the bill. -
International Specialists Warn Of Global Toll From Chemical Exposures
Oct 2, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Jose Aguayo
In a strongly worded report, a leading international organization of gynecologists and obstetricians warned this week (Oct. 1) that “exposure to toxic environmental chemicals during pregnancy and breastfeeding is ubiquitous and is a threat to healthy human reproduction” worldwide. -
Burr Calls for LWCF Amendment to Toxics Reform Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers and advocacy groups are in for a frenzied week of lobbying for Senate floor consideration of a bill to overhaul how the federal government manages toxic chemicals amid demands to tie the bill to other issues. -
Falsified Data Triggers Injunction Over TCE Spill
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Two former owners of an Ohio manufacturing site must take immediate steps to monitor, contain and clean up a trichloroethylene spill after a contractor for one of the companies falsified groundwater sampling data, a federal court has ruled (Ohio ex rel. DeWine v. Superior Fibers, Inc., 2015 BL 320358, S.D. Ohio, No. 14-cv-01843, 9/30/15). -
No Need to List Hazardous Substances in CERCLA Pleading
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Allegations in a complaint that “hazardous substances” from a dry cleaning business contaminated a neighboring property meet the pleading requirements to proceed with a Superfund action, a federal courtruled (Tarob M&C Investors, LLC v. William A. Herbert, 2015 BL 322897, N.D. Cal., No. 14-CV-04291, 9/30/15). -
N.C. Site Cleanup Settlement Unveiled
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
The owner of the Blue Ridge Plating Co., Superfund site in Arden, N.C., has agreed to pay $150,000 and the proceeds of the sale of the property to the federal government to settle cleanup costs. -
Some Puerto Rico MTBE Claims Survive Dismissal
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Oil companies had only limited success arguing that Puerto Rico's claims over methyl tertiary butyl ether contamination are time-barred, after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Oct. 1 found unresolved the dates two companies' spills were discovered (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., S.D.N.Y., No. 00-cv-01898). -
Privacy Hawks See Momentum in Encryption Fight
Oct 4, 2015 | The Hill
By Cory Bennett
Capitol Hill privacy hawks and digital rights groups are pressing President Obama to publicly disavow any guaranteed government access to encrypted data after winning small concessions in recent weeks. -
(ACC Mentioned) New US Ozone Standard Under Fire
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The updated standards will reduce Americans’ exposure to ground-level ozone, which is formed by reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. -
House Expected to Lift Export Ban Despite Obama's Opposition
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey and Geof Koss
House Republicans are widely expected to advance efforts this week to lift the country's ban on exporting domestic crude despite the Obama administration's opposition to the bicameral push to allow for international sales. -
Moniz To Talk Petroleum Reserve With Senate Panel
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow on upgrading the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve. -
BLM Releases Rule For Measuring Production
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management today released a draft rule updating standards for how companies measure natural gas produced on federal and tribal lands, an effort to ensure taxpayers receive all the royalties they are due. -
Mccabe to Defend Clean Power Plan at House Hearing
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
A key Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold its first hearing this week on U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan -- a rule the House has already voted to kill. -
U.S. Leadership 'Inspires' Global Action
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama's Climate Action Plan deserves some of the credit for the national emissions-reduction commitments that have flooded in this year ahead of December's U.N. climate talks in Paris, many of which are ambitious, White House climate adviser Brian Deese said today. -
Renewables to Be Largest Source of New Power, IEA Says
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
Renewable energy will be the largest source of new power generation capacity worldwide over the next five years, installing 700 gigawatts, which is more than double what utilities produce today in Japan, the International Energy Agency said. -
Party Battle Brews with Floor Vote Scheduled for Tribal Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Dylan Brown
A Republican bid to streamline regulations governing energy projects on Native American lands is set for a full House vote, but the committee battle over which tribes can reap the rewards could re-emerge on the floor this week. -
Smith Wants Data Preserved in Probe Over Climate Debate
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) asked the Institute of Global Environment and Society to preserve its data and documents as the House Science Committee investigates whether the researchers improperly used federal funding to advocate for criminal racketeering investigations of organizations that dispute the need for policies to address climate change. -
EPA Promises Timely Guidance on Ozone Implementation
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue updated guidance on permitting, pollution that crosses state lines and other issues to assist state and local regulators as they begin the process of implementing the agency's new ozone standards of 70 parts per billion. -
Obama’s Ozone Evolution
Oct 4, 2015 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration's decision to tighten federal ozone standards this week marked departure from the president's previous thinking on the regulations, though not as dramatic a shift as environmentalists had hoped. -
The Strongest Weapon To Shift Geopolitical Balances Isn’t Nukes Or Missiles, It’s Technology
Oct 5, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Vivek Wadha
Governments, businesses, and economists have all been caught off guard by the geopolitical shifts that happened with the crash of oil prices and the slowdown of China’s economy. -
C2ES Report Examines Business Resilience to Impacts Of Climate Change
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
Are businesses in the United States successfully translating climate change data into action to reduce risk? During today's OnPoint, Janet Peace, senior vice president at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, discusses a new report examining businesses' resilience to the impacts of climate change
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Oct 6, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building / Time: 10:30 AM
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the modernization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and related energy security issues.Opening RemarksSen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)Ranking MemberSenate Committee on Energy and Natural ResourcesWitness Panel 1The Honorable Ernest MonizSecretaryU.S. Department of EnergyAdmiral Dennis C. Blair U.S. Navy (Ret.)Former Director of National Intelligence & Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific CommandCo-Chair, Commission on Energy and Geopolitics, Securing America's Future EnergyMr. Jason BordoffProfessor of Professional Practice in International and Public AffairsFounding Director, Center for Global Energy Policy, Columbia UniversityMr. Kevin BookManaging DirectorClearView Energy Partners, LLCMs. Sarah LadislawDirector and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security ProgramCenter for Strategic and International Studies
-
EPA’s CO2 Regulations for New and Existing Plants
Oct 7, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location:2123 Rayburn / Time: 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) First-Ever Global Report Aimed at Ridding Oceans of Plastic Waste
Oct 5, 2015 | Plastics Technology
A new global report that both identifies the origins of the global ocean plastic debris and how it leaks into the oceans and also outlines reduction solutions and their relevant economics, as well as how to trigger implementation of these solutions from the near-to-the-long-term.
Released last month by the Washington, DC-based Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas Alliance,“Stemming the Tide: Land-based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean”, was prepared by McKinsey Center for Business & Environment which was supported by Alliance members, the Dow Chemical Co., the American Chemistry Council (ACC), theCoca-Cola Co., World Wildlife Fund, and the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa. It was also advised by technical pros in waste management, plastics and recycling as well as various government and multilateral organizations.
The study determined that over half of the material leaked comes from five rapidly developing countries where production and consumption of plastics is outpacing local waste management capacity, in order of magnitude—China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand. This first-of-its-kind report identifies ways this global crisis can be diverted through a set of strategies rooted in stopping the leakage in the first place. It projects, that the implementation of a plan that starts at the local level can result in a 65% reduction of plastic pollution in these five countries, which would translate to a 45% reduction of plastics flowing in the ocean globally by 2025.
The Alliance’s study stresses the need for working with industry to introduce new materials, recovery, and recycling approaches that will allow uncontrolled plastic waste to peak globally by 2030. Also, the strategies offered by the study are not plastic specific—they target the whole waste stream. If implemented today, the total program would entail a cost of $5-billion/yr.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brown Shoots Down Drone Bills
Oct 4, 2015 | Capitol Weekly
By John Howard
A squadron of drone bills that emerged from the Legislature wound up crashing on the governor’s desk.
Gov. Brown vetoed three measures over the weekend that sought to block drones from flying over schools or prisons, and which would have allowed emergency personnel to shoot down a drone if it came into a fire zone. The legislation carried penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and six months in jail for drone operators.
But the Democratic governor said he was loathe to create new categories of criminal conduct. Last month, Brown also vetoed legislation that would have made it a crime to fly a drone within 350 feet above private property.
“Over the last several decades, California’s criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same time, our jail and prison populations have exploded. Before we keep going down this road, we should pause and reflect…” the governor wrote in a blanket veto message that applied to nine measures, including the three drone bills.
The drone measures by Republican Sen. Ted Gaines of El Dorado Hills had Democratic support and carried Democratic co-authors. The bills were SB 168, SB 170 and SB 271.
His SB 168 sought to boost fines for operators of drones that interfere with emergency operations, and protect personnel from civil liability for shooting the drones down. Gaines’ sprawling 1st Senate District includes all or parts of 11 counties across northern California, counties that often are struck by major wild land fires — Alpine, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra and Siskiyou.
Gaines’ SB 170 would have prohibited someone from “knowingly and intentionally” flying a drone over a prison or county jail. Gaines’ other bill, SB 271, would make it an infraction to fly a drone within 350 feet over a public school campus. Exceptions in certain cases would be made for law enforcement and the news media.
The rapid proliferation of drones captured public attention this year after firefighters reported their operations were delayed as they fought grass and wild land fires. In July, efforts to halt a brush fire in San Bernardino County were delayed because a hobbyist’s drone flew into the area. State fire officials have warned that drones pose a hazard to aircraft. On at least two occasions, planes were temporarily grounded to avoid collisions with the drones.
“A collision with a hobby drone could easily result in major damage to firefighting aircraft, injuries to the pilot and crew on board as well as firefighters below, and/or worse, a midair collision. It is unsafe for unauthorized drones to be flown anywhere near a wildfire. CAL FIRE officials again stress to hobby drone users,” CalFire said earlier in a written statement.
The drone bills before the governor deal with more than fires, however – prisons, schools and homeowners also were in the mix.
The drone bill that Brown vetoed earlier was by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara. It sought to define trespassing to include the flight of a drone to within 350 feet above a person’s property. Backers of the bill, SB 142, said it helped protect people’s privacy, while opponents – including the California Chamber of Commerce – said the restrictions would hinder necessary research into drone safety and efficiency.
Brown said Jackson’s bill was “well-intentioned” but that it “could expose the the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation.”
“Before we go down that path,” he added in his veto message, “let’s look at this more carefully.”
Unmanned aerial systems, commonly referred to as “drones,” have been popping up more recently as a techy dream for hobbyists, with substantial economic potential.
Earlier this year, the Consumer Electronics Association estimated that as many as 400,000 drones will be sold nationwide in 2015, with revenue from drone sales to exceed $1 billion over the next five years.
But recent news about domestic drones has exposed a downside, as evidenced by the incident in fighting the San Bernardino wildfire.
It wasn’t the first such incident. In June, a mission to airdrop fire retardant over another San Bernardino fire was aborted when a hobby drone flew too close to the mission’s location. A few days later, two drones caused a temporary halt of another mission near the Del Rosa community, also in San Bernardino County. One of those drone pilots eventually was identified and detained, according to Bryan Lane of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
The Federal Aviation Administration currently restricts drone usage above 400 feet, but the drones involved in California’s recent firefighting delays were flying at about 800 or 900 feet. Additionally, the wildfire areas were under a temporary flight restriction from the FAA, which prohibited drone flights.
“There needs to be some sort regulation in this area,” said Randy Pollack of the American Chemistry Council, who supported Jackson’s bill. “Because when you have drones flying over, they can come in, they could crash, they could create havoc among some of our equipment.“
Earlier this year, Rep. Paul Cook (R- Apple Valley) introduced a bill in Congress to directly address the recent spate of Southern California firefighting disruptions. The bill, the Wildfire Airspace Protection Act of 2015, would make it a federal offense to launch a drone that interferes with fighting wildfires on federal land.
“Not only did it put the lives of aerial firefighters in jeopardy, but the loss of air support for fire crews allowed the wildfire to spread,” Cook said at the time in a written statement.
The drone regulation struggle has not been limited to California. Three years ago, President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which set a September 2015 deadline for providing a safe path towards integration of unmanned drones into the national airspace. The FAA followed up on this deadline in February of this year by releasing new rules for operating small commercial drones. The federal Department of Justice published its own guidelines shortly after on how federal law enforcement agencies may use drones.
Between this scramble for regulations, public safety and privacy concerns, domestic drones are becoming a quickly developing technology. The bill, the Wildfire Airspace Protection Act of 2015, would make it a federal offense to launch a drone that interferes with fighting wildfires on federal land.
Amazon’s Prime Air drones gained attention over the past two years of development, and smaller companies are also looking into implementing drones. While commercial drone operators are still waiting on FAA regulations, drones have also been considered for monitoring police situations and mapping out wildfires.
And on July 17, a delivery service called Flirtey made the first FAA-approved drone delivery in the U.S. when it brought medical supplies to an annual free clinic at a fairground in rural Wise County, Virginia. The drone-in was a collaboration among Flirtey, NASA and Virginia Tech.
Matthew Sweeney, CEO of Flirtey, is confident that commercial delivery drones are the next big step in representing how drones can be a positive industry if handled correctly.
“I’ve always personally thought that there were three industries that were going to transform the world in the next five years,” said Sweeney. “Unmanned aerial vehicle technology, 3-D printing, and whoever can figure out the future of online news.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) UN Members Renew Focus on Chemical Management Goals
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
International negotiators meeting in Geneva said Oct. 2 they won't meet their goal of achieving the sound management of chemicals by 2020 and adopted a series of resolutions aimed at prioritizing and building upon their work in the years ahead.“I don't know that the goal will ever be met,” said Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council. “You need to have a goal, but you need to also have the understanding and expectation that this is going to be an endless journey where you are making significant progress throughout that journey.”Following a week of negotiations, delegates from more than 130 nations adopted a series of documents that outline the next steps toward international chemicals management and address new and emerging policy issuesThe updated plan was forged at the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) for the United Nations Environment Program's Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). The conference is the last meeting of the parties before the ICCM5 conference, scheduled for 2020.“The 2020 goal was very ambitious,” said David Azoulay a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “Now there is a recognition that a lot can still be done between now and 2020 and a process to ensure that we will continue this work after 2020.”Developing World Gaps CitedCountries in Africa and Latin America face steep challenges in their effort to manage chemicals and wastes, according to the SAICM secretariat's summary of members' progress toward the 2020 goal.Specifically, the African region needs to “expedite action at the national level for the mainstreaming of chemicals into national development plans and strategies,” the report said.The secretariat further identified “gaps” in the Latin American region's effort to mitigate risks to exposure of hazardous substances and implement legislation regulating electronic waste, among other issues.“There are some manufacturers in the developing world that don't have the benefit of a regulatory infrastructure that is setting standards in regulations as well as enforcing the compliance of those that needs to be addressed,” said Dooley, who also serves as council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA).Highly Hazardous PesticidesDelegates acknowledged the negative effects of highly hazardous pesticides and adopted language to promote sustainable agriculture practices as a means to reduce the use of HHPs.Negotiators were unable to agree on a new coordinated approach to phase out HHPs similar to the global alliance to eliminate lead paint. The issue failed to advance, due in part to disagreements over how such a program would be financed and how exactly such a program would be implemented.“In the end, the UN agencies developed a program which contains many of the elements we were seeking in a global alliance,” said Joe DiGangi, a senior science and technical adviser at the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN). “The difference is the UN agencies take control in developing a plan. Our hope is that there will be some multi-stakeholder involvement and that will facilitate its implementation.”The issue was advocated by over a dozen African delegations and civil society groups including IPEN, the Pesticide Action Network and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations.Emerging Policy IssuesMembers agreed to a draft resolution to address some emerging policy issues, including hazardous substances within the life cycle of electrical and electronic products, nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and perfluorinated chemicals.ICCA resisted the adoption of language citing a recent UNEP and World Health Organization study regarding the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.Dooley told Bloomberg BNA that U.S. and European Union regulators are better qualified to assess the risks that endocrine-disrupting chemicals may pose to humans and the environment. “UNEP and SAICM will never have that capacity, and thus they shouldn't be allowing themselves to be distracted,” he said.Members notably agreed to consider environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPP) as an emerging policy issue for further consideration. Though the World Health Organization already monitors the impact that EPPPs have on human health, ICCM4 participants agreed on the need to monitor the environmental impact on such chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study Finds School Meals May Contain Unsafe Levels of BPA
Oct 4, 2015 | The Baltimore Sun
By Timothy B Wheeler
Students may be getting a less-than-nutritious extra ingredient in the lunches and breakfasts they eat in their school cafeterias, a new study suggests. Whether it's enough to worry about, though, is a matter of dispute.
Researchers at Stanford University and the Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health say school-prepared meals may contain unsafe levels of bisphenol A, or BPA. Often found in canned foods and plastic packaging, the widely used chemical can mimic human hormones. Research has shown it can harm the developing brains and bodies of fetuses, infants and children.
"There are known sources of BPA being used in school food," said Jennifer C. Hartle, a postdoctoral research fellow at Stanford and lead author of the study, which was recently published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.
She suggested parents should press their school systems to see that their children are fed fresh rather than canned or prepackaged fruits and vegetables.
"Everybody knows about pesticides as a potential problem with food," she said. "Well, the packaging is something else to consider."
But the head of the Maryland-based School Nutrition Association and a spokesman for the chemical industry countered that the study really gives parents no cause to worry about how much BPA their children may be getting in school lunches and breakfasts. The levels calculated in the study are all below established safety limits, they said.
Hartle, a former fellow at Hopkins' Center for a Livable Future, acknowledged that under this study, the most BPA a student might get from a single meal was far below the threshold set by the federal government. But that standard was set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1988, the study noted, and more than 100 studies since have found health effects in animals from much lower doses of BPA.
Along with her Hopkins co-authors, Hartle interviewed food service managers and visited school kitchens and cafeterias to find out what foods are served and how they're kept. Relying on studies finding BPA leaching into food from cans and plastic packaging, they calculated how much students might be ingesting in a single meal.
While plastic packaging of all types and even plastic eating utensils may contain BPA, Hartle said canned foods are the chief source. Government nutrition standards and health advocates have pushed schools to stop serving as much pizza, she said, but that isn't necessarily cutting out the BPA.
While many schools now serve apples, oranges and bananas, canned foods remain a staple, Hartle explained. In her tour of school cafeterias, she said, she noticed that salad bars installed in response to calls for more nutritious school lunches often contain canned and prepackaged fruits, beans and other items.
Depending on what's served and what actually gets consumed — the researchers estimated 12 percent gets tossed uneaten — students could be getting anywhere from a negligible amount of BPA up to 1.19 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, the study concluded.
The EPA safe-intake limit is 50 micrograms per kilo of body weight. But this year, reacting to recent research, the European food safety authority lowered its limit to 4 micrograms per kilo.
The new study comes amid renewed scientific concerns and debate about the health effects of all endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including BPA. While poisonous substances generally do less harm as the dose gets lower, researchers have found chemicals that disrupt hormones can cause trouble at very low concentrations.
The Endocrine Society, a group of scientists who study hormones, recently reported that 1,300 studies published in the last several years have strengthened evidence tying low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals to reproductive and neurological problems and some cancers. Studies also have linked exposures in the womb or in infancy to increased risks of diabetes and obesity later in life, the group said. It called for more research, but also urged the public and policymakers to increase efforts to keep such chemicals out of food, water and the air.
Andrea Gore, a pharmacology professor at the University of Texas at Austin and lead author of the society's statement, said the BPA levels estimated in school meals may not seem high enough to worry about, but shouldn't be considered in isolation.
"This lunch is only part of the exposures a child will get during the day," she said. They could also be getting BPA, she added, in "what they eat for dinner, what they eat for snacks, what they're exposed to beyond just the food."
Gore also noted that the BPA in school meals may affect poor youngsters more, as their lunches and breakfasts are provided free or at reduced cost.
Patricia Montague, CEO of the School Nutrition Association, based in National Harbor, defended the safety of school meals and pointed out the study didn't conclude that BPA exposure is any greater in cafeteria lunches than from meals eaten at home or elsewhere. She also insisted schools have reduced use of canned foods and rely more on fresh and frozen produce.
Some scientists maintain the research to date hasn't really established that minute doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals can cause problems. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, criticized the Endocrine Society's report, saying it makes "broad, unsupported claims."
As for the school meal study, council spokesman Steven Hentges said it ought to reassure rather than worry parents. While acknowledging that the EPA limit is no longer a valid safety gauge, he said the BPA consumption estimates in the study were below the much lower European limit.
Hartle acknowledged that the issue is complex, and that shunning the school cafeteria won't necessarily protect children from exposure to BPA. Personally, she said, she sends her two children, ages 7 and 10, to school with metal lunchboxes and thermoses and sees that they eat fresh fruits and vegetables and whole-grain breads.
"They're a reason to keep trying to find the answer," Hartle said.
-
TSCA Bill Revisions Gain Democratic Backing For Filibuster-Proof Support
Oct 2, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Bridget di Cosmo
Supporters of Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have agreed to revisions that include increasing industry TSCA fees and expediting some chemicals programs, prompting new backing from two key Democrats and ensuring the measure has a 60-vote level of support to overcome any filibuster threat.
The revisions -- including clarifying how states can win waivers of federal preemption of their toxics programs -- clear the path for Senate floor debate on the bill, S. 697, which could take place next week.
As Inside EPA recently reported, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) had been working with Democratic senators on potential changes to the bill in order to increase backing from the upper chamber's minority. Udall, who introduced the bill with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), was “open to accommodating any changes that can help grow support for the bill, while retaining the bipartisan support it has,” the senator's spokeswoman said last month.
In an Oct. 2 press release, Udall announced that the updated bill now has the backing of Sens. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Richard Durbin (D-IL). Durbin's support is significant because he is the assistant Democratic leader in the Senate, also known as the Minority Whip, giving the bill backing from a top minority leadership figure.
A Markey staffer had previously outlined the changes that the senator wanted made to S. 697 before supporting it, and the addition of Markey and Durbin as co-sponsors pushes the bill's total support to 60 senators. That ensures the bill would be able to overcome a potential filibuster from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA).
Boxer, ranking member on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), has raised major concerns over the measure. For example, she believes it contains provisions that would broadly preempt existing state chemicals programs such as those in California. Boxer has urged senators to reject S. 697 and instead consider taking up a narrower House TSCA reform bill, H.R. 2576, which cleared that chamber in a 398-1 vote in June.
Despite Boxer's fears, Senate proponents of TSCA reform appear set next week to debate S. 697 and likely approve it over her objections. Advocates of the bill have said they are working with senators to discourage them from offering “fringe” amendments that could doom the bill -- such as amendments that would cause either GOP or Democratic senators to lose support, or unrelated policy riders that could also cause a loss in support.
Instead, Udall and other supporters of the legislation have been working to update the legislation prior to floor debate in order to gain more Democratic backers without losing any of their GOP supporters.
According to the press release, the new revisions to the bill include provisions to increase funding for EPA resources through industry fees, ensure fast industry compliance with EPA regulations and simplify the waiver process from preemption for states, along with easing states' ability to “co-enforce” federal regulations.
“I am pleased by the positive and meaningful progress on improvements to TSCA reauthorization legislation, and I am proud we have secured changes to the bill that will ensure chemical companies comply with mandatory deadlines for safety regulations, expedite regulatory action on the most dangerous chemicals, allow states more flexibility to implement new chemical regulations and give EPA the funds it needs to do the job,” Markey said.
Markey was among five senators who voted against the bill during an EPW markup in June, along with Sens. Boxer, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).
Legislative Revisions
The new amendments reflect the changes that Markey sought before he would offer his backing to the TSCA bill, according to the press release. For example, the senators agreed to increase from $18 million to $25 million per year funding cap for industry to pay fees to support the new chemical safety reviews that EPA will conduct under the legislation. It also creates a process to ensure sufficient resources to defray 25 percent of the program costs.
The revisions would also establish a mandatory compliance deadline of four years for industry to comply with new EPA-administered TSCA regulations established if the legislation becomes law, with an extension of up to 18 months if EPA determines the deadline is “technologically or economically infeasible.”
In addition, the revisions are aimed at expediting regulatory action on EPA's existing TSCA work plan chemicals, a field of 90 substances currently in the marketplace the agency has designated as having the highest potential for exposure and hazard and therefore pose the greatest risks, from the seven years in the bill to five years.
The senators also agreed to various other revisions, including adding language to boost mandatory protections for vulnerable populations, reduce exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls as much as “practicable,” require EPA to disclosure the information it uses to make prioritization decisions and improve provisions for allowing access to confidential business information for medical professionals and first responders.
The Democrats also appear to have reached an agreement on making improvements to the preemption provisions in the bill, which have been a major sticking point with Markey and other Senate Democrats, in particular Boxer, who has vowed to introduce dozens of amendments on the floor if her concerns were not addressed.
The Senate bill contains grandfathering provisions to preserve existing states laws, but the bill's critics fault its preemption for new chemical rules and laws that would occur when EPA launches a review of a chemical. That contrasts with the House bill, which would trigger preemption once EPA finalizes a TSCA restriction.
Critics of the Senate bill claim the preemption would begin too early in the chemical review process, leaving a regulatory gap in which there could be no state or federal restrictions for a chemical.
The newly announced amendments are aimed at clarifying the process under which a state could seek a waiver form preemption and for states to serve as “co-enforcers” of federal regulations.
The current waiver provisions in the bill provide exemptions from preemption in the event the state can show “compelling State or local conditions” to warrant the exemption, that compliance with a proposed state rule would not unduly burden interstate commerce or violate federal law, and is “consistent with sound objective scientific principles.” It was unclear at press time how the revised bill updates that language.
The revisions also include language to provide for “parity of judicial reviews of EPA actions,” the press release says, which would retain the “substantial evidence” evidentiary standard under the current TSCA. -- Bridget DiCosmo (bdicosmo@iwpnews.com)
-
Toxic Substances Bill Filibuster-Proof … When It Can Get to the Floor
Oct 2, 2015 | Roll Call
By Niels Lesniewski
Whenever the Senate gets around to debating an overhaul of a toxic substance law, there will be 60 votes. But getting to the point of floor consideration has been complicated by the lack of a reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., announced their intent to sign on as co-sponsors of the agreement Friday, bringing the total number to 60, according to Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the lead Democrat on the bill spearheaded on the Republican side by Louisiana GOP Sen. David Vitter.
“Today’s agreement reflects a bipartisan effort to give the EPA additional resources and authority to more effectively regulate chemicals and ensure timely compliance with new laws. Further delay in reforming this broken system risks exposing more families to toxic substances and leaves the EPA with little recourse against the aggressive chemical companies that have been exploiting the lack of oversight,” Durbin said in a statement.
The approach to the toxic substances bill has been a point of disagreement among Democrats, dating to when Vitter first worked with former Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., despite concerns from the Environment and Public Works chairwoman at the time, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.
The bill is now known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
The agreement to secure the support of Durbin and Markey will result in a few changes, including an increase in Toxic Substances Control Act funding cap for fees from industry and four-year deadline for compliance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations, with the possibility for an EPA-driven extension.
But the TSCA bill still has a fight for floor time. Senators from both parties have sought consent to call up a reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including Sen. Richard M. Burr, R-N.C.
After a series of objections to a standalone bill on the Senate floor, Burr told reporters he would seek to attach a reauthorization of the lapsed fund to the long-stalled overhaul. An aide to Sen. Kelly Ayotte said the New Hampshire Republican would object to quick movement of TSCA without addressing the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Ayotte and New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen were among the lawmakers involved in unanimous consent requests seeking to past reauthorization legislation this week. Ayotte had joined a group of Republicans including Sen. Steve Daines of Montana.
“We’re not going to let this conversation die. We’re going to continue to fight for the permanent reauthorization of LWCF. It is a tool for public to ensure that Montanans and Americans can have access to their public lands,” Daines said. “This is not about a land grab. This is a land solution.”
Work was continuing to find the path forward for the toxic substances bill to advance through the Senate as of Friday, and the growing number of supporters sounded optimistic they would get issues about the floor schedule resolved in short order.
-
Sixty Senators Now Back Chemical Reform Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
There is now a filibuster-proof number of senators backing legislation (S. 697) to overhaul the nation's primary chemical law after Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) announced Oct. 2 they would support the bill.The addition of Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, and Markey, who earlier opposed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in committee and offered a rival bill, comes after sponsors tweaked language in the bill to get them on board, according to the office of the bill's lead sponsor, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).Specifically, the sponsors added provisions to expedite work on chemicals—such as asbestos—that are known dangers, simplify the process for states to request waivers from federal preemption, ensure fast industry compliance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations and expand agency funding for the chemical program through industry fees, they said.“I am pleased by the positive and meaningful progress on improvements to TSCA reauthorization legislation,” Markey said in a statement, referring to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.Udall's office said changes to legislation would be incorporated into a substitute amendment that would allow the chamber to debate and vote on the bill in a matter of hours, rather than over several weeks as previously suggested.Vote Promised by LeadershipNews of the additional co-sponsors comes a day after Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA that Senate leadership had promised a floor vote on the bill. Multiple senators said the Senate could take up the measure as soon as the week of Oct. 5 (191 DEN A-23, 10/2/15).Joining Durbin and Markey as new sponsors are Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho), according to Udall's office. That means 60 senators from 38 states are publicly backing the measure, although proponents believe they could get between 80 and 85 votes on the Senate floor.The House approved related legislation, the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), in June by a 398–1 vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office said there was no schedule for the Senate bill's consideration yet.One Major Wrinkle RemainsOne crucial issue remains for lawmakers to work through before the bill can come to the floor. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) continues to insist on an amendment that would reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which uses revenue from offshore oil and gas development to establish national parks and other public spaces.The problem with adding such language is it could complicate passage of the TSCA modernization measure in the House, where there is significant opposition to extending the fund. Observers also say adding a reauthorization to the TSCA bill won't give Burr what he wants—an immediate lifetime for the program—because it could take months to resolve differences between the House and Senate chemical bills.Democratic and Republican aides told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 2 that negotiations continue with Burr about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. A Democratic Senate aide said the talks are “moving productively.”Ironically, many of the key Senate players support the same policies. Burr is a co-sponsor of S. 697 and Udall spoke on the Senate floor in support of an extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund on Sept. 30.“Senator Burr is a cosponsor of TSCA and like many members, he would like to have votes on amendments,” Rebecca Watkins, a spokeswoman for Burr, told Bloomberg BNA. “The Senator and his several of his colleagues are committed to working to renew this fund.”Markey Seen as Key GetOf all the new co-sponsors, Markey is arguably the most significant because he previously was a staunch opponent of the bill.There will be more premature deaths “unless EPA is given clear authority, resources and deadlines to take action on chemicals that have already been proven to kill,” Markey said in April of S. 697. “Unfortunately, the bill we are discussing today does not meet that test. It handcuffs states attorneys general, who are our chemical cops on the beat. It gives known dangers a pass, and it fails in any way to create a strong federal chemical safety program that will protect public health.”Markey's objections were so strong he joined Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the lead Senate opponent of S. 697, in introducing an alternative bill (S. 725) that they said would not allow the EPA to preempt state authority over chemicals but would enable states to enforce federal chemical restrictions.Benjamin Dunham, former chief counsel to the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), said the addition of Markey and Durbin formally took away the threat of a filibuster—although he said it was clear for months such a move would not have worked. He also said that adding the new co-sponsors “completes the political spectrum in the Senate.”“The co-sponsor list is now evenly distributed from the far right to the far left, and all points in between,” Dunham, now a senior managing director with Dentons, said. “That tells me that this bill strikes the right balance and it could get in the neighborhood of 90 votes on the floor.”Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of 450 health, environment, labor and business groups, said in a statement that it appreciates the efforts of the senators toward making “genuine improvements” in the legislation but said it remains opposed to it.“The Senate legislation would still contain a number of problematic provisions,” the coalition said. “We believe we must do better and we hope the senators will support further efforts to strengthen the bill either on the floor or in conference.”Boxer's office would not comment on the latest changes, although an aide told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 1 the California Democrat remains opposed to the bill. -
International Specialists Warn Of Global Toll From Chemical Exposures
Oct 2, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Jose Aguayo
In a strongly worded report, a leading international organization of gynecologists and obstetricians warned this week (Oct. 1) that “exposure to toxic environmental chemicals during pregnancy and breastfeeding is ubiquitous and is a threat to healthy human reproduction” worldwide.
The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, representing physicians from 125 nations and territories, said it was convening an international conference in Vancouver this weekend to develop a call to action for preventing exposure to environmental chemicals.
“We are drowning our world in untested and unsafe chemicals and the price we are paying in terms of our reproductive health is of serious concern,” said Gian Carlo Di Renzo, a professor at the University of Perugia in Italy and lead author of the report published in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
The report said prenatal and early childhood exposures to toxic chemicals in the environment are strongly related to health problems that develop throughout life.
It specifically cited the danger of exposure to pesticides, plastics and metals during pregnancy and early years of development, noting they can lead to fertility problems, stillbirths, miscarriages, cancer and neurological conditions.
The report attributed tremendous losses to chemical exposures, including; an estimated 7 million deaths a year due to ambient and household air pollution worldwide; $66 billion in costs related to pesticide poisoning in the Sub-Saharan region; and an estimated $177 billion a year in health costs caused by exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in Europe. In the United States, childhood diseases linked to toxic chemicals and pollutants in air, food, water and soil cost $76.6 billion in 2008 alone.
EWG applauds FIGO for taking a stance against toxic chemicals and supports its recommendations that “reproductive and other health professionals advocate for policies to prevent exposure to toxic environmental chemicals, work to ensure a healthy food system for all, make environmental health part of health care, and champion environmental justice.”
-
Burr Calls for LWCF Amendment to Toxics Reform Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers and advocacy groups are in for a frenzied week of lobbying for Senate floor consideration of a bill to overhaul how the federal government manages toxic chemicals amid demands to tie the bill to other issues.
Though Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has dropped an earlier vow to tie the Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill in procedural knots, its path to the floor faces threats from other lawmakers.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), a co-sponsor of the bill, is pushing for a vote on an amendment to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which expired last week. Burr tried and failed last week to win unanimous consent for a 60-day extension of the program's authorization (E&E Daily, Oct. 1).
"Like many members, he would like to have votes on amendments," Burr spokeswoman Rebecca Watkins said. "LWCF deserves renewal and Sen. Burr would like to vote on continuing this fund, which job creators and recreationists alike support. The senator and several of his colleagues are committed to working to renew this fund."
Despite Burr's call for a LWCF amendment vote, a GOP aide said it was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) who has placed a hold on the Toxic Substances Control Act reform legislation.
Lee's office couldn't be reached for comment.
If the LWCF amendment is allowed and approved, its inclusion in final legislation would need to be negotiated in a conference committee tasked with ironing out differences between the Senate bill and House legislation, H.R. 2576, or the "TSCA Modernization Act."
Earlier this year, senators who support S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," vowed to vote together to stave off nongermane amendments that could threaten the bipartisan consensus emerging around the legislation, even if the amendments concerned policies they would support under normal circumstances (Greenwire, May 7).
Supporters of the Senate bill, which was introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), plan to rally supporters outside the Capitol tomorrow to urge floor consideration of the bill.
Udall plans to hold a press conference tomorrow with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie Lautenberg, and the leaders of advocacy groups that have supported the bill, including Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, National Wildlife Federation President Collin O'Mara, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Neal Barnard and others.`
Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island are expected to join Udall, his office said Friday.
-
Falsified Data Triggers Injunction Over TCE Spill
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Two former owners of an Ohio manufacturing site must take immediate steps to monitor, contain and clean up a trichloroethylene spill after a contractor for one of the companies falsified groundwater sampling data, a federal court has ruled (Ohio ex rel. DeWine v. Superior Fibers, Inc., 2015 BL 320358, S.D. Ohio, No. 14-cv-01843, 9/30/15).Reichhold Inc. and Superior Fibers Inc. must install groundwater monitoring wells and conduct quarterly water samples, as well as provide an alternative supply of potable water to the town of Bremen, Ohio, if the contamination continues to migrate, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said Sept. 30.Remediation of the site ceased in 2003 after a state-certified contractor for Superior falsely certified groundwater sampling data, according to the decision.The preliminary injunction didn't extend to the current owner of the property, Superior Bremen Filtration LLC., because there was no evidence it contributed TCE to the site or violated any environmental laws, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said.Falsification of Water Samples CitedReichhold operated a factory on the property from 1964 to 1984, and Superior did the same from 1984 to 2006, according to the decision. It was undisputed that both companies used TCE as a solvent and that they discharged the chemical at the site.Superior participated in Ohio's “Voluntary Action Program,” through which it was allowed to clean up the contamination without direct oversight by Ohio's Environmental Protection Agency. In 2003, the company's contractor falsely certified groundwater sampling data and requested that a “no further action” letter be issued by the state, according to the decision.Ohio EPA granted the request and issued a “covenant not to sue” in reliance on the contractor's report, subject to contingency remedies if monitoring wells revealed contamination.Water samples subsequently showed higher levels of TCE at the site and that the plume had migrated. Superior agreed to a compliance schedule in 2007, but the contingent remedies required by the voluntary program were never implemented by the company, according to the decision.The covenant not to sue was revoked by the state in 2011.Testing Confirmed MigrationTesting in 2012 and 2013 confirmed the continued migration of the TCE plume, threatening nearby drinking water wells. The state sued Reichhold, Superior and Bremen in 2014, alleging violations of state law and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.The state argued that the threat to drinking water supplies warranted a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to implement an interim response plan.The court agreed in part, ordering that Reichhold and Superior install groundwater monitoring wells, conduct quarterly sampling and provide an alternative water supply to affected communities if the contamination increases or migrates.But the state failed to show a likelihood of success on its claims against Bremen because there was no evidence the company violated any environmental law, the court said. It did require, however, that Bremen give state officials access to the site.Bremen Had Relied on CovenantBremen also argues in the case that it was a bona fide prospective purchaser and had relied on the covenant not to sue when it purchased the property from Superior.Judge George C. Smith wrote the opinion.The law offices of Porter Wright Morris & Arthur represented Reichhold Inc.Dinsmore & Shohl represented Superior Bremen Filtration Inc.The Ohio Attorney General's Office represented the state.Superior Fibers Inc. was unrepresented in the case. -
No Need to List Hazardous Substances in CERCLA Pleading
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Allegations in a complaint that “hazardous substances” from a dry cleaning business contaminated a neighboring property meet the pleading requirements to proceed with a Superfund action, a federal courtruled (Tarob M&C Investors, LLC v. William A. Herbert, 2015 BL 322897, N.D. Cal., No. 14-CV-04291, 9/30/15).A complaint in a Superfund action isn't required to list the hazardous substances that caused the contamination, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said Sept. 30.The court rejected the defendant's argument that the complaint fails to establish a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, because the term “hazardous substances” is “ambiguous and an insufficient legal conclusion.”The Herbert Family Living Trust leases property to a dry cleaning business in Palo Alto, Calif.Tarob M&C Investors LLC owns a neighboring property.Tarob sued the trust under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the state Superfund law, alleging releases of hazardous substances from the dry cleaning business migrated onto Tarob's property and that it had incurred costs remediating the contamination.The complaint alleged the release of tetrachloroethylene (PCE), but elsewhere used the plural term “hazardous substances.”The trust moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.The trust cited Coppola v. Smith, 935 F. Supp 2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2013), in which the complaint alleged PCE contamination but also used the plural phrase “hazardous substances.”Concerns Raised About ‘Hazardous Substances.'The Coppola court found that PCE was the only hazardous substance in the complaint for which there was fair notice.“Without further identification, the plural term ‘hazardous substances’ is ambiguous and an insufficient legal conclusion,” the Coppola court said.For these reasons, the Coppola court found therefore that the complaint inadequately pleaded an element of a CERCLA action— the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance.Here, the court declined to follow Coppola, saying the case “has never been followed by any other court on this issue, as admitted by counsel for Defendants at oral argument.”Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal issued the opinion.Silicon Valley Law Group represented Tarob.Paladin Law Group LLP represented the trust. -
N.C. Site Cleanup Settlement Unveiled
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
The owner of the Blue Ridge Plating Co., Superfund site in Arden, N.C., has agreed to pay $150,000 and the proceeds of the sale of the property to the federal government to settle cleanup costs.The settlement under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act was announced by the Environmental Protection Agency in a notice published in the Oct. 2 Federal Register (80 Fed. Reg. 59,772).The agency is providing a 30-day public comment period before it decides whether to finalize the deal.The three-acre Superfund site at issue is in the western part of North Carolina and operated as a metal plating facility from 1974 until December 2013. Blue Ridge's plating operations involved the use of chromium, nickel, tin and cadmium plating, as well as a “black oxide” process.Added to NPL in 2005Blue Ridge was added to the National Priorities List in September 2005, and the EPA cleaned the site at a cost of about $1.5 million. Cleanup involved the removal of more than 8,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil and other material (231 DEN A-16, 12/2/14).Groundwater monitoring continues at the site, and the EPA said it plans additional removal work that involves hazardous material characterization, the demolition and removal of a dilapidated treatment building, decontamination of containers and the removal, transportation and disposal of any hazardous substances it finds.In reaching the settlement, the EPA said it determined that the site owner has limited financial ability to pay for site cleanup. Carolyn Benfield agreed to the settlement on behalf of herself, the Blue Ridge Plating Co. and the Bill J. Benfield Family Trust.Under the terms of the agreement, the settling parties will pay $100,000 to the federal government when the deal is finalized and another $50,000, plus interest one year later. The property is to be sold, with the proceeds also going to pay for the government's cleanup costs.Comments on the settlement are due Nov. 2. For details, contact Paula Painter of the EPA Superfund Division at (404) 562-8887 or by e-mail at Painter.Paula@epa.gov. -
Some Puerto Rico MTBE Claims Survive Dismissal
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Oil companies had only limited success arguing that Puerto Rico's claims over methyl tertiary butyl ether contamination are time-barred, after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Oct. 1 found unresolved the dates two companies' spills were discovered (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., S.D.N.Y., No. 00-cv-01898). The ruling came in multidistrict litigation alleging the companies' use and handling of MTBE, a discontinued gasoline additive, contaminated or threatened to contaminate groundwater, including that of Puerto Rico (84 DEN A-3, 5/1/15). Fifteen petroleum manufacturers—including Esso Standard Oil Co. and Shell Oil Co.—joined a summary judgment motion arguing that some of Puerto Rico's claims were filed beyond the commonwealth's one-year statute of limitations. The federal court agreed in part, granting a summary judgment to Total Petroleum Puerto Rico Corp., but denying the same relief to sites operated by Esso Standard Oil Co. and Shell Oil Co. The opinion is available athttp://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/In_Re_Methyl_Tertiary_Butyl_Ether_MTBE_Products_Liability_Litigat/14.
-
Privacy Hawks See Momentum in Encryption Fight
Oct 4, 2015 | The Hill
By Cory Bennett
Capitol Hill privacy hawks and digital rights groups are pressing President Obama to publicly disavow any guaranteed government access to encrypted data after winning small concessions in recent weeks.
For the last year, Silicon Valley, privacy advocates and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have been sparing with the administration over what they see as a lack of support for total online privacy. But in recent weeks, leaked memos have shown the White House potentially backpedaling from its desire for a technological solution that would let investigators bypass encryption.
Privacy advocates and major tech companies have jumped on these signals, petitioning the White House this week and imploring Obama to support robust encryption, even if it locks out law enforcement. Doing so, they say, would affirm a U.S. commitment to human rights, stymie hackers, help tech firms compete abroad and set an example for the world as countries determine how to regulate the Internet.
“The administration has a real moment right now when they can define encryption policy and really set the tone not just in the U.S., but in the rest of the world,” said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), part of the coalition that launched the petition.
The FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) have long countered that Congress and tech companies should instead help solve what they call the “going dark” problem. Because of unbreakable encryption, officials say investigators can’t get at digital data, even when armed with a warrant. The result will soon be a haven for criminals and terrorists, they say.
The White House petition this week urged the president to split from the FBI and DOJ.
“Publicly affirm your support for strong encryption,” it said. “Reject any law, policy, or mandate that would undermine our security.”
Technologists unanimously agree that any method ensuring access to encrypted data exposes that information to hackers and nefarious actors, “jeopardizing the security of communications systems generally,” Guliani said.
After four days, the petition was nearly a fifth of the way to the 100,000 signatures required in 30 days to trigger a White House response.
The appeal has broad tech backing. Top digital rights advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and major industry groups like the Computer and Communications Industry Association were signed on, as were Silicon Valley bigwigs like Twitter and preeminent privacy-focused tech companies like DuckDuckGo, Silent Circle and the Tor Project.
The argument also has support from Capitol Hill’s digital privacy-minded wing.
“The White House, like members of Congress, have to balance a lot of different issues,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who has a computer science degree from Stanford University and hammeredFBI officials over their encryption stance in a series of hearings this year.
“The FBI is pretty much focused solely on one issue, which is law enforcement,” Lieu added in an interview with The Hill. “That’s their mission. I get it. That’s important. But there’s more to this issue than just law enforcement’s view. You have to look at the consumer's point of view, you have to look at the tech industry, you have to look at how this affects how we interact with other countries.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a staunch digital privacy advocate, was more direct.
“Immediately after FBI Director [James] Comey said that he was going to push for [guaranteed access], I said, let’s be clear what this is all about,” he told The Hill. “It’s essentially requiring American companies to build weaknesses into their products.”
The attempt to force Obama’s hand comes on the heels of several White House disclosures that exposed the administration’s internal encryption debate.
First, it came out that a pro-encryption faction within the administration was working to convinceObama to publicly endorse widespread encryption.
Then last week, a leaked internal memo showed the White House had considered, but then dismissed, four possible approaches that would have let investigators bypass encryption.
Each proposal would have been a non-starter with the tech community, said Joe Hall, chief technologist with the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which was also behind the petition. He found it “shocking” the administration had even considered some of the options, particularly one that would have required companies to build a physical, encrypted port into all devices.
But combined, the incidents gave technologists and privacy advocates a glimmer of hope in their entrenched battle over encryption with the Obama administration.
“I’m pleased,” Lieu said. “I think it’s because members of Congress have really pushed back against law enforcement at many of our committee hearings. I think that’s having an effect.”
And with countries around the world advancing a series of laws to force companies to weaken their encryption, it’s imperative that Obama move expediently in the opposite direction, privacy advocates argue.
India just withdrew a draft law that would have required Internet users to retain copies of messages sent over encrypted services, including Twitter and Facebook, but may bring it back up in the future.
China is considering its own laws that businesses worry will force them to use Beijing-approved encryption.
In France, civil rights activists are protesting a potential law nearing passage that would allow spying on overseas communications. And in the nearby United Kingdom, the government is expected to soon present a bill to Parliament that could ban encrypted apps and require companies to turn over consumer data.
“It is really incumbent on the administration to take a strong position on this now,” Guliani said. “It’s going to be a real important demonstration for the rest of the world.”
But there are considerable opposing forces, even within Obama’s own party, that want the White House to stay the course.
Unbreakable encryption is “a huge blind spot for our intelligence officials, for law enforcement, for national security-related purposes,” said Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), who co-chairs the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus. “I am deeply concerned about that vulnerability.”
Congress and the administration need to continue exploring options for securing data, but maintaining access when needed, Langevin said.
“We have to wrestle with this equation,” he told The Hill. “And I don’t know exactly how we do this yet or what the right answer is, but hopefully we’ll come to some kind of reasonable solution. But we are not close yet.”
Rep. Bennie Johnson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, agreed.
“Doing nothing is not a solution,” he said. “So while the administration might be backing off for whatever reason, we still have to go forward and see how we can protect our systems.”
With these countervailing factions, the intractable battle may continue for some time.
“If it doesn’t happen we’re all prepared to fight forever,” said CDT’s Hall. “It’s not like we’re going to go away.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) New US Ozone Standard Under Fire
Oct 5, 2015 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The updated standards will reduce Americans’ exposure to ground-level ozone, which is formed by reactions between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. It is hoped the new rules will improve public health protection, particularly for at risk groups like children, older adults and individuals with lung diseases like asthma, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The agency examined nearly 2300 studies in its review of the ozone standards, including more than 1000 studies that were published since the standards were last reviewed in 2008. The EPA concluded that the scientific evidence shows that ozone can cause a variety of problems for the respiratory system, including difficulty breathing and inflammation of the airways, suggesting that the revised standards will result in fewer work days lost to ill health, asthma attacks and premature deaths.
The agency estimates the public health benefits of its updated standards at $2.9 billion to $5.9 billion (£1.9 billion to £3.9 billion) annually in 2025, which it says outweighs the $1.4 billion in anticipated costs.
However, industry groups are not enthused. The president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jay Timmons, called the EPA’s new rule ‘overly burdensome, costly and misguided.’ He warned that the stricter ozone standard will ‘inflict pain on companies that build things in America’, and urged Congress to intervene.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the agency’s action puts $10 billion in chemical industry investment at risk. ‘We are very concerned that some projects – new facilities, plant expansions and factory restarts – will remain in limbo until EPA explains how to obtain a permit under the new standards,’the trade group stated.
When ozone standards are lowered, the ACC said they take effect immediately and so manufacturers who want to build or expand must apply for permits showing that their project will comply. However, the organisation said it often takes the EPA years to provide the needed rules and guidance. ‘We are also troubled by EPA’s lack of transparency with the underlying scientific data, and that the methodology the Agency used to assess impacts ignored indirect societal and economic costs,’ the ACC added.Standard pleases no-one
Key Republicans have signalled their opposition to the new standard. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the house science, space and technology committee, stated that the agency’s new ozone rule ‘could be the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public’. He said it will put millions of Americans out of work and cost the US economy billions of dollars.
Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, chairman of the senate environment and public works committee, said the EPA’s decision to restrict the ozone is ‘yet another example of the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for needless regulation’. Since 1980, ozone-forming emissions have been cut by half, and the trend would have continued without setting a new standard, he added.
Some science and environmental advocacy groups were also unhappy. Gretchen Goldman from the Union of Concerned Scientists in Massachusetts, US, said the EPA’s new rule is relatively weak. ‘The EPA chose to set the standard here – the most lenient rule possible given the agency’s responsibilities to set the standard at a level that protects public health,’ Goldman stated.
The Sierra Club, a US environmental group, was disappointed too. ‘Lowering the smog standard from 75 to 70ppb is a modest step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough to protect the millions of Americans living in communities with dangerously high levels of smog pollution,’ said Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director. In December 2014, the EPA proposed ground-level ozone standards within the range 65 to 70ppb.
-
House Expected to Lift Export Ban Despite Obama's Opposition
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey and Geof Koss
House Republicans are widely expected to advance efforts this week to lift the country's ban on exporting domestic crude despite the Obama administration's opposition to the bicameral push to allow for international sales.
Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) bill to lift the exports ban, H.R. 702, is slated to hit the House floor for final passage this week. A House Rules Committee hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday to set the parameters of debate around the bill.
Yet the White House has said it won't support Barton's bill or a separate measure the Senate Banking Committee passed last week, which would lift the ban while allowing the president to halt exports if he deemed them not in the interests of national security.
White House spokesman Frank Benenati confirmed in an email Friday that the administration believes North Dakota Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's bill, S. 1372, is premature and not needed at this time.
"At this time, legislation that removes crude export restrictions is not needed," Benenati wrote. "Congress should be focusing on meeting America's clean energy needs and our transition to a low-carbon economy."
The comments arrive weeks after White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that the administration also stands opposed to Barton's bill and that lifting restrictions on exports of domestic crude should take place at the Commerce Department, not on Capitol Hill (E&ENews PM, Sept. 15).
Earnest also took the opportunity to criticize House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for announcing the House vote at an energy conference in Austin, Texas, which he said was "largely funded by four or five of the biggest oil companies in the United States."
While the path forward for Barton's stand-alone bill remains clear in the House, the outlook is murkier in the upper chamber.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said last week there's been no decisions on whether to try to bring an exports repeal bill to the floor as a singular bill.
"As with any legislation around here, you're always looking for the opportunity, the vehicle," she told E&E Daily. "Sometimes the opportunity is stand-alone, sometimes it's piggybacking on something else. So we're positioning ourselves to move when the moment is right."
Other Senate Republicans interested in lifting the ban have been eyeing various legislative vehicles for weeks. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), for one, proposed attaching oil exports language to a bipartisan bill to overhaul how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals. That language could reach the Senate floor soon, but some groups questioned whether Hoeven will actually follow through on offering an amendment.
What's more, speculation continues to swirl over whether Democrats would be willing to allow exports if provisions to help clean energy or conservation hitch a ride as well. Murkowski last week signaled she's willing to have conversations about an agreement but has been focused on having repeal legislation ready to go should the opportunity present itself.
"I am not talking deals," she said. "I think the conversations that we have had have been let's get the legislative vehicles teed up, let's move them through the process. But there's a lot of buzz about whether or not there is some kind of trade, I think that's a discussion that's a little premature."
With last week's approval by the Senate Banking Committee of Heitkamp's bill to end the ban, repeal legislation has now cleared the two committees that have jurisdiction over the matter (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
-
Moniz To Talk Petroleum Reserve With Senate Panel
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee tomorrow on upgrading the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The hearing, which will also feature former Director of National Intelligence and retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair, comes as the United States' rise as a global oil and gas producer and a tight budget climate have renewed congressional interest in the SPR.
Moniz discussed the SPR with the panel during an April hearing on DOE's landmark Quadrennial Energy Review, which was focused on infrastructure. The QER served as a blueprint for the committee's bipartisan energy package (S. 2012) that passed in July.
That measure contains provisions that spell out additional conditions for the department to conduct sales from the SPR, require the department to conduct a strategic review of the reserve and limit the use of funds from SPR sales to purposes related to the SPR or to boost U.S. security.
The language on revenue stems from the fact that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol in recent months have been looking to SPR sales to offset the deficit costs of legislation spanning from health care to transportation.
Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has decried efforts to use the SPR as a "piggy bank," reiterated the point last week (E&ENews PM, July 7).
"My position on SPR and accessing it to fund, just whatever, has not changed," she said. "I think the [SPR] should be recognized as exactly that: a strategic reserve, not an ATM."
That's a sentiment that Moniz and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have also made publicly, and one that's likely to be repeated tomorrow.
In addition to budget pressure, Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon on Friday noted there's continued talks within DOE over stockpiling refined products, as well the SPR's structure and maintenance.
"There continue to be discussions over the SPR, so we're looking at it again," he said.
With the House expected to take up legislation this week to lift the long-standing ban on crude oil exports, Moniz is also likely to face questions over the administration's opposition to the bill.
Moniz has publicly questioned the wisdom of lifting the ban when the United States continues to depend on oil imports.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Oct. 6, at 10:30 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz; retired Navy Adm. Dennis Blair; Jason Bordoff, founding director, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University; Kevin Book, managing director, ClearView Energy Partners; and Sarah Ladislaw, director, Energy and National Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies.
-
BLM Releases Rule For Measuring Production
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management today released a draft rule updating standards for how companies measure natural gas produced on federal and tribal lands, an effort to ensure taxpayers receive all the royalties they are due.
It comes days after BLM released a companion rule governing the measurement of oil (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
As with the oil rule, today's draft seeks to address concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department inspector general that BLM is not properly accounting for all the minerals extracted from the public estate.
"The proposed rule represents the last piece of the BLM's effort to modernize its oil and gas measurement rules," Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Janice Schneider said in a statement.
"This proposal addresses longstanding concerns about the adequacy of existing rules and will be critically important to ensuring proper measurement so that American taxpayers, Indian tribes and allottees, and states and local governments receive the full royalties they are due."
The rule, which is open for 60 days of public comment, is part of the agency's suite of oil and gas regulatory updates that includes potential changes to how BLM charges rents and royalties and sets civil penalty caps and financial assurances.
A draft environmental assessment of the proposed gas measurement rule can be found here.
-
Mccabe to Defend Clean Power Plan at House Hearing
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
A key Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold its first hearing this week on U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan -- a rule the House has already voted to kill.
Wednesday's hearing will look at EPA's rules for new, modified and existing power plant carbon emissions. The package, which was finalized in August, forms the cornerstone of President Obama's Climate Action Plan and the reduction policies U.S. negotiators will take with them to international climate change talks in Paris in two months.
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who heads the Energy and Power Subcommittee, has described the rules as an attempted end-run around Congress. He notes that no climate change law has ever been enacted.
"The administration is looking to regulate where they failed to legislate," he said at a recent hearing. Whitfield announced last week that he will retire at the end of this Congress.
The House in June passed Whitfield's bill H.R. 2042, allowing states to opt out of complying with the rule for existing power plants. But while a similar measure is working its way through the Senate, it is unclear when it might receive a vote, and it would be subject to a presidential veto.
The panel's only witness will be acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, who has kept up a busy schedule recently of Capitol Hill appearances and meetings with stakeholders still grappling with the final rule. She testified last week before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where she faced EPA critics including Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who accused the agency of making a play to control the entire economy by controlling power plant carbon.
McCabe fended off charges from a variety of panel members about the rules' cost to the economies of various states.
"We have often heard on the eve of a regulation that there would be significant regulatory impacts," she said, "but that has not been true."
Both Inhofe and Whitfield have said they plan to use the Congressional Review Act to try to scuttle the Clean Power Plan once it is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to occur in the coming weeks.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Oct. 7, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witness: Acting EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe.
-
U.S. Leadership 'Inspires' Global Action
Oct 2, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
President Obama's Climate Action Plan deserves some of the credit for the national emissions-reduction commitments that have flooded in this year ahead of December's U.N. climate talks in Paris, many of which are ambitious, White House climate adviser Brian Deese said today.
"These developments also show that when the U.S. leads on climate change, it inspires more action," Deese said in a post on the website Medium.
"For too long, opponents of climate change have hid behind the argument that the U.S. cannot afford to cut carbon pollution because other countries won't follow suit," he added. But commitments made recently by major developing emitters like China, India and Brazil make it "abundantly clear that the people of the world join the American people in their commitment to tackling this global challenge."
Major developing emitters have won praise from environmentalists in recent weeks for rolling out new emissions-reduction policies or submitting so-called intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that are increasingly ambitious.
China drew international attention last week for pledging to premiere an economywide cap-and-trade program in 2017. Brazil's INDC, formally submitted this week, made the world's 12th-largest greenhouse gas emitter the first major developing nation to pledge a decrease in absolute emissions, 37 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and 43 percent by 2030.
By contrast, the United States has pledged to cut its emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025 compared with the same year.
And India yesterday pledged to cut its emissions intensity relative to economic growth by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 levels. The world's third-largest emitter has also promised to expand its current 35 gigawatts of clean energy capacity to 175 GW by 2022 and to boost its share of non-fossil-fuel energy sources (ClimateWire, Oct. 2).
More than 140 countries submitted INDCs ahead of this week's deadline, and this year's round of climate talks in Paris is now less than two months away. President Obama has placed helping to broker a climate deal high on his second-term bucket list, and Deese has spent considerable time traveling to other countries to help pave the way for some of the announcements of the last few weeks. He went to China in September to meet with counterparts ahead of Obama's and Chinese President Xi Jinping's joint announcement last week at the White House that included Xi's cap-and-trade announcement. And the White House has increasingly presented its domestic policies as leveraging global action.
But even as countries prepare for Paris, Republicans on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail frequently cast policies like U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan as efforts by the administration to go it alone. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a contender for the 2016 presidential nomination, noted during an interview recently on Fox News that large developing nations like China and India are increasing their absolute emissions more quickly than the United States.
"They're not going to stop doing what they're doing," he argued. "America's a country, not a planet."
And Republicans on Capitol Hill have set their sights on scuttling a Paris deal or at least on ensuring that any such outcome would have to be formally ratified by the Senate to allow the United States to participate. Ratification would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate -- an improbably high hurdle under the present political circumstances. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry this week prodding him on the State Department's justification for skirting the ratification process (E&E Daily, Oct. 1).
But while greens praise large developing emitters for stepping up to the plate ahead of Paris, not all observers are so sanguine. Fossil fuels advocates continue to note that while the United States has pledged an absolute drop in emissions, China and India have not. China has promised to hold its emissions level after 2030, and India to cut its carbon relative to economic output.
-
Renewables to Be Largest Source of New Power, IEA Says
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Hirtenstein
Renewable energy will be the largest source of new power generation capacity worldwide over the next five years, installing 700 gigawatts, which is more than double what utilities produce today in Japan, the International Energy Agency said.While installations surge, investment will fall 15 percent to $230 billion a year by 2020 as the cost of wind and solar farms declines, the Paris-based IEA said in a report Oct. 2.The findings, released in Istanbul at a meeting of energy ministers from the Group of 20 nations, are meant to prod policymakers toward adopting more stable mechanisms for supporting renewables. Britain, Japan and Germany have angered clean-energy investors in recent months by cutting subsidies in order to contain run-away booms. The IEA said more thoughtful policies would help renewables gain against more polluting fuels.“Governments must remove the question marks over renewables if these technologies are to achieve their full potential,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said. The report said that “wavering policy commitment to decarbonization and diversification in response to such efforts can undermine investor confidence, and retroactive changes can destroy it.”The IEA does not expect the low prices of fossil fuels from oil to coal to affect the growth of renewables. Policy drivers such as energy diversification, pollution and decarbonization goals remain strong, it said. The exception is biofuels, which compete with transportation fuels, Birol said at the meeting in Istanbul.“The decoupling between economic growth and emissions is just at the beginning,” he said Friday. “To see a divorce, we need renewables and efficiency.”Annual investment in new green energy capacity is expected to drop from the level of $270 billion logged in 2014 to about $230 billion because of a combination of decreasing costs for the systems and slowing capacity growth. The IEA expects onshore wind and solar photovoltaic to make up two thirds of new investment in clean energy.Costs for these technologies are falling as manufacturers are able to scale up production cheaply, particularly in China. The price of utility-scale solar has fallen more than 60 percent between 2010 and 2015. Onshore wind turbine costs slid by a third, according to data from the IEA. The organization projects that these prices will continue to fall an additional 10 percent for onshore wind and by a quarter for solar in the next five years.The IEA projected that renewable energy will rise to more than 26 percent of the world's electricity mix in 2020, from 22 percent in 2013. In five years, the organization expects that clean energy could generate the equivalent of the combined power demand of China, India and Brazil.Emerging-market nations will take two-thirds of the new capacity. China will account for nearly 40 percent of the growth and almost a third of new investment, the report said.Onshore wind may become the most prominent clean energy technology in this time frame, accounting for over a third of newly installed capacity. It will be followed by solar photovoltaic with another third and hydropower with a fifth, the report said.With assistance from Ercan Ersoy in Istanbul. -
Party Battle Brews with Floor Vote Scheduled for Tribal Bill
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Dylan Brown
A Republican bid to streamline regulations governing energy projects on Native American lands is set for a full House vote, but the committee battle over which tribes can reap the rewards could re-emerge on the floor this week.
Democrats have until tomorrow's 3 p.m. House Rules Committee meeting to file amendments to H.R. 538, including something similar to Rep. Raúl Grijalva's (D-Ariz.) measure that was struck down in the Natural Resources Committee.
"We are looking at a couple of amendment ideas, and a Carcieri fix is definitely one of them," a Natural Resources Committee aide said.
Grijalva, the committee's ranking member, introduced a provision reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v. Salazar at least for energy projects (E&E Daily, Sept. 11). In 2009, the court killed the Department of the Interior process for taking lands into trust for tribes recognized after 1934's Indian Reorganization Act. Despite an outcry from tribes and support from lawmakers of both parties, Democratic- and Republican-led Congresses have failed to resolve the problem.
Grijalva said his amendment was simply a response to Republicans breaking their promise last year to work on a Carcieri fix, but Republicans defeated the amendment and then passed H.R. 538 with only California Democratic Rep. Jim Costa voting with them.
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the bill's sponsor, called the amendment "mischievous" because it shifted the focus away from reforms supported by several tribes and the National Congress of American Indians.
"While this bill does not solve every problem a tribe faces, it is a good start," Young, chairman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs, said in a statement. "It is based on the principle that tribes, not the federal government, are the best stewards of their lands."
Tribes must generally clear plans for mineral development with the Interior Department, but Young's legislation would essentially cut out the federal middle man.
The legislation would give Interior 60 days to either approve or reject an appraisal, or it would otherwise be considered approved.
If the bill passes, tribes would be allowed to conduct or hire a third party to complete appraisals of fair market value, and only tribal members and affected non-Indian residents could file public comments on environmental impacts by amending the National Environmental Policy Act.
Taking aim at environmental groups trying to stop or delay projects, the bill requires all lawsuits to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, all cases be handled in a timely manner and any fees be paid to a defendant unless a suit is successful.
Any Interior regulation regarding hydraulic fracturing would also be negated by the bill.
"The problem our tribes face is worse than ordinary bureaucratic delays," Young said in a statement. "It is something worse: neglect."
Democrats and the Bureau of Indian Affairs oppose Young's bill.
Committee Democrats acknowledged long-standing bureaucratic hurdles and a potential boon from natural resource development, but dismissed Young's bill as an attempt to undermine bedrock environmental law and legitimate legal challenges.
"The judicial review limitations contained in H.R. 538 are clearly intended to chill litigation to the detriment of bona fide claimants and undermine the real 'teeth' of NEPA by making the availability of injunctive relief all but disappear," they wrote.
Eliminating the hydraulic fracturing rule would also leave a "regulatory void" as state laws cannot be imposed on a tribe unless they waive sovereignty, the lawmakers asserted.
Schedule: The House Rules Committee meeting is Tuesday, Oct. 6, at 3 p.m. in H-313 Capitol.
-
Smith Wants Data Preserved in Probe Over Climate Debate
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) asked the Institute of Global Environment and Society to preserve its data and documents as the House Science Committee investigates whether the researchers improperly used federal funding to advocate for criminal racketeering investigations of organizations that dispute the need for policies to address climate change.“It is reasonably foreseeable that the committee will request documents from IGES at some point during its investigation of the aforementioned allegations,” Smith, the committee chairman, said in his Oct. 1 letter to the climate researchers. “IGES's recent decision to remove documents from its website raises concerns that additional information vital to the committee's investigation may not be preserved.”The House investigation comes after the Institute of Global Environment and Society, a Maryland-based nonprofit climate research group, sent a Sept. 1 letter to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, urging the administration to investigate companies and organizations that have downplayed the risks of climate change under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, likening their actions to tobacco companies who denied the link between smoking and cancer.Jagadish Shukla, president of the institute and a professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University, told Bloomberg BNA that he would respond to Smith's letter.“I had ignored previous false accusations by bloggers but now I will respond,” he said in an e-mail.Smith had asked Shukla to respond by Oct. 8 with a list of past and current employees at the institute as well as the group's plans to preserve its data and documents.Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) had recommended using the RICO Act to investigate companies and organizations that reject mainstream climate science in a May 6 floor speech.“The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking,” Whitehouse said at the time. “In fact, we can go back and re-read those judicial findings about tobacco, substitute the word ‘fossil fuel' and exactly describe what the fossil fuel industry is up to.” -
EPA Promises Timely Guidance on Ozone Implementation
Oct 5, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue updated guidance on permitting, pollution that crosses state lines and other issues to assist state and local regulators as they begin the process of implementing the agency's new ozone standards of 70 parts per billion.The agency is planning updated guidance and rules to address several state concerns that were raised during the agency's review of the ozone standards, including the handling of wildfires and other uncontrollable events, difficulties in demonstrating transportation conformity and the handling of background ozone that could potentially cause some areas to violate tighter ozone standards.Janet McCabe, EPA acting administrator for air and radiation, highlighted the agency's plans in an Oct. 1 memo to EPA regional offices that was released alongside the agency's final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) revising the national ambient air quality standards for ozone from 75 ppb to 70 ppb (191 DEN A-1, 10/2/15).Several organizations, including the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, and individual state environmental agencies filed comments on the ozone rule that requested the EPA issue its guidance documents and propose an overall implementation rule alongside the revised ozone standards.While the EPA didn't do that, the memo shows that the agency wants to provide states with information soon, Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist at the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, told Bloomberg BNA.“EPA appears to be motivated to get guidance out as soon as possible,” Miller said.Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA that there is a “universal sense” among states that they need timely implementation rules and guidance in order to effectively implement the new ozone standards.“Yesterday is really just the start for the 2015 standard,” Wood said. “We would love to get as much information as soon as possible so states can do their job.”Permitting Help Promised SoonThe issuance of permits under the new source review program, which applies to new and modified industrial facilities, is one area where the EPA has pledged to offer states help through new guidance and enhancements to existing regulations.McCabe said in the memo that the EPA is continuing to work on tools that will help improve the permitting process, which the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups have described as lengthy and overly complicated.Although nonattainment designations under the 2015 ozone standards will not be made until Oct. 1, 2017, state and local permitting authorities will need to consider the new ozone standards on a much faster time frame. Permitting authorities will be required to consider the 70 ppb ozone standards when issuing preconstruction permits on the effective date of the rule, which will be 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.Lorraine Gershman, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA that facilities and permitting authorities need guidance on how to make permit demonstrations in areas that attained the 75 ppb standards but would violate the 70 ppb standards based on current data, even though they aren't currently nonattainment areas.The EPA pledged to provide guidance on the use of emissions offset programs, significant impact levels and related screening tools that the EPA said would be useful for making demonstrations under the new source review program. Gershman said the promised guidance will be “really helpful” for the industry but there are concerns about what will happen in the near future once the ozone standards are effective in December or January.“Setting the number is only the first step in the process,” Gershman said. “For facilities, we're sort of caught immediately.”Gershman acknowledged that the EPA included a “grandfathering” provision in the final ozone rule that will allow facilities with pending permit applications to apply the 75 ppb ozone standards, which will be helpful for those facilities.Background, Transport IssuesThe EPA also promised to provide updated guidance on several issues that could affect an area's ability to meet the ozone standards, including guidance on how to handle exceptional events, pollution that crosses state lines and high background levels of ozone.The agency said it is developing a white paper on how to handle background ozone, which many states have said would be a problem if the ozone standards were tightened. The EPA said it only expects “a few” locations in the western U.S. will struggle with compliance because of background ozone, which is the level of ozone that is naturally occurring, transported from elsewhere or results from uncontrollable events.Woods of AAPCA said state regulators are looking forward to that white paper and a planned EPA workshop. He said that the EPA's assertion that background ozone will only be an issue in a limited number of areas is contradicted by a review of state comments that showed there is growing national concern about the ozone standards approaching background levels.The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in June that its planned overhaul of the exceptional events policy, which allows for the exclusion of air quality data associated with wildfires, stratospheric intrusions and other uncontrollable events, to address state concerns that the policy is costly and unpredictable (124 DEN B-1, 6/29/15).McCabe said in the memo that the EPA intends to issue its final exceptional events rule and related guidance on the handling of data affected by wildfires before states must submit their area recommendations under the designations process, which must be done by Oct. 1, 2016.Miller said the overhaul of the exceptional events rule will be especially important for states in the western U.S. as they move ahead with implementing the more stringent ozone standards. For states in the northeast, how to deal with interstate transport will be a continuing issue under the tighter ozone standards.The EPA said the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires states to ensure their emissions will not affect attainment in downwind areas, can be addressed in a timely fashion using the framework of the cross-state air pollution rule. The structure of that rule, which set limits on power plant emissions in 28 states, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225, 2014 BL 118432 (2014)).Miller said states have the first and primary responsibility to control their emissions that affect downwind areas. Those states should know what to do, given the past court decisions and number of previous transport-related rules that have been issued.“States know what needs to be done,” he said.The EPA submitted a proposed transport rule for the 2008 ozone standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Sept. 29 (190 DEN A-3, 10/1/15).Woods said going through the process to address transport under the 2008 standards could “make life easier” for states to meet their good neighbor provision obligations under the 2015 standards. States do question whether there will be an opportunity to work “a lot smarter” on a single set of plans to address transport under both the 2008 and 2015 standards, now that the EPA has made its decision, Woods said. -
Oct 4, 2015 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration's decision to tighten federal ozone standards this week marked departure from the president's previous thinking on the regulations, though not as dramatic a shift as environmentalists had hoped.
Four years ago, Obama disappointed public health organizations and green groups when he decided to stop the EPA's work on overhauling the standard.
“There was an eruption of outrage across the country, from the president’s base, from newspapers, editorial boards,” John Walke, the director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council said.
“It was easily the most controversial, worst environmental and public health decision of his first term.”
At the time, Obama argued the economy was too weak to risk a strict new limit on ozone pollution. He punted on finalizing the new limits until Thursday, when the EPA tightened the standard on ozone-causing chemicals from 75 to 70 parts per billion on Thursday. The decision prompted consternation from both industry groups opposed to the cost of reaching the standard and a clean air advocacy coalition that had hoped the new limits would go even further.
The administration defended the rule from against criticism, with EPA administrator Gina McCarthy contending the standard is based on reams of scientific evidence that proved 70 parts per billion to be an acceptable ozone limit for healthy adults.
But in 2011, the EPA, under then-administrator Lisa Jackson, wanted to go even further, proposing a standard of 65 parts per billion, based on research the Bush administration used when analyzing the standard back in 2008.
Obama told the EPA to hold off. He acknowledged that he didn’t want to create more regulatory requirements at a time — fall 2011 — when the economy was sputtering.
“I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover,” he said in a statement then.
“Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.”
The decision was bitterly opposed by environment and health groups.
“We completely disagreed with that,” said Janice Nolen, the assistant vice president for national policy at the American Lung Association.
The Clean Air Act calls for a scientific assessment of ozone standards, not an economic one, she said.
“The evidence that was being touted out, then and now, that this is going to hurt the economy simply doesn’t bear up in any review,” Nolen said.
Following Obama’s decision, the EPA was scheduled to draft a new ozone standard in 2013. The process was delayed, and environmental groups eventually sued to get a new rule from the agency.
The EPA proposed a limit of between 65 and 70 parts per billion last year, and took comments on plans as low as 60 parts per billion, a level within the range long recommended by the agency’s scientific board.
Manufacturers launched another lobbying blitz against the rule, arguing that ozone levels were decreasing on their own and that new regulations would instead drive more segments of the U.S. into nonattainment. They had hoped Obama would do as he did in 2011 and keep the standard unchanged.
The White House defended the rulemaking on Thursday. Obama spokesman Josh Earnest noted that the economy has tripled in size over the past 40 years, a period when ozone levels have fallen by 70 percent.
He framed the ozone rule in language Obama has become increasingly comfortable with: that the private sector needs to come to terms with the prospect of greening their operations.
“The president would make a pretty strong case to you that there is a sound economic incentive for the United States and industries in the United States to be more focused on investments in renewable and clean energy,” Earnest said.
That isn’t enough for green groups and health organizations, who say the administration should have gone even further.
“We are disappointed with the standard, but we recognize that 70 is going to provide more protection than 75,” said Molly Rauch, the public health policy director for Moms Clean Air Force.
“Some of our communities will be breathing easier. We’re calling it a modest step.”
EPA’s McCarthy justified the level this week, and said her decision was easier to make now than when Jackson considered upgrading the standard in 2011.
At the time, the EPA was reviewing research used to craft the Bush-era rule in 2008. Since then, “1,000 more studies” have come out on ozone, McCarthy said.
“When you look at these studies, as I did in making my decision, I think it was very clear to me that 70 was the standard that we should land, based on the science available to us today, and to me today,” McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
“This is really all about making the right health-based decision based on the science available to me. This will be a significant step forward, and certainly not one that’s based on anything other than science and the law.”
Obama’s embrace of the ozone limit means the fight will turn next to Congress and the courts.
In 2008, both sides sued the EPA over its 75 parts per billion standard, but the rule stood. Neither side was pushing litigation immediately on Thursday, but they’ve hinted this week that it will likely come.
Instead industry is looking first to Congress, pushing lawmakers to take steps blocking the regulation legislatively. Some, including the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that would be coming soon.
“The only way we’re going to see relief from this draconian regulation — that will destroy jobs and that will destroy the quality of life in this country — is for Congress to step in and do their job we need time and we need flexibility,” National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said Thursday.
Such an effort will put those on the other side of the issue in an odd spot: defending a rule they don’t particularly like themselves.
“I think we’re going to be in a position to defend what we consider a modest step forward,” Rauch said.
“To find that our communities and our kids have to scramble to hold on tightly to even this modest standard is frustrating.” -
The Strongest Weapon To Shift Geopolitical Balances Isn’t Nukes Or Missiles, It’s Technology
Oct 5, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Vivek Wadha
Governments, businesses, and economists have all been caught off guard by the geopolitical shifts that happened with the crash of oil prices and the slowdown of China’s economy. Most believe that the price of oil will recover and that China will continue its rise. They are mistaken. Instead of worrying about the rise of China, we need to fear its fall; and while oil prices may oscillate over the next four or five years, the fossil-fuel industry is headed the way of the dinosaur. The global balance of power will shift as a result.
LED light bulbs, improved heating and cooling systems, and software systems in automobiles have gradually been increasing fuel efficiency over the past decades. But the big shock to the energy industry came with fracking, a new set of techniques and technologies for extracting more hydrocarbons from the ground. Though there are concerns about environmental damage, these increased the outputs of oil and gas, caused the usurpation of old-line coal-fired power plants, and dramatically reduced America’s dependence on foreign oil.
The next shock will come from clean energy. Solar and wind are now advancing on exponential curves. Every two years, for example, solar installation rates are doubling, and photovoltaic-module costs are falling by about 20 percent. Even without the subsidies that governments are phasing out, present costs of solar installations will, by 2022, halve, reducing returns on investments in homes, nationwide, to less than four years. By 2030, solar power will be able to provide 100 percent of today’s energy needs; by 2035, it will seem almost free — just as cell-phone calls are today.
This seems hard to believe, given that solar production provides less than one percent of the Earth’s energy needs today. But this is how exponential technologies advance. They double in performance every year or two and their prices fall. Given that California already generates more than 5 percent of its electricity from utility-scale solar, it is not hard to fathom what the impact of another few doublings would be: the imminent extinction of the fossil-fuel industry. Exponential technologies are deceptive because they move very slowly at first, but one percent becomes two percent, which becomes four, eight, and sixteen; you get the idea. As futurist Ray Kurzweilsays, when an exponential technology is at one percent, you are halfway to 100 percent, and that is where solar and wind energies are now.
Anyone tracking the exponential growth of fracking and the gradual advances that were being made in conservation and fuel efficiency should have been able to predict, years ago, that by 2015, the price of oil would drop dramatically. It wasn’t surprising that relatively small changes in supply and demand caused massive disruptions to global oil prices; that is how markets work. They cause commodities futures and stock prices to fall dramatically when slowdowns occur. This is what is happening to China’s markets also. The growth of China’s largest industry, manufacturing, has stalled, causing ripple effects throughout China’s economy.
For decades, manufacturing was flooding into China from the U.S. and Europe and fueling its growth. And then a combination of rising labor and shipping costs and automation began to change the economics of China manufacturing. Now, robots are about to tip the balance further.
Foxconn had announced in August 2011 that it would replace one million workers with robots. This didn’t occur, because the robots then couldn’t work alongside human workers to do sophisticated circuit board assembly. But anewer generation of robots such as ABB’s Yumi and Rethink Robotics’ Sawyer can do that. They are dextrous enough to thread a needle and cost as much as a car does.
China is aware of the advances in robotics and plans to take the lead in replacing humans with robots. Guangdong province is constructing the world’s first “zero-labor factor,” with 1,000 robots which do the jobs of 2,000 humans. It sees this as a solution to increasing labor costs.
The problem for China is that its robots are no more productive than their counterparts in the West are. They all work 24×7 without complaining or joining labor unions. They cost the same and consume the same amount of energy. Given the long shipping times and high transportation costs it no longer makes sense to send raw materials across the oceans to China to have them assembled into finished goods and shipped to the West. Manufacturing can once again become a local industry.
It will take many years for Western companies to learn the intricacies of robotic manufacturing, build automated factories, train workers, and deal with the logistical challenges of supply chains being in China. But these are surmountable problems. What is now a trickle of manufacturing returning to the West will, within five to seven years, become a flood.
After this, another technology revolution will begin: digital manufacturing.
In conventional manufacturing, parts are produced by humans using power-driven machine tools, such as saws, lathes, milling machines, and drill presses, to physically remove material to obtain the shape desired. In digital manufacturing, parts are produced by melting successive layers of materials based on 3D models — adding materials rather than subtracting them. The “3D printers” that produce these use powered metal, droplets of plastic, and other materials — much like the toner cartridges that go into laser printers. 3D printers can already create physical mechanical devices, medical implants, jewelry, and even clothing. But these are slow, messy, and cumbersome — much like the first generations of inkjet printers were. This will change.
In the early 2020s we will have elegant low-priced printers for our homes that can print toys and household goods. Businesses will use 3D printers to do small-scale production of previously labor-intensive crafts and goods. Late in the next decade, we will be 3D-printing buildings and electronics. These will eventually be as fast as today’s laser printers are. And don’t be surprised if by 2030, the industrial robots go on strike, waving placards saying “stop the 3D printers: they are taking our jobs away.”
The geopolitical implications of these changes are exciting and worrisome. America will reinvent itself just as does every 30-40 years; it is, after all, leading the technology boom. And as we are already witnessing, Russia and China will stir up regional unrest to distract their restive populations; oil producers such as Venezuela will go bankrupt; the Middle East will become a cauldron of instability. Countries that have invested in educating their populations, built strong consumer economies, and have democratic institutions that can deal with social change will benefit — because their people will have had their basic needs met and can figure out how to take advantage of the advances in technology.
-
C2ES Report Examines Business Resilience to Impacts Of Climate Change
Oct 5, 2015 | E&E Daily
Are businesses in the United States successfully translating climate change data into action to reduce risk? During today's OnPoint, Janet Peace, senior vice president at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, discusses a new report examining businesses' resilience to the impacts of climate change. She talks about the public infrastructure challenges facing businesses and explains how public-private partnerships could help facilitate the planning process. Today's OnPoint will air on E&ETV at 10 a.m. EDT.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested