acc am 10/11

Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Market Outlook: Plasticizers Under Reach Spotlight

   Oct 12, 2015 | ICIS

   By Martin Stimpson
   
   
   The biggest piece of legislation to have gone through the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is now in full effect, and companies around the world are feeling its impact.

Chemical Management News

2. California Enacts Loophole-Free Ban on Microbeads

   Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel
   
   
   California has enacted legislation barring the sale and distribution of personal care products containing plastic microbeads beginning Jan. 1, 2020.
3. Microbead Ban Becomes Law in California

   Oct 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   California Governor, Jerry Brown, has signed into law the nation's “strongest” ban on personal care products containing microbeads (CW 10 September 2015).
4. Foreign Chemical Assessment Strategies Compared by GAO

   Oct 9, 2015 | Foreign Chemical Assessment Strategies Compared by GAO

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   A comparison of approaches that Canada, Australia and two World Health Organization programs use to assess the human health hazards of chemicals was released by the Government Accountability Office Oct. 9.
5. NTP Seeks Information on Substances Nominated to RoC

   Oct 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US National Toxicology Program has asked for information on six substances, nominated for the Report on Carcinogens.
6. How Big Chains from Walmart to Whole Foods are Cleaning Up Chemicals

   Oct 10, 2015 | GreenBiz

   By Kenneth Geiser
   
   
   This is an edited excerpt from the book Chemicals without Harm: Policies for a Sustainable World.

Chemical Security News

7. (ACC Mentioned) Partnerships Key to Pollution and Poverty Problems

   Oct 12, 2015 | BDLive

   By Herman Erdmann
   
   
   Nearly 400 years ago, John Donne wrote: "No man is an island, entire of itself." In our age, the sentiment applies to nations.
8. DOE Gives $34 Million to Cyber Protection Projects

   Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   The Energy Department is providing $34 million in funding to two projects to improve the protection of the electric grid and oil and natural gas infrastructure from cyber attacks, according to an Oct. 9 announcement.

Energy and Environment News

9. House Votes to Lift 40-Year Ban on Oil Exports

   Oct 9, 2015 | The New York Times

   By Clifford Krauss
   
   
   The House of Representatives voted on Friday to reverse a 40-year-old ban on oil exports, giving major oil companies a political victory at a time when they are suffering from lower oil prices and falling profits.
10. House Passes Bill Allowing Oil Exports

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Ari Natter
    
    
    The House voted Oct. 9 to approve legislation ending the 40-year-old ban on most oil exports, sending the measure to the Senate where it faces an uphill battle for passage.
11. House Backs U.S. Oil Exports

    Oct 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Elana Schor
    
    
    The House approved legislation today that would overturn the ban on exporting U.S. crude oil, 261-159, setting up a fight in the Senate between the oil industry supporters and environmentalists.
12. House Endorses Oil Exports Amid Echoes of Keystone Fight

    Oct 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Elana Schor
    
    
    The House moved Friday to legalize crude oil exports for the first time in four decades, siding with the petroleum industry in a power struggle that echoes its long feud with greens over the Keystone XL pipeline.
13. EPA Would Push New Rules If Capito Bill Passes: CBO

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Anthony Adragna
    
    
    The Environmental Protection Agency would likely try again to regulate new power plants if Senate legislation killing off existing rules becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office said Oct. 8.
14. The EPA’s Water Rule Is Plugged

    |
15. Obama Names Energy Resources Official at State Department

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rebecca Kern
    
    
    A State Department special envoy has been nominated by the Obama administration to become the assistant secretary for energy resources at the department.
16. EPA Sends 'Exceptional Events' Air Rule To OMB

    Oct 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

    EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review a proposal to “streamline and clarify” how states can discount high air pollution from “exceptional events” such as dust storms from Clean Air Act compliance, a measure sought by states who want more clarity on the policy.
17. EPA Air Toxics Enforcement Focus Spurs Fears Over 'Next Generation' Data

    |
18. EPA Air Toxics Enforcement Focus Spurs Fears Over 'Next Generation' Data

    Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By David LaRoss
    
    
    Industry attorneys are warning that EPA's proposal to make community-level air toxics emissions an enforcement focus in the coming years threatens to create new pitfalls for a host of sectors when combined with the agency's push for wider adoption of novel air monitoring technologies as part of its "next generation" compliance initiative.
19. EPA Cites Discretion In Push For Court To Uphold Novel Mine Permit Veto

    Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By David LaRoss
    
    
    EPA is citing its broad discretionary authority in pushing for an appellate court to uphold its novel veto of disposal sites for a planned coal mine after the Army Corps of Engineers issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for the project, rejecting claims that the the veto was poorly justified and based on factors EPA was not allowed to consider.

Transportation News

20. (ACC Mentioned) Commodity Groups Urge Extension of Looming Rail Safety Deadline

    Oct 9, 2015 | Capital Press

    By John O’Connell
    
    
    Several lawmakers and agricultural organizations from the Northwest are advocating for a bill to extend a deadline for railroads to implement safety upgrades, hoping to avoid freight disruptions.
21. (ACC Mentioned) Railroads Warn of Nationwide Meltdown if Extension Not Granted for Safety Requirements

    Oct 12, 2015 | Star Tribune

    By Allison Sherry
    
    
    Railroads are warning Congress that if they don’t get more time to install new safety equipment on their rail lines by the end of October, there will be a nationwide freight and passenger meltdown at the end of the year that could affect everything from grain operations to farmers seeking fertilizer to Minnesota passengers trying to get to Chicago.
22. Feds Update Track Inspection Standards after Derailment

    Oct 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry
    
    
    Federal rail officials announced an update to railway inspection standards on Friday after pinpointing the cause of a fiery oil train derailment in February.
23. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Proposal to Be Published

    Oct 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    A recently released hazardous liquid pipeline proposed rule that is aimed at improving the safety of nearly 200,000 miles of pipelines carrying crude oil and other liquids will be published Oct. 13 in the Federal Register.
24. DOT Urges Detailed Inspections After Derailment Review

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rachel Leven
    
    
    The Federal Railroad Administration announced Oct. 9 that it will release a safety advisory urging the rail industry to conduct more detailed inspections of its rails and to provide stronger training for operators. The move came as it announced its finding on what caused a West Virginia crude oil train derailment and fire earlier this year that forced the evacuation of hundreds of local residents.

Full Text of Stories Below

Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Market Outlook: Plasticizers Under Reach Spotlight

   Oct 12, 2015 | ICIS

   By Martin Stimpson

   The biggest piece of legislation to have gone through the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is now in full effect, and companies around the world are feeling its impact. ECHA is the driving force among regulatory authorities in implementing the EU’s chemical legislation, helping companies comply with regulations. One piece of legislation on everyone’s mind right now is Reach.

   The EU regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, or Reach, was first introduced in June 2007 to improve the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals. It applies to all chemical substances and places the burden of proof for safety on companies that produce or use chemicals.

   To comply, companies must identify and manage the risks linked to the substances they manufacture and market in the EU. If this sounds like a tall order, it is. The regulation has an impact on most companies in the EU, as well as many companies outside it.

   Operating outside the EU does not exclude a company from feeling the weight of Reach. Its impact is global, and it touches manufacturers, importers and even downstream users. If you make, buy or use chemicals, and do business within the EU, you are likely to have felt the impact of Reach. The impact may take the form of a delay and information exchange along the supply chain.

   Delays in production are inevitable when legislation requires that components of a product go through rigorous testing and authorisation in order to be used in products sold in the EU. These delays and associated costs can be ameliorated by clear communications between suppliers and customers regarding compositions, Reach registration status, and the presence, or not, of any substances of very high concern in the products being sold.

   Companies can also expect positive impacts from Reach. Once the implementation of the regulation runs its course, companies will have access to toxicity profiles of every single substance used in the EU. Having that kind of information at your fingertips will help in the future, when we expect to see similar regulations being implemented in other countries. The earlier companies get involved in the Reach process, the more prepared they will be to answer any questions or address any regulations in the future.

   
   

   COMMON SCREENING APPROACH

   Through Reach, the ECHA has already identified more than 160 substances of very high concern for authorisation. And it anticipates it has hundreds more to identify. ECHA has developed a common screening approach to systematically evaluate the long list of substances that are being used in the EU. Through the screening, ECHA searches for available information on substances in order to identify appropriate Reach processes and next steps. The efforts put into the regulation reflect how serious the ECHA and EU are about its impact to limit or prohibit the use of hazardous substances in products.

   The ultimate goal of limiting or prohibiting hazardous substances in products will take time to achieve. The laborious task of collecting and assessing information on the properties of substances used in products is time-consuming – not to mention that we are talking about any product made within or imported to a whole continent. Spanning more than a decade, Reach was introduced in June of 2007 and the final registration deadline is in 2018. Beyond May 2018, it will be against the law to continue to manufacture or import any unregistered substances.

   Currently in Reach’s spotlight are plasticizers, especially ortho-phthalates, included as some of the first substances to go through the authorisation process and some of the most affected substances under the regulation because of their popularity. Of the 163 substances already identified for authorisation by the EU, 13 are ortho-phthalates, a family of chemicals used to soften and increase flexibility of plastic and vinyl.

   
   

   HISTORY OF REGULATION

   Plasticizers and phthalates are no strangers to scrutiny. For more than 20 years now, manufacturers have felt the pressure of regulations, with Europe leading the charge. In the past, reports on the safety of ortho-phthalate plasticizers, traditionally the most dominant of plasticizers, have resulted in restrictions on their use in some sensitive applications, such as children’s toys. EU Directive 2005/84/EC, later replaced by Reach regulation, took effect in January of 2007 and set limits on phthalates in toys and childcare products.

   Phthalates are among the most widely researched of all chemical substances because of their popularity in products like toys, food packaging materials, medical applications, shoes and apparel.

   For the last five years, the industry has actually witnessed the shift in purchasing to non-phthalates. The transition began with companies wanting to avoid the hassle associated with continued use of phthalates.Non-phthalate plasticizers account for the highest growth market because of these kinds of restrictions. We expect to see a continued rise in the use of non-phthalate plasticizers. Because of this, Eastman has prepared our teams to assist customers in the transition to a new material. An educated and experienced team can more easily attain compliance in an often complicated industry.

   This is especially important considering the potential for other continents or countries to take on similar legislation. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), allowing a regulatory framework to collect data on chemicals in order to evaluate, assess, mitigate and control risks posed by their manufacturing, processing and use. TSCA is not nearly as developed as Reach quite yet, but it has the potential to be similar in scope and impact, with an update likely coming in the next year.

   Overall, Reach is a very comprehensive, yet still very new, piece of legislature. Its impact is broad, reaching companies all over the world. Thus far, it has prompted companies to work together to find solutions, build data sets and share costs. Ultimately, it means companies are more strictly measuring, tracking and managing the chemicals in their products and supply chains. We do not have all of the answers yet and we are experiencing growing pains with the process, but Reach is driving supply chain transparency and end-user safety, which is a good thing.

   Located in Wiltshire, England, Martin Stimpson is the global market development manager in the Adhesives and Plasticizers Business unit for Eastman Chemical Company (UK) Ltd. Stimpson’s focus is on new product and new market development for plasticizers and formulation additives. He has 20 years’ experience in the European plasticizer markets. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from North East London Polytechnic and a doctorate in chemistry from City University London.

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. California Enacts Loophole-Free Ban on Microbeads

   Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel

   California has enacted legislation barring the sale and distribution of personal care products containing plastic microbeads beginning Jan. 1, 2020.Signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Oct. 8, A.B. 888 makes California the ninth state to impose restrictions on the use of the tiny synthetic particles found in facial scrubs, body washes, soaps and toothpastes (184 DEN B-1, 9/23/15).Unlike bans enacted in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin, there are no exemptions in A.B. 888 for biodegradable plastic or a process to win approval for such an exemption.“A.B. 888 was carefully crafted to avoid any loopholes that would allow for use of potentially harmful substitutes,” Assembly Member Richard Bloom (D), author of the bill, said in an Oct. 8 written statement.Pollution in San Francisco BayA provision in the law states that “plastic is not biodegradable into elements or compounds commonly found in nature like other organic materials, but, instead, upon exposure to the elements photodegrades into smaller pieces of plastic causing land and water pollution that is virtually impossible to remediate.”“A.B. 888 is a comprehensive solution to the growing problem of microbead pollution,” Bloom said. “A recent study found a staggering amount of micro-plastic pollution in the San Francisco Bay, but these beads have also been found in the open ocean, rivers and the Great Lakes,” he said.Passed by lawmakers Sept. 8, the bill targets synthetic beads used as exfoliates or colorants. The plastic microbeads aren't captured by wastewater treatment systems. As a result, they end up being discharged to local waterways, posing a potential threat to marine life and potentially to those that consume fish that ingest the particles (175 DEN A-4, 9/10/15).In Washington, Congress is weighing in with the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 (H.R. 1321; S. 1424), which would require the Food and Drug Administration to ban the sale, distribution and possibly the manufacture of personal care products containing microbeads beginning Jan. 1, 2018.Unilever PLC, the Body Shop, Johnson & Johnson, Beiersdorf, L'Oreal, Procter & Gamble and other manufacturers and sellers of personal care products have agreed to phase out the use of microbeads within a few years.“It never made sense to put these tiny bits of plastic in products designed to be rinsed down the drain, polluting water and threatening wildlife,” Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, told Bloomberg BNA in September.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. Microbead Ban Becomes Law in California

   Oct 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   California Governor, Jerry Brown, has signed into law the nation's “strongest” ban on personal care products containing microbeads (CW 10 September 2015).

   The law will take effect 1 January 2020, and prohibit the sale of personal care products, containing more than one part per million of plastic microbeads.

   Unlike bans that exist in other states, such as in Illinois and Wisconsin, the California ban encompasses all plastic microbeads – including biodegradable materials.

   According to the California-based Center for Biological Diversity, the state's ban is “the strongest legislation in the country and will set the standard for the industry”. The NGO – one of many organisations which supported the bill – says the law closes the biodegradable “loophole” that “allows companies to replace traditional plastic microbeads with more plastic”.

   The state's measure was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and several large personal care product manufacturers, which said that the law's microbead definition could “create a legal quagmire” and “stifle innovation”.

   Several counties in New York have passed, or are considering, legislation to ban microbeads under a definition similar to California's, without the carve-out for biodegradable materials. Local bans will take effect in New York as early as the first quarter of 2016 (CW 16 September 2015).

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Foreign Chemical Assessment Strategies Compared by GAO

   Oct 9, 2015 | Foreign Chemical Assessment Strategies Compared by GAO

   By Pat Rizzuto

   A comparison of approaches that Canada, Australia and two World Health Organization programs use to assess the human health hazards of chemicals was released by the Government Accountability Office Oct. 9.The report, requested by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), makes no recommendations but was issued in the context of Congress considering changes to chemical safety legislation.As Congress debates such legislation, the international approaches may offer legislators ideas, the report's author, J. Alfredo Gómez, said in a podcast about his report.Canada and Australia took the approach of conducting initial screening level assessments designed to identify chemicals needing further review, the GAO said in its report, “Chemicals Management: Observations on Human Health Risk Assessment and Management by Selected Foreign Programs.”Using that approach, the two countries have conducted thousands of screening assessments since the mid-2000s, the report said.The World Health Organization's programs, which involve more detailed assessments, have evaluated several hundred chemicals since the 1970s, the GAO said.U.S. Uses IRIS ProgramA key program the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses to assess human health hazards is its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the report said.In contrast to the assessments conducted by Canada, Australia and the WHO programs, IRIS assessments evaluate the human health hazards of chemicals and the doses at which those hazards could manifest. A process the IRIS program has instituted since 2012 also involves public consultations at multiple meetings throughout the development of the program's assessments.The IRIS program has been on the GAO's high-risk list since 2009, because it has produced so few assessments, the report said. The program is, however, continuing its work to improve that capacity, the report said.An aide in Markey's office couldn't be reached Oct. 9 to comment on whether the senator intends to take any action based on the report.

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. NTP Seeks Information on Substances Nominated to RoC

   Oct 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch

   The US National Toxicology Program has asked for information on six substances, nominated for the Report on Carcinogens.

   The RoC is a congressionally mandated health report that identifies potential carcinogens in the environment. The most recent version of the biennial report was released 2 October 2014.

   The 14th RoC is currently under development (CW 21 October 2014).

   The substances, which have been nominated for possible review to be considered for future editions of the report, include the widely used brominated flame retardant TBBPA and two water disinfection byproducts.

   The six are:pentabromodiphenyl ether mixture (DE-71);TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A);dibromoacetonitrile;di- and tri-haloacetic acids (as a class);fluoride; andvinylidene chloride.

   Information will be accepted by the NTP until 6 November and used to determine which substances to propose for formal health hazard evaluation.

   For each substance, the interagency programme seeks:data on production, use and exposures;relevant planned, or published, studies of health effects;scientific information that can assist in prioritising and assessing health effects; andcontacts within the scientific community with expertise or knowledge of the substance.

   The NTP's Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), meanwhile, is seeking information to evaluate fluoride for developmental neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption.

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. How Big Chains from Walmart to Whole Foods are Cleaning Up Chemicals

   Oct 10, 2015 | GreenBiz

   By Kenneth Geiser

   This is an edited excerpt from the book Chemicals without Harm: Policies for a Sustainable World.

   Every day thousands of people make decisions that affect the chemical market. Most decisions are about the costs, availability, and performance of products; few involve consideration of human health or the environment. If the consumer market offers an important opportunity for promoting safer chemical production and consumption systems, the amount of chemical information in the market must expand, and the number of products that take health and environment into account must increase. A chemical conversion strategy needs to address the chemical market.

   A focus on commercial products provides important leverage in shifting to safer chemicals because products are so central to a consumer economy and so accessible to decision making by an informed public. Consumers, at the point of purchase, can select products with safer chemicals; retailers and institutional buyers, when negotiating supplier contracts, can specify products with safer chemicals; product manufacturers, when designing products, can specify safer chemical ingredients; and consumer advocacy campaigns, when targeting specific chemicals, can recommend products to buy or avoid.

   As consumers increasingly seek more sustainable products, retailers — especially large retailers — have become a new voice for the chemical safety of the products they sell. In the absence of strong federal regulations, retailers have begun to set their own chemical policies that include requirements for their suppliers and lists of chemicals that should be avoided.

   For some time, specialized retailers such as Patagonia, REI, H&M, and the Body Shop have had product supplier programs that screen hazardous chemicals out of their products, but these are niche enterprises serving health-conscious customers, and their total inventory has typically been too small to directly shift a market.

   However, because these firms are often market leaders, they can have broad indirect effects on their own economic sector by introducing environmentally superior products into the sector, encouraging customers to experiment with new, health-sensitive products, and setting high standards for other firms within the sector.

   Patagonia provides an illustrative example of a small apparel retailer with a history as a pace setter in environmentally conscious marketing. In 1996, Patagonia's founder, Yvon Chouinard, switched the majority of the apparel line to organic cotton as a means of raising customer awareness. Although Patagonia's organic cotton t-shirts, “Beneficial Ts," became a national market leader, Chouinard recognized the limits of a small retailer

   in shaping the market and turned his attention to the broader apparel market. Working together, Patagonia and several similar retailers engaged the Switzerland-based bluesign Technologies to develop a product standard for apparel. With the motto “ if you don't know, you don't care," bluesign built a standard around five values: consumer safety, resource consumption, water quality, air quality, and occupational health and safety.

   Patagonia, REI, H&M, and the Body Shop have had product supplier programs that screen hazardous chemicals out of their products, but these are niche enterprises.

   To be certified by bluesign, a supplier of dyes, coatings, finishing agents, and other textile constituents must submit to an on-site facility audit and prepare a chemical screening using special "bluetool" software that converts a list of chemical ingredients into a color-coded score indicating whether a substance can be used without restriction or only under specific conditions.

   H&M, a larger clothing retailer with operations in 22 countries, has created its own chemical management screening process. The firm first restricted azo dyes during the 1990s in response to proposed German regulations. This early initiative soon turned into a full-fledged list of restricted substance that by 2007 contained more than 170 chemicals and chemical categories. To supply H&M, clothing manufacturers must present tests from H&M-approved labs demonstrating that these chemicals are not present or are below defined thresholds. 

   Whole Foods Market with some 400 grocery stores in the United States has built a reputation selling high-end, "natural" foods. Its self-created quality standardsscreens for minimally processed foods that are free of hydrogenated fats, artificial flavors, colors and sweeteners, and ingredients listed on its “Unacceptable Food Ingredients ”list. The firm offers a “Premium Body Care" seal for products that suppliers demonstrate do not include synthetic fragrances or any of a list of 250 synthetic chemicals.

   On the other end of the retail market, the huge purchasing contracts of "big box" retailers such as Walmart, Target, K-Mart/Sears, Home Depot, Staples, Kroger, and Safeway can more directly affect a manufacturer's market share. Within the retail sector, there has been a steady rise in corporate concentration, with a few large retailers in some sectors now accounting for up to 50 to 70 percent of the market. Because they have much greater leverage on suppliers, these firms' requirements can put significant pressure on upstream chemical suppliers. 

   Staples and Office Depot, representing nearly 50 percent of the sector's sales, now impose environmental requirements on their suppliers.

   In the home improvement and hardware retail sector, Home Depot and Lowes together control more than a third of the U.S. market. Both of these firms require suppliers to meet various environmental requirements, including agreeing to seek lumber certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Since working with the FSC, Home Depot has sold more than 630 million pieces of FSC-certified wood, shifted out of lauan-finished doors, moved to second-growth cedar forests for wood shingles, and phased out sales of lumber from forty endangered trees.

   Two of the three largest office products retailers, Staples and Office Depot, representing nearly 50 percent of the sector's sales, now impose environmental requirements on their suppliers. Staples is the world's largest supplier of office products, with annual sales of $27 billion. During the early 2000s, Staples came under pressure from a nationwide campaign organized by consumer and environmental advocacy organizations that resulted in Staples ending sales of paper made from old-growth forests and increasing sales of recycled paper. In 2009, Staples purchased  Driving the chemical market

   Corporate Express, a leading supplier of business office supplies. Corporate Express had a line of Sustainable Earth commercial cleaning products developed by Roger McFadden, then the chief scientist at Corporate Express. To ensure high standards for these products, Roger had developed a three-part Sustainable Product Design Standard (SPDS), which he brought along to Staples during the merger. The first screen of the standard is composed of criteria for nine chemical hazard traits (such as CMRs, endocrine disruptors, volatile organic compounds) that a supplier's products must meet in order to sell through Staples.

   The second screen includes criteria for 22 environmental, and health, and safety attributes that a product is scored on, while the third (optional) screen encourages continuous improvement. While products with low scores may still be sold through Staples, they cannot be marketed as environmentally preferable.

   Roger sees such corporate policies as driving the market: "Being a market leader is a big responsibility. We are not just improving the environmental profile of our suppliers; we are making customers aware of how their purchases have real consequences on the health and safety of the offices that they work in and the places they go home to."

   These retailers are broadening the definition of a quality product by making consumers more aware of the health and environmental values of products.

   In terms of scale, Walmart is the world's heavyweight retailer. With 7,000 retail stores in 15 countries and annual sales of $410 billion, this one retailer has an unparalleled capacity to shape commercial markets. Walmart launched its sustainability program in 2005, with goals to use 100 percent renewable energy, achieve zero waste, and "sell products that sustain our resources and environment."

   In 2004, Walmart began tracking hazardous chemicals in its stores to ensure regulatory compliance. New policies were established for Walmart buyers focused on preferential purchasing of garments made with organically grown cotton, toys that did not contain lead or phthalates, and electronic products compliant with the European RoHS Directive. To gain advice from outsiders, the retailer set up a series of 14 advisory groups called Sustainable Value Networks that focused on various environmental impacts ranging from energy efficiency, waste reduction, and packaging reduction to "chemical-intensive products."

   This last group identified 20 chemicals of high concern and recommended restricting their presence in products, leading the retailer to ban pesticide products containing propoxur and permethrin and cleaning products containing nonylphenol ethoxylates.

   In 2008, Walmart changed course by moving away from a discrete list of restricted substances to a third-party-based screening process. The process uses a screening tool, called the GreenWERCS Chemical Screening  Tool, designed by The Wercs, a private firm with a 25-year history of assisting corporations with chemicals compliance. The
   GreenWERCS tool evaluates data on some 2,400 chemicals from 30 authoritative lists of chemical hazards.

   The retailers are further defining their mission as a product screening and testing agent, suggesting a new role as a guardian of public and environmental health.

   To sell a product through Walmart, a supplier must present a confidential list of all intentionally added chemical ingredients to Wercs, and Wercs then uses its screening tool to develop a color-coded “ green score ”for the product. Before recommending the product to Walmart, Wercs reviews the product scores with the supplier and allows the supplier to adjust the chemical ingredients in order to achieve a higher score. Since its launch, Walmart has used Wercs to score more than 150,000 formulated products before placing them on Walmart
   display shelves.

   In 2013, Target, another "big box" retailer, also took steps to rate products on environmental attributes. Target took a different course from Walmart by working with GoodGuide to set a standard that product suppliers must use to rate their products, with scores that range from 0 to 100 based on points that can be earned in five categories: chemical hazard, transparency, animal testing, packaging, and water quality protection. Currently, the standard is being piloted on 7,500 products in household cleaners and personal care and baby care products. 

   None of these retailers has a perfect record on all features of sustainability. Many have been criticized for problems in their foreign supply chains, and some have been criticized for their domestic labor relations. Such criticisms may be warranted; however, they do not negate the progress that these firms are driving in terms of chemical hazards.

   Put bluntly, it is possible for retail firms to see a competitive advantage in offering safer products, particularly to business customers that they do not see in their labor relations. Thus, if the efforts of retailers on eliminating hazardous chemicals are to be seen as universally valued, they need to be balanced with incentives for promoting other values such as labor and community relations.

   Chemical manufacturers need to be reminded that good business practice involves delivering what the customer wants — and product retailers know that voice best.

   The role that these retailers are assuming in product supply chains presents several opportunities for shifting the chemical market. First, these retailers are broadening the definition of a quality product by making consumers more aware of the health and environmental values of products, particularly chemical hazards.

   Second, the retailers are further defining their mission as a product screening and testing agent, suggesting a new role as a guardian of public and environmental health. Third, these retailer initiatives are sending assertive messages up the supply chain, pressing accountability for product safety and the burden of proof for chemical safety on to product manufacturers and, potentially, on up the supply chain to chemical manufacturers.

   Conventionally, retailers have been seen as agents of product producers; however, some retailers are defining a new role as agents of consumers and, even more, as educators and partners of consumers. Such a reorientation creates a new voice for safer chemicals and provides important leverage for changing the chemical economy. Chemical manufacturers have not looked with much favor on this new activism by product retailers, arguing that restricting chemical ingredients in products should be the task of governments.

   However, Richard Dennison from the Environmental Defense Fund praises this new corporate role as "regulation by retailer" and quips, "Chemical manufacturers need to be reminded that good business practice involves delivering what the customer wants — and product retailers know that voice best."

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

7. (ACC Mentioned) Partnerships Key to Pollution and Poverty Problems

   Oct 12, 2015 | BDLive

   By Herman Erdmann

   NEARLY 400 years ago, John Donne wrote: "No man is an island, entire of itself." In our age, the sentiment applies to nations. The world is facing global problems as the activities of countries affect their neighbours. Pollution does not respect borders and the resulting damage to life and climate does not discriminate.

   How can we develop and implement solutions to environmental problems while dealing with poverty eradication?

   The solution lies in countries and organisations working collaboratively, working in partnership to analyse the most important socio-economic problems, and formulating innovative strategies to deal with them.

   One of the biggest challenges we face is ocean waste. The numbers are staggering — an estimated 8 to 10-million tonnes of plastic waste enters the oceans every year. This means that by 2025, there will be 1kg of plastic for every 3kg of fish in the ocean.

   A healthy ocean means more than beautiful coastlines and vibrant wildlife. A healthy ocean supplies the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. If the ocean isn’t healthy, neither are we.

   As a signature initiative of its Trash Free Seas Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, a conservation non-profit that has worked on marine debris for more than 30 years, partnered with the McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment to lead a comprehensive study of the problem. It was supported by alliance’s members: the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of SA (Redisa), the Coca-Cola Company, the Dow Chemical Company, the American Chemistry Council, and World Wildlife Fund, and advised by technical experts in waste management, plastics and recycling, as well as governments and multilateral organisations.

   ...

   REDISA understands that, to achieve success in environmental remediation while developing job opportunities and small businesses, we need to push the boundaries together. This capacity to work together with partners is the foundation on which our country is built — ubuntu.

   Our alliance with Ocean Conservancy and the resulting report, Stemming the Tide: Land-based Strategies for a Plastic-free Ocean, is raising awareness of the effect of ocean waste, and empowering people to take responsibility for taking care of the ocean and the environment.

   But solving this challenge requires harnessing global resources to support local efforts. Working together, governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and industry can overcome this problem and create a new, collaborative and effective way of solving the plastic waste challenge.

   Stemming the Tide specifically underscores the important role of industry in driving the solutions and catalysing public and private investment to solve the problem of ocean plastic leakage.

   Redisa has shown the power of collaboration to due to the legislative framework set out by the Department of Environmental Affairs, which made the Redisa Plan possible — and our results speak for themselves. Statistics show that before Redisa existed, SA was dealing with only 4% of the total tyres being generated as waste.

   Within two years, Redisa has been able to increase this to 70% by the end of last year, and we are well on our way to increasing that by the end of this year.

   Imagine how much more we could achieve if we worked closely with other organisations.

   Through collaboration and work with partners in the government and in business, and with consumers and NGOs, we will be able to build more sustainable, efficient and long-term socio-economic solutions.

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. DOE Gives $34 Million to Cyber Protection Projects

   Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   The Energy Department is providing $34 million in funding to two projects to improve the protection of the electric grid and oil and natural gas infrastructure from cyber attacks, according to an Oct. 9 announcement. The funding goes to the University of Illinois and the University of Arkansas to develop new technologies to protect energy systems that control the physical processes that deliver continuous power to the grid. The University of Illinois Cyber Resilient Energy Delivery Consortium is receiving $22.5 million from the Energy Department, with the university funding an additional $5.6 million. The University of Arkansas is receiving $12.2 million, with the university funding an additional $3.06 million.
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

9. House Votes to Lift 40-Year Ban on Oil Exports

   Oct 9, 2015 | The New York Times

   By Clifford Krauss

   The House of Representatives voted on Friday to reverse a 40-year-old ban on oil exports, giving major oil companies a political victory at a time when they are suffering from lower oil prices and falling profits.

   The House vote of 261-159 included 26 Democrats in favor of the legislation. But even though the legislation has gained momentum in recent weeks, it continues to face a major challenge in the Senate as well as the threat of a White House veto.

   Still, the House vote makes it more likely that the export ban, which was enacted in the 1970s when the American economy was threatened by international oil embargoes and falling domestic production, will become an important issue in the presidential election campaign.

   Jack N. Gerard, chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, praised the bill as a job creator. “American producers would be able to compete on a level playing field with countries like Iran and Russia, providing security to our allies and accelerating the energy revolution that has revitalized our economy,” he said.Continue reading the main storyOil Prices: What’s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

   Opponents say lifting the export ban could raise gasoline prices, an assertion contested by many energy experts and economists since increased United States supplies on world markets could bring global prices down at least a bit. Others, including Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, say the immediate impact of lifting of ban would be limited since the global oil markets are currently glutted.

   “Every American household is saving $700 or more this year from lower fuel prices because refiners are passing on savings to U.S. consumers,” said Jay Hauck, executive director the Crude Coalition, a lobbying group led by several refiners who profit from the low price of domestic oil, which is their principal raw material.Continue reading the main storyGraphic: How the U.S. and OPEC Drive Oil Prices

   The Obama administration has been tinkering with the ban, and it recently gave oil companies temporary permission to export a limited amount of oil to Mexico. The administration has also allowed the export of a limited amount of extra-light oil, which comes out of the shale fields of Texas and several other states.

   The Obama administration has been reluctant to lift the export ban entirely, in part because environmentalists say it would encourage more petroleum development and hydraulic fracturing at a time when the nation should be moving away from fossil fuels to curb climate change.

   The debate has been spurred by nearly a doubling of domestic oil production over the last five years, reducing imports and expanding inventory reserves across the country. But production is now suddenly dropping, and oil producers have been forced to cut tens of thousands of jobs.

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. House Passes Bill Allowing Oil Exports

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Ari Natter

    The House voted Oct. 9 to approve legislation ending the 40-year-old ban on most oil exports, sending the measure to the Senate where it faces an uphill battle for passage.

    The bill (H.R. 702) was approved by a vote of 261-159, with 26 Democrats voting in its favor.

    The strong Democratic support gives it some momentum coming into the Senate, but it is still well short of the two-thirds votes needed to override a veto threatened by the White House.

    Policy Being Re-Evaluated

    Still the House vote shows that ending the trade prohibition, put in place in 1975 after gasoline prices spiked in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, is getting a serious re-evaluation as U.S. oil production has skyrocketed to record amounts.

    “This ban reflects an America of yesterday,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said in remarks on the House floor before the vote. “It's our job as members to ensure that our laws reflect the America of tomorrow.”

    Lifting the ban, which does not apply to refined products like gasoline and diesel fuel, is a top priority for the oil industry, with companies including ConocoPhillips Co. and Marathon Oil Corp. lobbying to change the law.

    While lifting the ban could result in $29 billion in additional annual revenue for U.S. oil producers, the change would lower refiners' profits by $22 billion a year in 2025, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released Sept. 1(170 DEN A-3, 9/2/15).

    Big Oil ‘Giveaway.'

    “The bill is an irresponsible giveaway to big oil,” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said in floor remarks prior to the vote.

    Opponents of the legislation include refiners such as Valero Energy Corp., unions representing refinery workers such as the United Steelworkers, and a large coalition of environmental groups who argue lifting the ban will lead to more climate pollution due to an increase in oil production by as much as 500,000 barrels per day.

    The House voted to approve the legislation after adopting by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) requiring a study on greenhouse gas emissions that result from repeal of the export ban.

    Other amendments approved included a measure requiring a study of effect of the ban's repeal on consumers and the economy and an amendment prohibiting the export of crude oil and other petroleum products to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Maritime Amendment Fails

    An amendment by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), that would remove a provision added late to the bill that would increase a stipend for ship operators by more than $500 million over five years, failed by a vote of 109-306.

    The provision, backed by maritime unions and meant to increase Democratic support, drew the ire of Tea Party and conservative groups such as FreedomWorks, which called the language “closed-door crony capitalist” and urged opposition to the bill (193 DEN A-8, 10/6/15).

    House passage of the legislation turns attention to the Senate, where the legislation has a steeper hill to climb to garner the 60 votes effectively needed for passage. With Republicans holding 54 seats, at least six Democrats would need to vote in favor of legislation to remove the trade restrictions, assuming all Republicans voted for the bill.

    “We don't have six Democrats right now,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the author of H.R. 702, told reporters during a press conference following the vote. “But we are in hunting range of them. I think there is still a chance to do it in the Senate as a stand-alone bill.”

    Long Odds Remain

    Another possible legislative vehicle is including a provision lifting the oil export bill in a larger package, possibly in a year-end budget deal or as part of a broader energy measure extending clean energy tax credits, senators have said (194 DEN B-1, 10/7/15).

    Still, many analysts see long odds that the ban will be lifted anytime soon, especially after the White House issued a veto threat for the legislation saying it “is not needed at this time.”

    “We reiterate our 15% odds for passage of legislation that ends the export ban during the 114th Congress, largely because of ongoing White House opposition and limited incentives for Senate Democrats to cooperate,” ClearView Energy Partners said in an Oct. 9 research note.

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. House Backs U.S. Oil Exports

    Oct 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Elana Schor

    The House approved legislation today that would overturn the ban on exporting U.S. crude oil, 261-159, setting up a fight in the Senate between the oil industry supporters and environmentalists.

    The House's approval of the legislation that would scrap the decades-old ban on shipping U.S. oil overseas was expected since it had nearly unanimous support among Republicans. Even 26 Democrats voted in favor of the legislation sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), while 6 Republicans voted no.

    Story Continued Below

    But two Democrats who had backed the exports plan shifted course and turned against it on the floor, a sign that resistance from some refiners and a White House veto threat could slow the measure's momentum in the Senate.

    Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) announced his opposition earlier in the week after voting for the bill in committee, while Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who had been a co-sponsor of Barton's bill, said in a floor speech before the vote that it "lacks the proper safeguards and oversight for such a major change in the nation's energy policy."

    Three amendments from Reps. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) that would require new studies to examine various impacts of lifting the ban were adopted by voice vote to the bill. Also accepted by a voice vote was a bipartisan amendment that added language stating that the nation "has reduced its oil consumption over the past decade, and increasing investment in clean energy technology and energy efficiency" would be beneficial.

    Another amendment split Republicans on the floor. Rep. Justin Amash's proposal to strike language that increased maritime security payments in a bid to court Democratic votes fell on a 109-306 vote.

    Oil producers, who lined up with business groups to press to for an end to the decades-old ban that they complained was an outdated constraint on free markets, hailed the House vote.

    "We are eager to see this bill taken up in the Senate, where members of two committees have already endorsed efforts to lift the 1970s-era ban on crude exports," American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a statement. "The time to act is now.”

    U.S. oil production has surged in recent years as energy producers tapped into new fields in Texas and North Dakota, reversing a long decline in domestic output. That rebound sparked the effort by the industry to eliminate the export ban that was put in place after the turmoil from the Middle East oil embargo in the early 1970s.

    Green activists blasted the legislation, though they have been slow to ramp up their lobbying activity against an exports push that they fear would drive more greenhouse gas emissions from increased production.

    Franz Matzner, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's oil program, slammed the bill as "a giveaway to the oil industry that would undermine the progress our country is making to use more clean energy and fight climate change."

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. House Endorses Oil Exports Amid Echoes of Keystone Fight

    Oct 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro

    By Elana Schor

        The House moved Friday to legalize crude oil exports for the first time in four decades, siding with the petroleum industry in a power struggle that echoes its long feud with greens over the Keystone XL pipeline.
    

    Despite the 261-159 vote, the pro-oil forces face growing resistance from the same environmental groups that have spent seven years fighting Keystone to a standstill — along with opposition from the White House and Democrats like Hillary Clinton. But this time, oil supporters are optimistic they’ll prevail in the end.

    Story Continued Below

    The arguments for and against crude exports broadly parallel the debate about building the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline: In both cases, Republicans say the move would create jobs at home, enhance national security and lessen the influence of rivals like Russia. Greens say it would encourage carbon-spewing oil production, damaging the fight against climate change. And the White House wants Congress to stay out of the issue — a message lawmakers pointedly ignored Friday.

    Export supporters also call the ban an outdated relic of the scarcity-haunted 1970s, unsuited to an era when the fracking boom has turned the U.S. into one of the world’s top oil producers. So far, though, they're short of the 60 votes they would need to get past a filibuster in the Senate.

    In contrast to the anti-Keystone campaign, greens have been slower to mobilize on exports, but they are beginning to wake up to the fight. The godfather of the Keystone opposition, climate activist Bill McKibben, offered a warning before the vote to lawmakers who back crude exports: "We will hang it around their necks at every opportunity, an oil-soaked albatross."

    That peril isn't deterring pro-Keystone Republicans like Donald Trump, who has called the ban "archaic." But President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both came out against Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton's bill last month — shortly after Clinton announced her opposition to Arctic offshore drilling and just before she declared she opposes Keystone, two moves that drew cheers from the Democratic Party's green base.

    Still, the oil industry's supporters are hopeful. "There is not a nationally organized effort to keep the export ban in place for environmental reasons like you had on Keystone XL,” said one private-sector exports advocate, who noted that the pipeline sparked “ideological opposition” from Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid way back in the fall of 2011. “You don’t have Tom Steyer cutting ads and air dropping in, funding opposition groups.”

    Even Obama and Clinton aren't saying they oppose the principle of easing the export restrictions. The White House has said the Commerce Department can already make decisions on export proposals, while Clinton has said she might support exports as part of "a broader energy plan that does include concessions from the oil and gas industry." Meanwhile, Reid has expressed openness to a Senate deal in which Democrats would support exports in return for concessions, starting with extensions of clean-energy tax breaks, though many of them would be nonstarters for Republicans and the oil industry.

    Speculating about that kind of trade-off is still a common parlor game for pundits when it comes to Keystone, though nothing has ever come of it. On crude exports, however, one conservationist is already talking about a deal: National Wildlife Federation President Collin O'Mara last month proposed a package of concessions that environmentalists could demand in exchange for eliminating the ban, including new regulations on the petroleum industry and an extension of clean-energy tax credits.

    But other greens say they're poised to escalate their opposition as the exports bill works its way to the Senate. And their successful fight to stymie the pipeline can serve as a template. "The nice thing about the Keystone battle for us is that it's going to have lasting impact," said Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s fuels campaign.

    League of Conservation Voters lobbyist Zach Drennen was just as confident on oil exports as his group is about killing Keystone. “Republicans this session have not had a great track record of getting their leadership's priorities to the president's desk, despite their campaign promises,” he said.

    The pool of Democratic Senate moderates who might join the GOP's cause on exports is smaller than it was in the most recent Keystone battle, when Congress passed a pro-pipeline bill that Obama vetoed in February. North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia's Joe Manchin are the only Senate Democrats to come out in favor of the legislation so far, while Mark Warner (D-Va.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Angus King (I-Maine) are considered potential swing votes on exports, just as they were during the heyday of the Keystone battle.

    Two pro-Keystone Democrats, Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Jon Tester of Montana, also expressed openness to ending export limits this month, although they ultimately opposed a Heitkamp-led bill on oil trade.

    “At the end of the day, it passes the House but I don't see a path forward yet for it in the Senate,” conceded Stephen Brown, vice president of the independent oil refiner Tesoro, which supports easing the ban.

    When Congress imposed the export ban in the 1970s, fears of scarcity following the Arab oil embargo led to a strategy of keeping domestically produced crude at home. Now the world is awash in a glut of inexpensive oil, spurring the drive by U.S. oil producers to find new markets abroad. The plunge in oil prices during the past year has also lessened — though not entirely eliminated — the danger that lawmakers who unleash exports would take the blame if prices rise at the pump.

    At the heart of the pro-exports campaign is a national security argument broadly similar to the case for Keystone. Republicans and industry interests pitch secure supplies of both U.S. and Canadian oil as valuable geopolitical assets that can insulate America and its allies from threats including Russian aggression in Ukraine and Iran's imminent return to the global oil market.

    Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) advanced that case Thursday in a letter chastising Treasury Secretary Jack Lew for what she calls Obama's inconsistency on the issue. "The Administration’s recent statements criticizing legislative efforts regarding U.S. oil exports stand in stark contrast to prior Administration policy designed to support Libyan and Syrian rebels in their efforts to export oil from their countries,” she wrote.

    Backers of both exports and Keystone also promise job creation and lower gasoline prices as new fuel reaches the market, while their opponents contend that putting that new oil on the global market would mainly benefit countries like China.

    Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz poured cold water on some of the pro-exports arguments this week, telling senators that the current low prices mean that markets are not "looking for that oil" that U.S. producers hope to sell abroad. That dynamic resembles the damagethat plummeting crude prices have wreaked on the Canadian oil industry and Keystone's prospects for success.

    But industry backers of exports see several factors playing to their advantage that broke for green groups during the battle over Keystone. The most obvious divergence is marketing: Keystone is a tangible, multibillion-dollar target, easy to demonize on a protest sign or in a television ad — while crude exports are not.

    On Keystone, "the answer is either yes or no," GOP energy lobbyist Mike McKenna said. "Exports can be graded and shaded and nuanced."

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EPA Would Push New Rules If Capito Bill Passes: CBO

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Anthony Adragna

    The Environmental Protection Agency would likely try again to regulate new power plants if Senate legislation killing off existing rules becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office said Oct. 8.

    “CBO expects that under S. 1324, EPA would likely propose a new rule for carbon emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed power plants, consistent with the requirements of this legislation,” the estimate for Sen. Shelley Moore Capito's (R-W.Va.) Affordable Reliable Electricity Now (ARENA) Act (S. 1324) said.

    In addition, Capito's bill would “not prohibit EPA from continuing to work on activities related to power plants” such as guidance or state technical assistance, according to the estimate. It would also impose no direct costs on the agency.

    Introduced in May, the ARENA Act passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Aug. 5 by voice vote with no Democrats present and has yet to secure a vote on the Senate floor. Capito told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 8 a Congressional Review Act challenge to the EPA's Clean Power Plan would likely precede her bill to the floor (196 DEN A-2, 10/9/15).

    The bill would immediately kill off a suite of President Barack Obama's efforts to slash carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and set strict new requirements for any new regulatory efforts. Despite that, the CBO said it believes the bill would have a muted impact on the EPA's regulatory efforts on power plants.

    “Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would not have a significant effect on EPA's workload or spending related to power plant emissions,” the estimate said.

    A narrower version of legislation impeding EPA's regulatory efforts on power plants—the Ratepayer Protection Act (H.R. 2042)—passed the House in June. Capito's bill currently has 35 co-sponsors, just one of whom is a Democrat (122 DEN A-17, 6/25/15).

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. The EPA’s Water Rule Is Plugged

    |

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Obama Names Energy Resources Official at State Department

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rebecca Kern

    A State Department special envoy has been nominated by the Obama administration to become the assistant secretary for energy resources at the department.

    Amos Hochstein has served as the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs in the Bureau of Energy Resources since August 2014, according to a White House announcement late Oct. 8.

    Previously, he worked as the executive vice president of international operations at Cassidy and Associates, a lobbying firm whose current clients include energy companies, including Noble Energy Inc., a crude oil and natural gas company, and TransWest Express LLC, a regional electric transmission provider.

    Hochstein also previously worked as the deputy campaign manager for Chris Dodd and as a senior policy adviser for Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) when Warner was governor of Virginia.

    The Senate will have to confirm Hochstein's nomination.

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. EPA Sends 'Exceptional Events' Air Rule To OMB

    Oct 12, 2015 | InsideEPA

    EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review a proposal to “streamline and clarify” how states can discount high air pollution from “exceptional events” such as dust storms from Clean Air Act compliance, a measure sought by states who want more clarity on the policy.

    The existing exceptional events policy has also come under fire for what states say are lengthy delays by EPA regional offices in processing requests by states to exclude emissions data under the rule. EPA is overhauling the rule in part to respond to these criticisms, but also because the rule may play a larger role in states' air law compliance in the future as they strive to meet EPA's stricter ozone standard issued Oct. 1.

    EPA's exceptional events policy allows states to exclude air pollution data gathered during events deemed “exceptional” by EPA from their emissions reporting for air law compliance purposes. By excluding the data, states can avoid a designation of “nonattainment” of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which would carry with it the obligation to impose costly air pollution controls on local industry.

    EPA's proposed revision to the policy, received by OMB Oct. 8, will modify the rule's provisions on high wind dust events and historical fluctuations in an area's air pollution levels; its requirement that high air pollution events be “not reasonably controllable or preventable” in order to qualify as “exceptional;” and its mandate that areas would not have monitored pollution exceeding NAAQS limits “but for” the event, according to a description on OMB's website.

    Once the White House completes its review, the proposed rule should be issued by the end of October, but the target date for a final rule is “to be determined,” the website says.

    States have said that different EPA regions have appeared inconsistent in their criteria for determining whether states have cleared these hurdles, for example asking for different quantities of data to demonstrate what an area's historic pollution levels have been.

    EPA has so far responded by issuing guidance to assist states in preparing exceptional events demonstrations, setting recommended windspeeds to define high-wind events, among other provisions. State air regulators, however, have said that the guidance has not provided the regulatory certainty they need.

    Western states that experience dust storms, wildfires, high winds and other extreme conditions that may qualify as “exceptional” are likely to need to rely in part on the exceptional events rule to attain the new ozone standard, set at 70 parts per billion (ppb), down from 75 ppb, Western state officials have said. This is because naturally-occurring events such as wildfires and intrusion to lower altitudes of stratospheric ozone can increase ground-level “background” ozone that local regulators cannot control.

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. EPA Air Toxics Enforcement Focus Spurs Fears Over 'Next Generation' Data

    |

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. EPA Air Toxics Enforcement Focus Spurs Fears Over 'Next Generation' Data

    Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By David LaRoss

    Industry attorneys are warning that EPA's proposal to make community-level air toxics emissions an enforcement focus in the coming years threatens to create new pitfalls for a host of sectors when combined with the agency's push for wider adoption of novel air monitoring technologies as part of its "next generation" compliance initiative.

    "This is on a collision course, and it's not clear that people have thought out what should be the intersection when you require people to adopt these new technologies," says one industry attorney. The fear is that a boost in air toxics enforcement could increase reliance on facility air data from untested new monitoring technologies.

    EPA in a Sept. 15 notice proposed its enforcement strategy for fiscal years 2017 through 2019 and new National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) for which it would prioritize enforcement resources. The three new NEIs include a renewed focus on air toxics at the community level, especially in environmental justice communities and when the releases are from organic liquid storage tanks or hazardous wastes.

    The agency says it will adapt the plans to its next generation compliance framework, which includes a greater focus on advanced monitoring, such as portable air quality sensors, as opposed to site visits.

    But the industry attorney says EPA's proposal raises fears among the regulated sector of a spike in prosecutions, if the agency steps up its focus on enforcing against air toxics violations while also encouraging the use of new monitoring technologies. Data from next generation tools could be cited as falling under the Clean Air Act provision that allows "any credible evidence" to support an enforcement action, rather than only the monitoring methods spelled out in EPA rules, the source says.

    "This new next generation technology is not necessarily field-tested or a reference method," so there are concerns about whether it will be accurate enough to properly form the basis of enforcement actions, a second industry attorney says -- even though making air toxics an NEI could encourage the use of such data in lawsuits.

    The second industry attorney adds that equipment that monitors air pollutant levels far from the point of emissions can also raise concerns over "whether it's actually monitoring emissions coming from a particular source."

    For instance, equipment monitoring toxics levels a half-mile or more downwind of an oil refinery could actually be detecting fugitive emissions from a different facility, the attorney says.

    In a "client alert" memo dated Sept. 17, attorneys for the firm King & Spalding warn that the Clean Air Act's credible evidence standard could open facilities to EPA or citizen enforcement suits based on monitoring data collected by third parties using unproven technology rather than the stricter methods set out by EPA in its air toxics policies.

    "[T]hese advanced air emissions monitoring tools may expose settling companies to future litigation based not on the compliance demonstration method of the applicable air rule, but rather on untested and unproven [next generation] technology. This could lead to an increase in citizen enforcement, especially in communities with environmental justice concerns, where EPA has been providing funds (through grants) to invest in modern monitoring technology," the memo says.

    Monitoring Data

    An environmentalist says fears over the applicability of advanced monitoring data could be overstated, as new monitoring technology can only be the basis of an enforcement action if it shows a violation within parameters set by EPA's rules.

    If an agency standard restricts pollutant levels as monitored at a facility's smokestack, a reading from a device far downwind would not constitute "credible evidence" of a violation, the source continues. "The agency can't come in with something that has no relationship to the original [monitoring] method," the source says.

    However, when a rule specifies fenceline monitoring, or sets a broad geographic area where pollution targets must be attained, that hurdle becomes less meaningful, the industry attorneys say.

    The agency's package of revised refinery emissions "residual risk" rules that it finalized Sept. 29 includes a fenceline monitoring mandate effective in 2017, which could bring the issue into litigation even if EPA declines to adopt the air toxics NEI, they continue.

    Industry sectors subject to Clean Air Act new source review air permitting requirements for newly constructed or modified major sources of air pollution are also "in a similar position to what companies under the air toxics initiative would be in terms of monitoring," the second attorney says.

    The attorneys add that litigation over the applicability of evidence gathered through next generation monitoring could also focus on whether the data is functionally "equivalent" to the monitoring EPA requires, a necessary showing to establish that the evidence is "credible" under the air law.

    The first industry attorney says EPA has yet to release guidance on when advanced monitoring techniques can be considered credible evidence of an air violation, and that without direct agency action, protocols on making that decision could come as a result of judicial precedent instead of regulatory action.

    "I hope it's worked out as a conscious decision and not as the side effect of some other litigation," the attorney says.

    EPA is taking comment on its NEI proposal through Oct. 14. The agency's ultimate decision will include whether to adopt any of the three new initiatives it proposed, which in addition to the air toxics focus includes NEIs for industrial water pollution and targeting accidents and spills at industrial facilities. EPA is also seeking comment on whether to drop any of the six existing NEIs covering air, waste, water and other areas.

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. EPA Cites Discretion In Push For Court To Uphold Novel Mine Permit Veto

    Oct 9, 2015 | InsideEPA

    By David LaRoss

    EPA is citing its broad discretionary authority in pushing for an appellate court to uphold its novel veto of disposal sites for a planned coal mine after the Army Corps of Engineers issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for the project, rejecting claims that the the veto was poorly justified and based on factors EPA was not allowed to consider.

    In an Oct. 9 brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing on EPA's behalf, says the mining company Mingo Logan is misreading the CWA and a 2009 Supreme Court decision to claim that the agency overstepped its authority when it decided that the permit would lead to “unacceptable” impacts on wildlife near the firm's West Virginia mine site.

    “Mingo Logan’s convoluted reading of the Act conflicts with its text, structure, and purpose, as well as the EPA’s regulatory interpretation,” the DOJ brief says.

    Mingo is asking the D.C. Circuit to overturn a September 2014 decision by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amy Berman Jackson. In the lower court case, Berman found the agency has the authority under the CWA to “veto” mining disposal sites already authorized in Corps-issued water law section 404 dredge-and-fill permits that are vital to mining operations.

    The judge also rejected the mining industry's argument that the agency can only veto such permits in situations where it finds “substantial new information” to support the decision, which Mingo says was lacking in EPA's veto.

    In the D.C. Circuit appeal, Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA, the company argued in a June 12 brief that the agency failed to justify its decision, based in part on a 2009 Supreme Court ruling, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. There, the high court said that an “about face” on agency policy demands a “more detailed justification,” especially when the prior position “engendered serious reliance interests.”

    But DOJ says in its new brief that the veto determination “did not 'contradict' earlier 'factual findings.' Indeed, the EPA did not make any factual findings at all before the Final Determination.”

    Rather than making an affirmative finding that there was no need to veto the Mingo permit, DOJ says, EPA made no judgment on the issue at all -- meaning there was no earlier decision to reverse under Fox.

    “Fox was very careful to differentiate between 'failures to act' and 'rescissions of prior action,' and this Court should reject Mingo Logan’s attempt to muddle that distinction,” the brief says.

    'Forfeited' Claim

    DOJ adds that Mingo never raised evidence to the lower courts, or to agency officials in administrative proceedings, that it substantially relied on the permit before EPA's veto. “The company’s reliance/compliance claim is thus doubly forfeited,” the brief says.

    DOJ also seeks to counter Mingo's argument that the agency is prohibited from considering downstream impacts when it makes a veto decision. DOJ faults the company's argument that when West Virginia regulators approved a discharge permit for the mine, separate from the CWA section 404 permit that EPA would later veto, they effectively decided that any consequences for wildlife would be acceptable under state law.

    “Mingo Logan’s novel interpretation of Section 404(c) would essentially take part of the express and discrete power that Congress gave to the EPA and transfer it to the States under the guise of promoting federalism,” the brief says.

    It continues that state water regulations “mark a floor, rather than a ceiling, for environmental protection. Just as States may impose strict limitations and stop discharges that do not comply with them, the EPA may act under Section 404(c) to prevent discharges that have 'unacceptable adverse effects,' independent of any other standard that might also govern those discharges.”

    On the question of downstream impacts, DOJ argues that “As long as there is a causal link between the dredge-and-fill discharge and the unacceptable adverse effect (and Mingo Logan no longer disputes the existence of that link in this case), the EPA can act under Section 404(c) to prevent the adverse effect.”

    While the Corps issues CWA section 404 permits for dredge-and-fill activity, including mining, EPA has the ability under section 404(c) to veto a permit's specified discharge sites when it determines that the discharge “will have an unacceptable adverse effect on water supply, aquatic life, wildlife or recreational areas.”

    The veto does not fully invalidate a permit, but the action usually has the effect of stopping development since permits provide authority to dispose of dredge-and-fill material only in specified disposal sites. For that reason, industry attorneys have claimed, including in the current suit, that EPA should have to consider similar criteria to what the Corps considers in order to revoke a final permit. 

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

20. (ACC Mentioned) Commodity Groups Urge Extension of Looming Rail Safety Deadline

    Oct 9, 2015 | Capital Press

    By John O’Connell

    Several lawmakers and agricultural organizations from the Northwest are advocating for a bill to extend a deadline for railroads to implement safety upgrades, hoping to avoid freight disruptions.

    
    

    Northwest agricultural organizations and lawmakers fear major shipping disruptions will result if Congress fails to extend a deadline for railroads to implement new safety technology before the end of October.

    The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required railroads to have GPS-based systems, called Positive Train Control, in place by the end of 2015 to automatically prevent train collisions and derailments in the event of operator error.

    The Association of American Railroads, however, has a counter on its website ticking off the seconds until the end of October. That’s when the railroads say they’ll have to start moving forward with contingencies for shutting down much of their systems, and economic harm would start to occur in the absence of an extension.

    “Railroads just can’t flip a switch at the end of December to suspend operations,” said AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg.

    The mandate applies to 60,000 miles of U.S. rail routes either serving commuter trains or on which certain hazardous materials are hauled. But the major railroads have threatened to shut down their entire systems if no extension is granted, irking some extension opponents.

    None of the railroads are ready to fully implement PTC, and an American Chemistry Council report estimates in the first quarter of 2016, the U.S. economy would lose $30 billion, plus 700,000 lost jobs, after just a month without an extension.

    There are hurdles to a timely resolution, including opposition to an extension by the White House and key Senators, including Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who believe the railroads have dragged their feet and should be held accountable.

    Greenberg emphasized the technology didn’t exist when the bill was first passed, and railroads have already invested $6 billion toward the effort.

    “We’re moving as quickly as we can,” Greenberg said.

    Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., introduced H.R. 3651 on Sept. 30 — seeking a three-year extension. Bill cosponsors include Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho; Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.; Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore.; Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore.; and seven California lawmakers, among others.

    Terry Whiteside, a transportation analyst who represents Idaho grain organizations, said the House plans to suspend rules on the bill, allowing no amendments and approval by a two-thirds majority, to expedite its passage. The bill would then go to the Senate, where Whiteside fears there may be too little time for bill approval and conference prior to the October recess.

    Whiteside anticipates an extension will ultimately be approved, but he fears Congress will “play games right to the end,” and uncertainty about deliveries could lead to market chaos.

    Several agricultural organizations, including Idaho Wheat Commission, Idaho Barley Commission, Idaho Grain Producers Association, Oregon Wheat Commission, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, Washington State Potato Commission and American Farm Bureau Federation, signed a letter urging Congress to quickly act on an extension.

    “About a third of our wheat gos to market by rail, and the impact would be significant,” said Idaho Wheat Commission Executive Director Blaine Jacobsen.

    Matt Harris, with the Washington State Potato Commission, worries about disruptions to fertilizer deliveries, noting 16,000 rail cars haul 80 tons each of anhydrous ammonia for farm use each year.

    “For us, it’s a no-brainer,” Harris said.

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. (ACC Mentioned) Railroads Warn of Nationwide Meltdown if Extension Not Granted for Safety Requirements

    Oct 12, 2015 | Star Tribune

    By Allison Sherry

    Railroads are warning Congress that if they don’t get more time to install new safety equipment on their rail lines by the end of October, there will be a nationwide freight and passenger meltdown at the end of the year that could affect everything from grain operations to farmers seeking fertilizer to Minnesota passengers trying to get to Chicago.

    Dow Chemical, the American Chemistry Council and others are sounding alarms that they will be unable to ship products to vast sections of the United States — including Minnesota — if freight trains stop hauling their materials.

    Many politicians are openly annoyed that the railroads have failed to meet a federal deadline first imposed eight years ago.

    Among them is Gov. Mark Dayton, who said in a recent e-mail, “I think the railroads should be required to meet the deadline, and stop threatening us for having to do so.”

    Railroads are seeking a three-year extension that they say would give them the time needed to install new safety mechanisms called Positive Train Control. The GPS-based system is designed to control train movements and boost safety by preventing collisions and derailments caused by speeding.

    Technically, Positive Train Control is required only on rail lines that haul hazardous materials and passengers. But Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad warned the Senate Transportation Committee in September that it was unclear on the federal requirements and because it was not ready to meet the Dec. 31 deadline, it might have to slow down or even halt all its freight and passenger contracts. Such a move would disrupt virtually every industry in Minnesota — logging, agriculture, manufacturing and tourism. Minnesota moves roughly $192 billion of materials a year on trains.

    “It’s hard to be in this spot, not knowing whether or not we can use the railroads,” said Amber Hanson, a director of public policy at the Minnesota Farm Bureau, which along with a number of agricultural groups is urging Congress to pass an extension within the next few weeks. “I think it’s going to be a big issue if we can’t get an extension. Agriculture depends on our railroads for running efficiently and to carry our products.”

    Minnesota’s two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, have already voted once for an extension, but the House has not taken up any measures. Franken said he wished railroads would implement Positive Train Control “as quickly as possible.”

    “If the deadline is extended, I want to make sure that we keep pressuring railway companies to make railroads safer,” he said. “I’m going to keep fighting to improve our country’s rail safety standards.”

    Klobuchar said in a statement that “recent train derailments across the country have made clear the need to boost rail safety.”

    ‘Safety is not No. 1’

    Bruce Glover, a Minnesota-based vice president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, called the threats from the railroads a “fine example of corporate arrogance.”

    “They are asking for three more years. You can go to Pluto in six years, and they had eight years to get ready,” he said. “I don’t think it was a priority … It’s disappointing it isn’t done. It sort of says out loud that safety is not No. 1 like they say it is.”

    Railroads say they are committed to installing Positive Train Control, but that eight years isn’t enough time to get it on the vast numbers of rail lines across the country.

    Passenger trains, including many commuter lines and Amtrak, have also said they would not meet the Dec. 31 installation deadline. Rail lines in Chicago, New York, Virginia, Los Angeles and Boston all have said they likely would cease operating without an extension from Congress.

    Railroad officials say if an extension is not granted — and soon, because of the sprawling networks of business contracts — they would have no choice but to stop operating huge portions of their networks.

    “It’s not off-the-shelf technology. It’s had to be developed from scratch,” said Ed Greenberg, a spokesman at the Association of American Railroads. “We have indicated to Congress that we’re making progress … but we need some extra time so that it’s done right and done safely.”

    Larry Mann, a D.C.-based railroad safety attorney, called the threats that railroads would stop hauling “empty” because of a federal “common carrier” requirement that railroads honor reasonable requests from shippers.

    “They can’t refuse to haul,” said Mann, who said he is urging Congress keep the deadline so railroads work harder to get done within the next year. “If they had their choice, they wouldn’t be transporting any hazardous materials, but they don’t have that choice.”

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Feds Update Track Inspection Standards after Derailment

    Oct 11, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Devin Henry

    Federal rail officials announced an update to railway inspection standards on Friday after pinpointing the cause of a fiery oil train derailment in February.

    The Federal Railroad Administration blamed a broken rail for causing the derailment and eventual fire in rural West Virginia.

    The FRA said inspectors for train operator CSX and its contractor, Sperry Rail Service, missed the cracked rail during two separate inspections in the months leading up to the accident.

    In response, the FRA said it will urge “closer and more detailed inspections where defects and flaws are suspected” and require more thorough training for rail inspectors. 

    The agency will also look into updating standards for rail conditions and consider telling railroads to slow trains or replace rails when they present a safety risk.

    The FRA fined both CSX and Sperry $25,000 for their roles in the accident. The agency said CSX will now give its rail operators access to previous inspection data during their assessment of track conditions. 

    “Our country relies on the safe transportation of large quantities of energy products across the nation, and it is our responsibility to require operators to implement strict safety standards,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. 

    “FRA’s findings and action today should make it clear to rail operators that we will do exactly that.”

    Twenty-seven cars carrying crude oil derailed in CSX’s February crash, sparking a series of explosions and fires. 

    The incident was one of the highest-profile derailments over the last few years, a trend that led the Obama administration to overhaul its standards for oil train cars in early May.

    “This is just our latest effort to increase the safe transportation of crude and other energy products,” FRA acting administrator Sarah Feinberg said Friday. 

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Proposal to Be Published

    Oct 9, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    A recently released hazardous liquid pipeline proposed rule that is aimed at improving the safety of nearly 200,000 miles of pipelines carrying crude oil and other liquids will be published Oct. 13 in the Federal Register. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposal (RIN 2137-AE66) that adds or updates inspection, repair and leak detection requirements for pipelines and gathering lines carrying hazardous liquids was released Oct. 1. PHMSA will accept comments on the proposed rule through Jan. 8 at http://www.regulations.govunder Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0229. While it was highly anticipated by oil and pipeline groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the proposal hasn't sparked an immediate outcry from them. Instead, environmental groups and a safety watchdog have been the ones calling the rule too incremental and not specific or stringent enough (195 DEN A-14, 10/8/15). The public inspection notice is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-25359.pdf.
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. DOT Urges Detailed Inspections After Derailment Review

    Oct 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Rachel Leven

    The Federal Railroad Administration announced Oct. 9 that it will release a safety advisory urging the rail industry to conduct more detailed inspections of its rails and to provide stronger training for operators. The move came as it announced its finding on what caused a West Virginia crude oil train derailment and fire earlier this year that forced the evacuation of hundreds of local residents.

    The agency also will examine whether to implement speed restrictions or other measures when there are conditions that could be unsafe, the agency said. These broader actions that were announced alongside commitments by CSX Corp., the railroad involved in the Mt. Carbon, W.Va., derailment, are in response to the agency's finding that the February derailment was caused by a broken rail that wasn't identified despite inspections prior to the derailment.

    “When we see a need for action, we will take it, and that is what FRA is doing today. Broken rail is one of the leading causes of accidents. Railroads moving crude and other hazardous materials through and alongside communities bear significant and special responsibility,” Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator for the rail agency, said in a news release. “This is just our latest effort to increase the safe transportation of crude and other energy products.”

    An FRA spokesman told Bloomberg BNA the safety advisory is expected to be released next week. The Association of American Railroads didn't comment on the upcoming safety advisory but emphasized its commitment to safety.

    The actions are part of the Transportation Department's broader steps to boost safety of crude oil and other energy products' transportation by rail, and highlights an increasing focus on rail and prevention. Increased energy development in areas without pipelines has resulted in increased use of rail to transport crude oil and crude oil train derailments have also increased, raising public concern and scrutiny of the practice (102 DEN A-8, 5/28/15).

    The rail agency has fined CSX and its contractor Sperry Rail Service $25,000 each for “failing to verify a potential rail defect” in relation to the Mt. Carbon derailment, the FRA news release said. Additionally, CSX has committed to reviewing past inspection data and real-time data to help identify whether conditions or flaws have gotten worse between inspections, it said (41 DEN A-4, 3/3/15).

    CSX told Bloomberg BNA these steps would mean that rail inspection operators would have access to additional data when comparing “run-over-run”— determining the state of the track. CSX and Sperry will evaluate the effectiveness of these comparisons before conducting a full-scale deployment, it said.

     

    Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below