Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Oct 21
-
(ACC Mentioned) Expert Predicts 'Share Wars' Over Polymers
Oct 20, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
By Lane Kelley
The coming ethylene and polyethylene (PE) boom could bring on a polymers war among producers and between regions, a consultant said on Tuesday. “Make no mistake about it, we will be going to war,” said Robert Baumann, head of Polymer Consulting in Houston, speaking at the FlexPo Houston/2015 conference. -
(ACC Mentioned) Vote on Chemical Bill Still Planned, McConnell Says
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Oct. 20 he still plans to bring legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemical statute for a vote, even as an agreement to bring the bill remains out of reach. McConnell, responding to a question during his weekly media conference about his effectiveness as majority ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Wilton Library Hosts Chemical Alarmist
Oct 20, 2015 | Examiner
By James Cooper
Last night a talk was presented at the Wilton Library by Diane Lewis, MD on The Great Healthy Yard Project (their web site is tghyp.com) run by Lewis from her home in Bedford, NY. Trained as a nephrologist (kidneys) and an internist, Lewis is not currently practicing medicine but devoting her time to promoting her project... -
Senate TSCA Push Can't Shake Conservation Fund Fight
Oct 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Efforts to advance a bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act remain on hold as senators look to untangle an unrelated dispute over the Land and Water Conservation Fund that has tripped up floor action. The sponsors of the bill (S. 697), Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), were forced to punt on a floor... -
So Long, Toxics: A Builder’s Guide to Safer Chemicals
Oct 21, 2015 | GreenBiz
By Mark Rossi and Annie Bevan
Health experts long have recognized the risks of individual and groups of toxic chemicals in building products, beginning with lead and asbestos and continuing to formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, mercury, arsenic, certain phthalates and flame retardants. -
After Activist Pressure, Macy's Vows to Ensure Furniture Is Free of Toxic Flame Retardants
Oct 20, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Lindsey Rupp
Macy’s Inc., responding to a campaign from health and environmental activists, will check with its furniture suppliers to ensure that they aren’t using toxic flame retardants in their products. While Macy’s expects that few manufacturers are still using the substances at issue, the retailer will explicitly instruct suppliers to stop using certain chemicals... -
Washington To Evaluate PBT Criteria In Chemical Plans
Oct 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Washington's Department of Ecology has initiated a rulemaking, to amend how the state defines criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) in its chemical action plans (CAPs). The rulemaking will consider: amending the PBT criteria to be more consistent with those of other jurisdictions... -
Head Of Chemical Safety Board Asks For Return To Work
Oct 20, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Lise Olsen
The managing director of a federal agency assigned to investigate the nation's worst chemical accidents publicly asked this week to be allowed to return to work after being suspended for four months, according to information released on his behalf by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. -
Senators Spar Over Info-Sharing Bill As Vote Looms
Oct 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. Senate opened debate on a cyberthreat sharing bill yesterday, possibly setting the stage for a key vote on the legislation by as early as next week. The "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015," sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and better known as CISA, would grant liability protection to companies that disclose cybersecurity... -
(ACC Mentioned) Railroads: Leave PTC With The STB
Oct 20, 2015 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Major railroads on Monday, Oct. 19, 2015 asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. federal court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Chemistry Council and other trade associations seeking to prevent the railroads from suspending service for shipments of TIH (toxic-inhalation hazard) commodities if Congress... -
(ACC Mentioned) Manufacturers: Train Deadline Extension Agreement Welcome News
Oct 20, 2015 | Shopfloor
By Robyn Boerstling
Manufacturers are pleased that House and Senate leaders have reached a bipartisan agreement to extend the December 31st positive train control (PTC) deadline. This agreement will be reflected in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 as a mark-up -
House Bill Pushes Positive Train Control Deadline To 2018
Oct 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Freight and commuter railroads would get at least another three years to implement positive train control, courtesy of a deal tucked into a long-term House transportation funding bill scheduled for committee action tomorrow. The bill, H.R. 3763, would push back the deadline to have the automated safety systems up and running ... -
House Panel Introduces Hazmat Reauthorization Bill
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee formally introduced Oct. 20 a highway bill that would reauthorize hazardous materials transportation programs. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 3763), which will be marked up by the committee Oct. 22, was initially released ... -
Railroads Engage In Brinkmanship Over Safety And Freight Shutdown
Oct 20, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
If the railroad industry’s delay and secrecy on oil train safety isn’t frustrating enough, it’s also dragging its feet on installing anti-collision technology required after a horrific 2008 crash in California killed 25 people. Actually, it’s worse than that. Railroads essentially are blackmailing Congress, threatening to stop running... -
Congress Must Extend The Positive Train Control Deadline
Oct 20, 2015 | The Chicago Tribune
By U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley
As a leader of the bipartisan effort in Congress to extend the positive train control deadline, I appreciate your Monday editorial calling on Congress to act to prevent a shutdown of passenger and freight rail that will have far-reaching consequences for American commuters, businesses and our economy. -
After Canadian Rout, A Quick Verdict On Keystone?
Oct 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor & Andrew Restuccia
If President Barack Obama wants to kill the Keystone XL pipeline at the best possible moment for his relationship with Canada's new Liberal government, both sides in the battle over the divisive oil project say he can't do it soon enough. Justin Trudeau’s stunning defeat Monday of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper means that after seven... -
Kerry: Canadian Vote Won't Change Keystone Review
Oct 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new government coming to power in Canada does not change how the Obama administration is handling the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday. Kerry made the declaration the morning after Justin Trudeau was tapped to become Canada’s next prime minister, since the Liberal Party he leads won... -
Obama Congratulates Trudeau, Discusses Collaboration On Climate Change
Oct 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama today discussed how to collaborate on climate change policy with Canada's incoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau, during a congratulatory call today, but the two leaders apparently did not discuss the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a White House readout. -
Fracking Can Cause Nearby Abandoned Wells To Leak Methane -Study
Oct 20, 2015 | Reuters
By Richard Valdmanis
Hydraulic fracturing can cause nearby abandoned oil wells to leak methane, according to a study published on Tuesday in the peer-reviewed Water Resources Research journal, marking a potentially large source of unrecorded greenhouse gas emissions. -
West Virginia Agency Seeks Clean Power Plan Comments
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
West Virginia has begun gathering information to craft a Clean Power Plan feasibility study as required by state law. The state Department of Environmental Protection wants feedback from the public and affected industries and will be collecting comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants... -
Neighbors' Actions Said to Complicate Power Plan Compliance
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
In addition to evaluating all of the regulatory variables involved, state regulators say planning their compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan must account for the actions of neighboring states. In addition to decisions on whether to develop plans to measure compliance with the carbon dioxide... -
Senators Question Interior, Energy Department Nominees
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A Senate committee during a hearing questioned whether several nominees for Interior and Energy department positions have conflicts of interest based on prior work experiences. Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee discussed three nominations for Interior Department positions and three for the Energy... -
Proposed Energy Bills Offer Lobbying Opportunities
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jacqueline Montgomery and Jorge Uquillas
Senate legislation that would promote energy efficiency in federal government buildings as well as the residential, commercial and industrial sectors presents a business opportunity for lobbying firms. The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 (S. 2012), sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)... -
OECD: Climate Pledges Not Yet Strong Enough
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The top emitting nations all have pledges on the table to cut greenhouse gas emissions under a global climate deal to be finalized in 2015, but their offers would only put off the day of reckoning for a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius for 15 years, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said today.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Expert Predicts 'Share Wars' Over Polymers
Oct 20, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
By Lane Kelley
The coming ethylene and polyethylene (PE) boom could bring on a polymers war among producers and between regions, a consultant said on Tuesday.
“Make no mistake about it, we will be going to war,” said Robert Baumann, head of Polymer Consulting in Houston, speaking at the FlexPo Houston/2015 conference.
The battles will be over the production from new North American ethylene and PE plants that are scheduled to be built in the next three to four years. Baumann estimates that 12.3m tonnes of new ethylene will come online by 2018-2019.
Nearly every ethylene producer with plans to build a new cracker wants to build an adjoining PE plant, largely because that derivative is the world’s most popular grade of plastic.
Baumann said 9.3m tonnes of new PE capacity will come online in the next three to four years. PE will account for 73% of the new ethylene capacity, he added.
“We will be swimming in polyethylene,” Baumann said.
Baumann said it has been a decade since any new ethylene capacity has been built, but the advent of cheap shale gas will most likely bring overbuilding, with way too much feedstock capacity being added.
“We never had this much ethylene capacity coming online in this short a time period,” Baumann said.
On the PE side, 40% of the new capacity will have to be exported, Baumann said.
Two other speakers at the conference on Tuesday agreed with Baumann’s analysis that the PE boom will necessitate more exports.
Martha Moore, senior director of policy analysis and economics at the American Chemistry Council, said the PE boom could initially incite some trade wars between regions as well as producers.
“We’re going to be taking some market share away from our global competition,” Moore said. “In the short-term, there may be some rough waters to navigate, but in the long term it will be a positive story.”
Paul Bjacek, lead consultant in chemicals and natural resources research at Accenture, said the strongest and most integrated PE producers will have a decided edge on gaining domestic market share.
“The domestic buyers will be discriminating, forcing those with less product performance, service and innovation to export,” Bjacek said.
With so much PE to export, North America will become the battleground for what Baumann called the “Share Wars.” Producers and countries will fight for domestic and export PE share, with China and southeast Asia the major focus of US exports, Baumann said.
“It’s going to be a bloodbath,” Baumann said. He said US producers will have to cut prices in their battles over both domestic and export share.
“How low do you have to go to force government plant shutdowns in Asia?” Baumann asked.
As for who will win the battle, Baumann said, it will be those who buy anything made from polymers.
“The customers will be the winners,” Baumann said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Vote on Chemical Bill Still Planned, McConnell Says
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Oct. 20 he still plans to bring legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemical statute for a vote, even as an agreement to bring the bill remains out of reach.
McConnell, responding to a question during his weekly media conference about his effectiveness as majority leader, cited the bill as an example of legislation he thought could muster the 60 votes needed to clear the chamber.
“We are also going to turn to TSCA,” McConnell said, referring to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) would update for the first time since it became law in 1976.
McConnell did not provide an updated time for floor consideration of the bill, which is backed by 60 senators but has stalled over a broader fight about using the legislation as a vehicle to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the bill's sponsor, had expressed optimism the Senate would proceed to the bill after the Columbus Day recess following talks with Republican Sens. Richard Burr (N.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), who have blocked the bill pending a vote to reauthorize the conservation fund.
Timing Could Slip
But that timing may slip, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the Senate's No. 2 Republican, told reporters.
“I don't know” whether the Senate will still consider the legislation this month, Cornyn said. “The House will pass a reconciliation bill this week and we will take that up shortly thereafter if they do. I can't tell you what we will be able to do, but we will be busy,” he said Oct. 20.
The bill, which is supported by DuPont, 3M, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, BASF Corp., Consumer Electronics Association, Dow Chemical Co. and the National Association of Manufacturers, would update the Toxic Substances Control Act, which governs industrial and other commercial uses of chemicals in the U.S.
Although proponents of S. 697 believe they can secure quick passage of the legislation once it reaches the Senate floor, the issue of reauthorizing the LWCF, which uses oil and gas royalties for recreation and conservation projects, has proven to be tricky.
An amendment sought by Burr and Ayotte to S. 697 reauthorizing the fund, which expired at the end of September, is thought to complicate the bill's path forward, and the fund faces opposition in the House.
No Progress in Talks
Although negotiations over the impasse continued while Congress was on recess the week of Oct. 12, no progress was made, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“That hasn't been resolved yet,” he told reporters.
Burr said he was still insisting on his amendment to reauthorize the fund “and be done” with bill. But when asked if he would support an amendment to reauthorize the fund if offered to cybersecurity legislation (S. 754) he authored and currently pending before the Senate, Burr demurred.
“Listen, that's getting a little too cute,” he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wilton Library Hosts Chemical Alarmist
Oct 20, 2015 | Examiner
By James Cooper
Last night a talk was presented at the Wilton Library by Diane Lewis, MD on The Great Healthy Yard Project (their web site is tghyp.com) run by Lewis from her home in Bedford, NY. Trained as a nephrologist (kidneys) and an internist, Lewis is not currently practicing medicine but devoting her time to promoting her project: reducing groundwater pollution by reducing the use of lawn chemicals. The talk was co-sponsored by Wilton Go Green, the Wilton Conservation Commission and the Wilton Garden Club, who introduced the speaker. The talk was recorded and will soon be on the Wilton Library’s website.
Lewis has also written a book on this issue with the same title, which is available on Amazon. She also has published articles summarizing her views in the New York Times and in the Baltimore Sun. A short 3-minute video on the tghyp website summarizes her position.
Lewis’ thesis is that “chemicals” from our lawns and gardens run off into the groundwater and eventually are found in our drinking water. As to which chemicals are of greatest concern, Lewis was quite vague as she mentioned none specifically. Were insecticides of more concern than fertilizers? Probably, but she didn’t actually say so.
She noted that the EPA is quite concerned about this runoff claiming that there is runoff in 70% of streams. The EPA does have a page with good and specific recommendations here. You can also find good descriptions of the problem at the US Geological Survey web site.
Lewis feels that this runoff into our drinking water is a serious problem and that it may be cumulative and could “damage our DNA,” although she presented no evidence for this somewhat surprising conclusion.
Central to her argument is that these (unspecified) chemicals are endocrine disruptors which even at very low levels may cause harm to humans. The whole idea of endocrine disruptors is controversial, however, and has not been definitively established.
The Endocrine Society has published two reports in this area. The 2009 report described the problem but noted that “Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to make direct links between such epidemiological observations and exposure to given chemicals.” And, a key scientific paper in Science was withdrawn because of apparent scientific misconduct.
Needless to say, there are naysayers in this area, and one published by EndocrineScience.org criticizes the Endocrine Society, but this report was published by a manufacturer’s group, the American Chemistry Council.
Lewis suggested that these endocrine disruptors could be the cause of increased breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, ADHD and autism, but really offered no science to support these views. Afterwards, she said there were papers on rats showing that they take on autistic symptoms after treatment with some “chemicals,” but did not cite one specifically. She suggested that these chemicals could be one of many contributing causes, and this is borne out in papers (also here and here). But one problem with this hypothesis is that recent work shows that there has been no increase in autism occurrence in the past 30 years.
In her gardening segment, Lewis lost ground with reality by suggesting somehow that “eating organic food” would be beneficial, even though there is no evidence that organic food is more nutritious, tasty or safer in any way. In fact, the classic paper by Bruce Ames showed that the toxic and carcinogenic pesticides generated by plants themselves were present at a level 10,000 times higher than any pesticide residues.
She also suggested that the decline in Monarch butterflies was caused by the planting of “GMO” crops, but backed off when I pointed out that large agriculture plowing fields to remove milkweed as well as eliminating by herbicide is the actual cause. This whole issue is explained here by Amber Sherwood-K and Jon Entine. The slide that suggested that a solution would be “Don’t eat GMOs,” was thus complete nonsense.
She also went astray in suggesting that the WHO had declared that glyphosate (Roundup) was carcinogenic. In fact this was done by the IARC, a subcommittee of the WHO and in doing so they ignored substantial evidence to the contrary, as described in this report in Scientific American. And they have also found caffeine, alcohol, sunlight, and the hairdressing profession in that same category.
Meanwhile the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment completed a 4-year assessment for the EU, considering 150 new toxicological studies, all available existing toxicological studies (more than 300) and nearly 900 peer-reviewed publications, concluding that
"...the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals."
In the last part of her talk she suggested growing more local plants that would require less care and fertilizers that could run off. Some of particular interest were cardinal flowers, Joe Pye weed and Monarda (bee balm).
It was surprising that in this talk she avoided mentioning any “chemicals” by name, and she explained this was because this was a layman’s talk. Without naming them, she mentioned that some were listed in her NY Times article. These were glyphosate, carbaryl, malathion and 2,4-D. Of these, glyphosate and 2,4-D are herbicides of very low and relatively low toxicity. Carbaryl (also called Sevin) and malathion are moderately toxic to humans (and carbaryl to bees), but are generally used only in small amounts in gardens and probably are not major runoff candidates. Glyphosate binds to the soil and is seldom found in runoff.
During her talk Lewis had a great deal of trouble pronouncing bacillus thuringiensis, which might indicate that she is uncomfortable pronouncing these chemical names and thus leaves them out of her talks.
Overall, chemists would not be happy with her demonizing the entire class of “chemicals” as all bad without any specific science to back up her assertions. However, her heart is generally in the right place in wanting to reduce runoff from suburban lawns into our water supply. One audience member noted that he hadn’t treated his lawn with anything in years, and is way ahead of her, perhaps primarily because of laziness or cheapness, but his lawn still looks fine when it rains enough.
-
Senate TSCA Push Can't Shake Conservation Fund Fight
Oct 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Geof Koss
Efforts to advance a bipartisan overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act remain on hold as senators look to untangle an unrelated dispute over the Land and Water Conservation Fund that has tripped up floor action.
The sponsors of the bill (S. 697), Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), were forced to punt on a floor debate before the weeklong Columbus Day recess, after Republicans Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire objected to consideration without a vote on reauthorizing the LWCF, which expired last month (E&E Daily, Oct. 9).
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters yesterday that Burr's desire to see an LWCF vote "hasn't been resolved yet." He noted that Burr does not oppose the TSCA bill, which would update the 1976 law. Burr, meanwhile, denied that he is blocking the bill.
"I'm not holding the bill up," he told E&E Daily yesterday. "I'm just waiting for the bill to be offered with amendments."
Senate Democrats earlier this month urged Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to schedule a separate vote on permanently reauthorizing the LWCF, but some Republicans on both sides of the Capitol want to see changes made to the program (Greenwire, Oct. 7).
In an effort to defuse the TSCA impasse, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said yesterday he's proposed an agreement that would allow separate votes on lifting the crude oil export ban and reauthorizing LWCF -- priorities that he said should appeal to senators from both parties.
"This is really a way to break it loose," Hoeven told E&E Daily. "If you think about it, everybody wins on the deal."
While he's broached the idea with GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, both of whom are critics of LWCF, as well as Burr, Ayotte and Democrats, to no avail, Hoeven said he's "still trying to sell the deal."
-
So Long, Toxics: A Builder’s Guide to Safer Chemicals
Oct 21, 2015 | GreenBiz
By Mark Rossi and Annie Bevan
Health experts long have recognized the risks of individual and groups of toxic chemicals in building products, beginning with lead and asbestos and continuing to formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, mercury, arsenic, certain phthalates and flame retardants.
These chemicals, among many others, are associated with a range of adverse health and environmental effects, including cancer, obesity, asbestosis, ecotoxicity, endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity.
"At their worst, our building materials and designs, and our choices about location, building construction, operation and maintenance, contribute to some of the key public health concerns of modern society," the U.S Green Building Council (USGBC) noted in one report (PDF). "At their best, our buildings and communities can be powerful protectors and promoters of health and well-being."
To that end, the USGBC, International Living Future Institute, Google, Healthy Building Network and many others in the green building movement are trying to boldly move manufacturers from passive chemical management strategies to active use of inherently safer alternatives.
For instance, a new report by Clean Production Action lays out how theGreenScreen for Safer Chemicals tool can be used in the LEED green building certification program, elucidating the role green materials can play in sustainable building projects.
Before diving into the details of how companies can be rewarded for considering the chemical composition of their buildings, however, it’s important to understand the role chemical management plays in overall business strategy.Paying the price for toxicity
Today, business strategies for chemicals management fall into three broad categories:"We are in compliance with all laws and regulations" — a passive strategy where the focus is solely regulatory compliance"We do not use [name the hazardous chemical du jour] in our products" — a beginner step beyond regulatory compliance to avoid known toxic chemicals"We have comprehensive chemical policies and procedures that go well beyond regulatory compliance" — an active strategy that takes a holistic approach to chemicals by knowing and disclosing chemicals in products and supply chains, identifying hazardous chemicals and using safer alternatives
Lumber Liquidators is the latest poster example of a company that paid the price for employing the passive strategy to chemicals management: its stock price plummeted by over 70 percent and the CEO resigned over market concerns with formaldehyde in its products. This all occurred without any regulatory action.
Now, a few companies in the building sector are taking the lead and beginning to step away from the passive strategy of regulatory compliance.
With encouragement from Mind the Store campaign, Ecology Center, Healthy Building Network and others, Home Depot opted to eliminate phthalates from its vinyl flooring due to the widespread availability of safer, equally effective and price equivalent alternatives, for example. Lowe’s and Menards followed suit shortly thereafter.
Similarly, many furniture manufacturers and retailers rapidly are running away from unnecessary flame retardants in foam and fabric. Ashley Furniture, the nation’s largest furniture retailer, joined IKEA in announcing in 2015 that it wouldeliminate the use of flame retardants in furniture. Many other producers and retailers aren’t far behind with their furniture products, including Walmart, Crate and Barrel and La-Z-Boy.
Beyond avoiding the Lumber Liquidator-type crises that emerge from a passive strategy to chemicals management, what are the incentives to use inherently safer alternatives to toxic chemicals in products and supply chains?New tools for building materials
The USGBC set a new course for health considerations in buildings and building products with the release of the new LEED v4 standard in November 2013. LEED v4 establishes a systematic approach for the building community to address chemicals of high concern to people and the environment.
Specifically, the two credit options under the "Building product disclosure and optimization" suite advance better knowledge of chemicals in products through "disclosure" and the selection of safer alternatives through "optimization." These credit options also present an opportunity to use tools such as the GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals.
Since the release of LEED v4, however, there has been a steep learning curve for manufacturers, LEED Practitioners and the design community. All are scrambling to keep current with the rating system and its approach to inherently safer materials.
Transparency is a critical step in changing the chemical content of products and improving the health of indoor environments.
To address this challenge, Clean Production Action released a new report, "How to Use GreenScreen for LEED v4," which provides an overview on LEED requirements and defines terms that are critical for meeting them.
The "How-To" guide helps achieve material transparency by showing users how to develop a product inventory that identifies a comprehensive list of chemicals in products. Because it makes knowledge of ingredients available to the building community and the public in general, this level of transparency is a critical step in changing the chemical content of products and improving the health of indoor environments.
With many material ingredient reports published being "less than accurate," included in this guidance is direction on how this information can be third-party validated to ensure compliance with LEED v4 requirements. Third-party certification organizations, such as GreenCircle Certified, played a key role in the development of these certification processes.Seeking safer alternatives
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." The more customers know about the chemicals in their products, the better prepared they are to avoid chemicals of high concern and to request safer alternatives.
This new guidance outlines how to implement "material ingredient optimization" using the GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals to determine the inherent hazards of chemicals, which empowers users to identify safer alternatives.
The USGBC emphasizes the importance of replacing toxic chemicals with safer alternatives, thus avoiding so-called "regrettable substitutes" where, for example, a manufacturer replaces one toxic flame retardant with another that is equally toxic.
This “optimization” credit provides points for both avoiding chemicals on established "hot" lists, as well as for selecting inherently safer alternatives.
Individual consumers have been forcing a market shift over the past few years, demanding more transparency and the use of safer chemicals in everyday products such as cleaners, cosmetics and baby gear.
LEED v4 places the built environment into the mainstream of this movement and the potential impacts cannot be overstated.
Construction materials comprise 75 percent of the raw materials used in the U.S. every year. It is a massive industry.
By applying the GreenScreen to the materials we use to build the places we live, learn and work, we’ll make a tidal shift towards a safer, sustainable marketplace and a less toxic, healthier world.
-
After Activist Pressure, Macy's Vows to Ensure Furniture Is Free of Toxic Flame Retardants
Oct 20, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Lindsey Rupp
Macy’s Inc., responding to a campaign from health and environmental activists, will check with its furniture suppliers to ensure that they aren’t using toxic flame retardants in their products.
While Macy’s expects that few manufacturers are still using the substances at issue, the retailer will explicitly instruct suppliers to stop using certain chemicals, Jim Sluzewski, a spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement Tuesday.
“We at Macy’s are firmly committed to protecting the health and safety of our customers, as well as to complying with all laws, including those that pertain to protecting safety,” Sluzewski said. “Macy’s has been an industry leader in environmental sustainability, and we are proud of our track record in that regard.”
Safer Chemicals, Healthy families -- a health and environmental advocacy group -- had been calling on Cincinnati-based Macy’s to commit to eliminating the flame retardants since August, sending the company letters, starting online petitions and organizing e-mail campaigns among supporters. The campaign was spurred by a change in California’s safety standard that took effect on Jan. 1, eliminating a requirement that furniture was made with certain chemicals to prevent fires.
"We thank and congratulate Macy’s for taking this big step to make all sofas safe," said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. He said Macy’s should also announce a time frame for phasing out the chemicals.Safety Concerns
Flame retardants can harm human health and have been linked to cancer, brain damage and developmental disabilities in children, according to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. New flammability standards provide better fire safety without the use of these chemicals in upholstered furniture, the group said.
Macy’s decision comes after competitors such as Ikea Group, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. have pledged to phase out the flame retardants, the group said.
"Customers want products that are safe, not some that may contain pounds of carcinogens," Schade said in an interview.
Toxic chemicals in customers’ homes have taken center stage in the past year. Earlier this year, Home Depot Inc. and Lowe’s Cos. both announced they would phase out vinyl flooring with potentially toxic phthalates. Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc., which also sold flooring containing phthalates, has been working since last year to reduce the levels of the chemical in its flooring. The chain has also come under scrutiny for selling Chinese-made laminate flooring with excessive levels of formaldehyde. The company suspended sales of those products in May, two months after concerns were first raised.
-
Washington To Evaluate PBT Criteria In Chemical Plans
Oct 21, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Washington's Department of Ecology has initiated a rulemaking, to amend how the state defines criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) in its chemical action plans (CAPs).
The rulemaking will consider: amending the PBT criteria to be more consistent with those of other jurisdictions, including the EU;updating the list of chemicals covered by CAPs; andidentifying ways to streamline the CAP development process.
Washington uses CAPs to identify, characterise and evaluate PBTs, and to recommend legislation or rules to protect human health and the environment. The state currently lists 25 substances on its “worst of the worst” PBT list, and has developed CAPs for four: mercury;polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs);lead; andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
The state has also identified polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as priority substances (CW 12 August 2014).
The department plans to solicit stakeholder feedback in December in preparation for a tentative March release of a preliminary draft rule.
It estimates that the rule will take effect by March 2017.
-
Head Of Chemical Safety Board Asks For Return To Work
Oct 20, 2015 | The Houston Chronicle
By Lise Olsen
The managing director of a federal agency assigned to investigate the nation's worst chemical accidents publicly asked this week to be allowed to return to work after being suspended for four months, according to information released on his behalf by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Dr. Daniel Horowitz, a Ph.D. chemist, led the U.S. Chemical Safety Board since 2010 but was placed on paid administrative leave on June 16 pending an investigation into "possible misconduct." That leave has been extended twice, leaving the agency without its top administrator even as it conducted probes into an accident that killed four at the DuPont plant in La Porte, among other major accidents nationwide.
Internal investigation
The small agency has had no further deployments since March - despite a series of fatal accidents, fires and explosions reported at chemical plants. One incident involved a tank explosion at a Louisiana plant owned by Williams Partners, which already was the subject of another CSB probe. Another incident involved a fire that injured four at a SunEdison plant in Pasadena.
"From what we can tell, the main thing the CSB is now investigating is its own executive staff," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
In emailed statements issued Tuesday on behalf of Horowitz, the Washington, D.C.-based PEER argues that the ongoing probe has "marooned" its top administrator, "politicized" the agency's operations, serves "no legitimate agency purpose," and has so far wasted more than $100,000 in outside investigators' fees.
The CSB itself did not immediately issue a response. Its board meets Wednesday in Washington, D.C., to discuss ongoing probes, including review of the West Fertilizer plant explosion, the DuPont La Porte gas leak and the accident at the plant owned by Williams Partners in Louisiana.
Horowitz and a top attorney in the small agency were ordered to take a paid leave following a series of critical reports. One report, prepared by two different congressional committees, claimed that the CSB's former chairman and its top administrators had created an "abusive and hostile work environment" that caused some investigators to leave, and that infighting delayed CSB projects.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General also has criticized CSB leaders, finding the agency had failed to follow internal controls for $1.9 million in acquisitions, needed to better protect internal data and failed to complete timely investigations.
Ongoing probe
Rafael Moure-Erasmo, former CSB board chairman, initially defended the administration, arguing that the agency spent over $4 million on just one probe of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident, a massive undertaking that had slowed progress into other projects. Moure-Erasmo, who led the CSB from 2010-2015, later agreed to resign.
PEER argues Horowitz is being blamed for following that ousted chairman's orders.
In a September press briefing, Moure-Erasmo's successor, attorney Vanessa Sutherland, told the Chronicle that employee interviews were continuing as part of an internal investigation into possible misconduct by administrators and said she hoped to conclude the probe soon out of "fairness."
But Ruch said Horowitz himself was first interviewed on Oct. 9, and it appears the probe could stretch out for months and waste more "scarce" agency resources."
-
Senators Spar Over Info-Sharing Bill As Vote Looms
Oct 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. Senate opened debate on a cyberthreat sharing bill yesterday, possibly setting the stage for a key vote on the legislation by as early as next week.
The "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015," sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and better known as CISA, would grant liability protection to companies that disclose cybersecurity data with the U.S. government while revising the way threat intelligence spreads between the private and public sectors.
Critics of S. 754, including major technology firms such as Google and Twitter, claim it doesn't do enough to safeguard Americans' personal information. Proponents argue that the legislation offers the best opportunity for Congress to help combat a slew of recent cybersecurity incidents, from the breach of employee data at the Office of Personnel Management to attacks on privately owned critical infrastructure.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), vice chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a supporter of information-sharing efforts, said yesterday that "it's only a matter of time" before critical networks such as those underpinning major banks or the electric grid are targeted by cyberattacks "that could seriously affect hundreds of thousands of lives."
"So, clearly, it's well beyond the time to act," she added.
Opponents of the legislation contend that more information sharing would not have prevented recent cyber incidents, such as an intrusion into OPM's networks that affected more than 22 million current and former federal workers who saw their data stolen (E&E Daily, July 10).
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a vocal skeptic of the bill, pointed to the OPM breach to argue that "if you can't protect it, don't collect it."
"This bill would allow companies to hand over a large amount of private and personal information about millions of their customers with only a cursory review," he said, echoing concerns by privacy and civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. House doubts
If the Senate can sort through nearly two dozen amendments and pass CISA, the bill would need to be reconciled with two similar pieces of information-sharing legislation that sailed through the House earlier this year.
But Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and lead sponsor of one of the related bills, raised doubts about the chances he'll see eye to eye with his colleagues in the Senate.
He voiced concerns that CISA in its current form gives the U.S. intelligence community too much custody over information sharing, as opposed to the Department of Homeland Security, a civilian agency.
"I would urge, with whatever power you have, to contact the Senate if you have the same concerns that I do and let them know that this is not the right approach," he told attendees at a cybersecurity forum hosted by Kaspersky Government Security Solutions Inc. yesterday, adding that an "NSA-centric rather than a DHS-centric bill will have little or no hope of passing the House."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Railroads: Leave PTC With The STB
Oct 20, 2015 | Railway Age
By William C. Vantuono
Major railroads on Monday, Oct. 19, 2015 asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. federal court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Chemistry Council and other trade associations seeking to prevent the railroads from suspending service for shipments of TIH (toxic-inhalation hazard) commodities if Congress doesn’t extend the Dec. 31 PTC implementation deadline.
The railroads, led by BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific, contend that the lawsuit essentially asks the court to insert itself into a dispute over rail transportation policy that Congress has already committed to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board. In their motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the railroads contend that the STB should resolve the dispute because the Board has the exclusive power to grant injunctive and declaratory relief on railroad matters
“The key point is that this dispute raises a question of national transportation policy that Congress has committed to the agency best equipped to analyze the complicated technical questions and weigh the competing policy concerns—the Surface Transportation Board,” the railroads said in their motion.
The American Chemistry Council, The Fertilizer Institute and the Chemical Institute simultaneously filed a separate petition with the STB, which had already agreed to accept the case and put the proceedings on an expedited schedule. The railroads argued that STB’s action supports their reason to have the federal suit dismissed:
“Plaintiffs have acknowledged the STB’s jurisdiction over this dispute in the most telling way possible: The day after they filed this lawsuit, they filed a virtually identical action in the STB,. But the fact that plaintiffs have invoked the STB’s jurisdiction on this very issue — and are actively litigating their case before that tribunal — is yet another reason for this court to defer to the board. Were this court to assert jurisdiction, it would create an untenable situation in that two tribunals would be adjudicating the same issue at the same time. Aside from the massive inefficiencies and the needless consumption of the resources of the parties, the Board and this court, it would raise the troubling prospect of conflicting rulings.”
With their petition, the trade groups are seeking to have the STB block to the railroads’ plans to suspend TIH shipments as early as Thanksgiving, by declaring that the railroads' common carrier obligation requires them to continue such shipments. Central to their STB petition is whether the shippers’ request for the railroads to continue shipping TIH materials, would count as a “reasonable” request under federal law. The railroads say it’s not reasonable because continuing to ship TIH materials without having fully installed PTC and without an extended deadline would be illegal.
“Plaintiffs argue that federal safety laws must yield to their business needs,” the railroads said. “They urge this court to issue a preliminary injunction commanding the freight railroads to ship TIH materials throughout the nation in violation of federal safety laws, contending that the railroads are obligated to do so pursuant to their common carrier obligation to transport goods upon ‘reasonable’ request.”
The railroads had put lawmakers and customers on alert that they’d have to suspend rail service for anyone shipping the types of hazardous materials covered under the federal mandate for fear of being held liable for violating the letter of the law because they wouldn’t have PTC installed by Dec. 31. Adding to the uncertainty is the Federal Railroad Administration’s indication that it would comply with the law and pursue enforcement actions, including levying thousands of dollars in daily fines against railroads that don’t have PTC installed or continue operating on lines that should have it but don’t.
Attorneys Jeffrey O. Moreno and John T. Bergin of Thompson Hine LLP and Paul M. Donovan of LaRoe Winn Moerman & Donovan are representing plaintiffs. Thomas H. Dupree Jr., Jacob T. Spencer and Sarah Erickson-Muschko of Gibson Dunn are representing the railroads.
The case is American Chemistry Council et al. v. BNSF Railway Co. et al., case number 1:15-cv-01584, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Manufacturers: Train Deadline Extension Agreement Welcome News
Oct 20, 2015 | Shopfloor
By Robyn Boerstling
Manufacturers are pleased that House and Senate leaders have reached a bipartisan agreement to extend the December 31st positive train control (PTC) deadline. This agreement will be reflected in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 as a mark-up approaches on Thursday.
In spite of this welcome announcement, the urgent need to extend the Positive Train Control (PTC) deadline continues. The House and Senate must each pass the agreed-upon language on a piece of legislation that will achieve the President’s signature by the end of the month so that manufacturers are not adversely impacted.
As things currently stand without an extension in hand, freight trains are not likely to run after the December 31st deadline. Railroads have been clear, violating a 2008 statute that mandated this new rail technology is a non-starter. And because the end of the year is just around the corner and rail networks are complex, it will take the next several weeks to prepare for this eventuality.
To plan for a network shutdown of this magnitude, some manufacturers will feel it sooner than others. Impacted manufacturers and railroads have to make plans now in the event that Congress fails to extend the upcoming deadline by three years. For some that will mean stopping future shipments of key manufacturing inputs as soon as November and for others it could mean delaying orders, shutting down some production and even furloughs. Railroads and shippers have to be prepared for a worst-case scenario because Congress can be difficult predict and even harder to act when required.
Today’s agreement is a signal that perhaps the worst-case scenario may not come to fruition but it only takes one Senator or a group of House members to stand in the way.
The economic implications if Congress does not act in a timely manner are serious and cannot be understated. A suspension of rail service will disrupt manufacturing production for many industries and will have a cascading impact across the economy. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) recently estimated in a new economic report that a one month disruption of rail service would harm jobs, consumer confidence and pull $30 billion out of the economy. Such a disruption and if prolonged, could even lead to a recession. So many critical products move by rail and nearly every sector of the economy would be hit.
According to several reports, freight railroads are making solid progress on PTC implementation. However, the congressional deadline set in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 is arbitrary and manufacturers need a PTC extension soon. The leadership of Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-D) to reach this agreement is greatly appreciated, but the long-term success of the rail network and the broader economy will be at stake if this agreement is not quickly adopted. - See more at: http://www.shopfloor.org/2015/10/manufacturers-train-deadline-extension-welcome-news/34625#sthash.dIjlrmSl.dpuf
-
House Bill Pushes Positive Train Control Deadline To 2018
Oct 21, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Freight and commuter railroads would get at least another three years to implement positive train control, courtesy of a deal tucked into a long-term House transportation funding bill scheduled for committee action tomorrow.
The bill, H.R. 3763, would push back the deadline to have the automated safety systems up and running from this December until the end of 2018, with a two-year grace period until 2020 possible for individual railroads that meet certain conditions.
The provision meshes language contained in H.R. 22, passed by the Senate in July, and H.R. 3651, a House measure introduced last month, according to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.).
Most large railroads have said they can't meet the existing timetable, with commuter lines warning that they may have to halt service after December if lawmakers don't grant the extension for positive train control (PTC) implementation. Some freight carriers are already warning customers of possible disruptions, making the extension's passage by early November essential, Thune said.
Because lawmakers are unlikely to approve any long-term transportation bill by then, he added, the compromise language could also be tacked on to a separate stopgap funding measure that Congress must pass by Oct. 29 to keep federal road money flowing to states.
"Hopefully, this can get resolved very quickly," said Mantill Williams, a spokesman for the American Public Transportation Association, whose members include commuter railroads.
But the provision drew a curt brushoff from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who called the proposed extension of up to five years "way too long, with way too little guarantee" of actual implementation.
Blumenthal, describing PTC as "life-saving technology," also objected to latching the extension on to a short-term transportation bill. "I will work for a reasonable measure that provides adequate time but holds railroads accountable through year-by-year review of progress toward fully-implemented PTC," he said in a statement.
Still to be seen is how forcefully Blumenthal presses his concerns. Under Senate rules, he could significantly hamper, if not outright halt, the passage of any extension.
PTC is an umbrella term for an approach that uses wireless radio signals to provide an automated safety backup that can stop or slow a train from afar if its engineer fails to do so. Congress set the December deadline in a 2008 law signed soon after a collision between a freight train and commuter train killed 25 people in the Los Angeles area.
The proposed compromise is buried deep in the approximately 560-page House road and transit funding bill. After the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a draft late last week, Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) formally introduced it yesterday. A markup is set for tomorrow morning; a spokesman declined to release proposed amendments in advance, saying that they will be provided at the markup.
On paper, the bill would keep transportation spending at status quo levels with small upticks for inflation through 2018, with the possibility of continuing for another three years after that if lawmakers can find the wherewithal to pay for it. Over the total six-year lifespan, federal-aid highway spending would rise from $38.4 billion this year to $41.6 billion in fiscal 2021 for an average annual increase of about 1.4 percent.
The House Ways and Means Committee, however, has yet to deliver a financing package to fully cover the bill's price tag for even the first three years. Without that package, House leaders will not move the legislation to the floor, a committee staffer indicated last week.
In a news release yesterday heralding the bill's introduction, Shuster said it would improve the overall transportation system, along with "our economy, our competitiveness and our everyday lives."
From a planning perspective, the measure can be seen as an improvement over the series of hastily stitched patches that have kept federal transportation programs alive over the last year. In the release, DeFazio said he looked forward to House passage and a final agreement with the Senate. While the legislation doesn't provide all of the money needed to rebuild and repair roads, bridges and transit systems, DeFazio added, one "critical" provision would allow for more spending if Highway Trust Fund revenues turn out to be higher than expected.
"This is a step in the right direction," he said.
-
House Panel Introduces Hazmat Reauthorization Bill
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee formally introduced Oct. 20 a highway bill that would reauthorize hazardous materials transportation programs. The Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 3763), which will be marked up by the committee Oct. 22, was initially released by the committee Oct. 16. That version of the bill included a a place-holder related to the upcoming deadline for positive train control systems, but the introduced version of the bill offers a three-year extension for trains to install the systems intended to prevent derailments caused by human error (201 DEN A-14, 10/19/15). Those systems are required to be installed by Dec. 31 for the transport of poisonous or toxic-by-inhalation products, as well as passengers, by rail. H.R. 3763 is available at http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/shuste_044_xml.pdf.
-
Railroads Engage In Brinkmanship Over Safety And Freight Shutdown
Oct 20, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
If the railroad industry’s delay and secrecy on oil train safety isn’t frustrating enough, it’s also dragging its feet on installing anti-collision technology required after a horrific 2008 crash in California killed 25 people.
Actually, it’s worse than that. Railroads essentially are blackmailing Congress, threatening to stop running freight and passenger trains as soon as next month unless they get three more years to install positive train-control systems – which can slow or stop trains in case of human error or negligence – and two years after that to test them.
No one wants a rail shutdown. It would devastate commerce and commuting across the country. In the Sacramento region, Union Pacific’s freight service and the Capitol Corridor passenger service could be disrupted.
So our lawmakers have to go along with the extension. But they should impose firm and final deadlines, with financial penalties to make sure railroads finally meet them.
Granted, the technology is complicated and it’s a massive undertaking to install it on hundreds of locomotives and 60,000 miles of track. The rail industry says it has spent more than $5 billion, hired 2,400 workers and made substantial progress. Without more time, railroads would face daily fines if they operate without the system, and so would halt trains instead.
Excuses and explanations aside, railroads have had years to prepare. Congress passed the requirement in 2008, in response to the head-on collision between a Metrolink passenger train and a Union Pacific freight train near Chatsworth. The National Transportation Safety Board first recommended the technology all the way back in 1970. Just since 2004, the safety board says the system could have prevented or reduced the carnage from 25 incidents that killed 65 people, including the May Amtrak derailment near Philadelphia that killed eight.
Amtrak – notorious for not getting things done on time – has installed the system on nearly all of its busy Washington to Boston corridor. Yet most freight and commuter lines weren’t able to meet the deadline.
One reason is that federal regulators dropped the ball. As the Government Accountability Office reported last month, there needs to be stronger oversight by the Federal Railway Administration, which has exempted about 10,000 miles of track.
The railroads are backing a bipartisan bill from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to extend the deadline to 2018, and possibly even later if railroads can show they’re still having difficulty. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, who chairs the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines and hazardous materials, is on board as a sponsor. But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California wants any extension tied to passage of a long-term highway funding bill.
Congress should be able to get both done. But it shouldn’t give railroads another goodie they’re seeking.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is drafting a rule requiring railroads to develop comprehensive oil spill response plans, as well as worst-case scenarios. But the railroads want a provision in the House transportation bill that would allow the transportation secretary to keep some information secret.
That is a terrible idea. This is crucial information for officials and residents in Sacramento and other places where more trains full of oil cars will be rumbling through. The track record on safety regulations shows that if railroads are given an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article40522719.html#storylink=cpy -
Congress Must Extend The Positive Train Control Deadline
Oct 20, 2015 | The Chicago Tribune
By U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley
As a leader of the bipartisan effort in Congress to extend the positive train control deadline, I appreciate your Monday editorial calling on Congress to act to prevent a shutdown of passenger and freight rail that will have far-reaching consequences for American commuters, businesses and our economy.
While the deadline for PTC implementation is Dec. 31, preventing a major disruption of rail service requires Congress to act much sooner. Shutting down the nation’s rail network involves more than simply flipping a switch; it involves complex logistics that will take weeks to complete. As a result, Americans could begin to see the effects of the disruption very soon with railroads, shippers and agricultural suppliers stopping operations and closing facilities in early December or sooner. Congress cannot afford to wait until the last minute to act and should explore all legislative options to get the job done as soon as possible.
But along with providing more time, Congress should also administer funding to help already cash-strapped commuter railroads, such as Metra, get the job done. PTC technology is vitally important but also incredibly expensive. Commuter railroads have spent nearly $1 billion on PTC implementation and need $3 billion more to complete it. Despite that, Congress has appropriated very little money for the railroads, and half of the country’s commuter railroads are deferring other safety and capital improvements to afford PTC.
Given the widespread impact to our economy, I believe this matter requires immediate attention. Congress must act now to extend the upcoming PTC deadline while holding passenger and freight railroads accountable and providing them with a clear plan for implementing this vital safety technology.
-
After Canadian Rout, A Quick Verdict On Keystone?
Oct 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor & Andrew Restuccia
If President Barack Obama wants to kill the Keystone XL pipeline at the best possible moment for his relationship with Canada's new Liberal government, both sides in the battle over the divisive oil project say he can't do it soon enough.
Justin Trudeau’s stunning defeat Monday of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper means that after seven years of speculation and delay, the continent is once again on Keystone watch, waiting for Obama to render a verdict that could come any day. A quick decision could avoid making Keystone's demise a political embarrassment for Trudeau — who, like Harper, supports the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline, but who has blamed the prime minister for turning it into a source of friction with the U.S.
“If I were going to do it, I would do it in a matter of days," said one former U.S. official, speaking anonymously about Obama’s most politically fraught environmental policy decision. Waiting for several weeks to turn down a permit for Keystone, the official added, would mean "it will happen on Trudeau’s watch. [Obama] doesn’t want to weaken Trudeau.”
A source with close ties to the Canadian oil industry agreed: "If it happens soon, then Trudeau hasn’t even found the bathroom yet, so nobody can blame it on him, and [the Obama administration] has stayed out of the election cycle and didn’t get involved in Canadian politics."
Then again, Obama faces no legal deadline for approving or rejecting the permit that TransCanada Corp. first applied for in September 2008. The only timeline the White House has offered is that he plans to do it before he leaves office.
Secretary of State John Kerry didn’t offer any updated time frame Tuesday, when he declined to directly answer a question on whether a decision was "imminent." But his words indicated it could be coming soon.
"It will get done in its appropriate moment and I would like to get it done as fast as possible," Kerry said during a climate change gathering at the State Department.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that "there is more that Canada can do" on climate change in the future, and he said it is "shortsighted to reduce the relationship between our two countries to just one issue" like Keystone.
Monday’s election results provide a new optimum time frame for Obama to act: during the weeks it will probably take for Trudeau to form a new government.
Trudeau faces pressure to prove himself to the Canadian oil industry, which is suffering from a crash in crude prices and the stalling of several big pipeline projects, setbacks that dashed Harper’s hopes of creating an “energy superpower.”
Yet the 43-year-old victor also built his campaign around an Obama-like message of hope and vowed to work with the U.S. on climate change. That gives Obama ample reason to want to spare his new Northern partner the bulk of the blowback that a Keystone rejection would generate in Canada.
The calendar for Obama's ambitious climate change agenda also suggests he too would benefit from a quick decision on Keystone. The president and Kerry are pushing to achieve a global pact to limit greenhouse gas emissions during United Nations talks in Paris at the end of this year, a meeting that Trudeau has vowed to make a priority — in contrast to Harper, who pulled Canada out of the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement and relentlessly championed the country’s carbon-emitting oil industry.
Even before the Paris talks open, the grassroots green army that turned Keystone into a headache for Obama is ready to do the same for Trudeau. Activists led by the climate group 350.org plan to stage a sit-in in the Canadian capital Nov. 5, dubbing it a "climate welcome" for the new prime minister.
Now that Harper has "crashed and burned," 350.org’s Jamie Henn said, "President Obama is even more free to reject the pipeline and reestablish common ground on climate with Canada. With Paris fast approaching, now's a great chance to hit the reset button."
Even Henn's opponents in the Keystone battle agree that Obama would be wise to act fast.
One U.S. industry source tracking the Canadian election agreed that a swift choice by Obama would "look like he’s rejecting a Harper-era proposal, not a Trudeau one." Still, Trudeau would face a decision on how to spin that outcome.
"Does he dare pull a 'If I had been in power, Obama would have approved it'?" the U.S. industry source wondered, adding that the "key will be for Obama to reject it before he meets in person for the first time with Justin."
Obama called Trudeau on Tuesday, discussing issues including the Paris climate talks, though a White House readout of the call did not mention Keystone. It's also unclear whether Keystone came up in a Tuesday meeting at the White House among Obama, Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.
At the very least, Obama has avoided some ruffled Canadian feathers by pushing the decision until after Monday's vote.
"I think it would have been a real slap in the face if it was rejected before the election,” said a longtime observer of U.S.-Canada relations, who asked for anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue so soon after the election. "It’s sort of a foregone conclusion now that it will most likely be rejected. Most people think it will be rejected between now and the climate conference.”
And the Canadian oil industry-linked source noted that if Obama wanted to shock Washington by approving the pipeline, he "could go forward with Keystone on condition of [getting] a full partner on climate strategy" in the new Canadian government, "including higher standards on [oil] producers."
While Trudeau supports Keystone, he has heavily criticized Harper for not doing more to fight climate change. He has also promised to convene a meeting of Canadian provincial leaders to shape a new emissions policy within 90 days of taking power. And people tracking the issue say they think he and Obama will be able to overcome the pipeline's contentious bilateral politics.
“Harper has said he won’t take no for an answer on Keystone. Well, Trudeau might,” said Andrew Finn, the program associate at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute.
Kenny Bruno, a veteran green campaigner against Keystone and other Canadian heavy oil projects, acknowledged that Trudeau's Liberals are "nominally" in favor of the pipeline. "But if there's a rejection, they're not going to go down to Washington and say, 'We won’t take no for an answer,' like Harper did."
Meanwhile, a rejection of Keystone would generate elation from many in the international climate change community, long frustrated that a U.S. president who has made global warming a central part of his agenda hasn’t killed the project sooner.
“A rejection of the Keystone pipeline would bring further momentum into the Paris talks by demonstrating the seriousness which which the Obama administration is addressing climate change,” said Jennifer Morgan, the global director of the World Resources Institute’s climate program. “Domestic action like this in the U.S. both enables it to work with other countries so they do their fair share and increases U.S. credibility abroad.”
The Obama administration has steadfastly stayed mum on the pipeline, declining near-constant questions from reporters about when the president will make a decision. Even in the White House and at the State Department, only a handful of top officials are privy to the details of the Keystone review.
But Obama himself has tipped his hand in public comments over the last year, dismissing proponents’ arguments that the pipeline would boost the economy. The president’s determination to secure a climate agreement in Paris, paired with Kerry’s decades-long track record advocating for measures to rein in emissions, has many on both sides of the issue convinced that Keystone is doomed.
-
Kerry: Canadian Vote Won't Change Keystone Review
Oct 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new government coming to power in Canada does not change how the Obama administration is handling the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday.
Kerry made the declaration the morning after Justin Trudeau was tapped to become Canada’s next prime minister, since the Liberal Party he leads won a majority of Parliament seats in the election.Trudeau, like outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, supports the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, but he is unlikely to put as much of the government’s support and resources into lobbying the Obama administration for it.
Kerry told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that the new regime will have no impact on how the State Department reviews TransCanada Corp.’s application to build Keystone XL.
“The decision on Keystone is being based on the merits and countervailing balance of all the input that has come from a very exhaustive agency review,” Kerry told Mitchell at a forum hosted by the State Department, after she asked about possible changes to the equation surrounding Keystone.
“I have said again and again, I want to get that done as fast as possible and that is very true.”
Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, has criticized Harper for the degree to which his support for Keystone and for Canada’s oil sands industry has strained relationships with other countries, including the United States.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Harper has narrowed the entire relationship with the United States to a single point around the Keystone XL pipeline, and he went to New York and criticized and harangued the president,” Trudeau said during a recent debate.
Trudeau could also take some steps toward improving Canada’s climate policies, after castigating Harper for making a mockery of Canada on the world stage for weakness on climate, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. said.
-
Obama Congratulates Trudeau, Discusses Collaboration On Climate Change
Oct 20, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
President Barack Obama today discussed how to collaborate on climate change policy with Canada's incoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau, during a congratulatory call today, but the two leaders apparently did not discuss the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a White House readout.
Trudeau, a Liberal, supports Keystone but to a less vocal extent than Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister he toppled in national elections on Monday. The new Canadian leader also has vowed to work with the U.S. on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and Trudeau and Obama "committed to work together to achieve an ambitious and durable global climate agreement in Paris in December," the White House wrote in its summary of their call.
"The President wished the Prime Minister-Designate well and noted that he looks forward to meeting with him in the near future," the White House summary added. No mention of Keystone was included.
-
Fracking Can Cause Nearby Abandoned Wells To Leak Methane -Study
Oct 20, 2015 | Reuters
By Richard Valdmanis
Hydraulic fracturing can cause nearby abandoned oil wells to leak methane, according to a study published on Tuesday in the peer-reviewed Water Resources Research journal, marking a potentially large source of unrecorded greenhouse gas emissions.
Researchers at the University of Vermont examined a part of New York state overlying the Marcellus shale gas reservoir to determine the chances that a newly fracked well there would intersect one of the state's thousands of existing wellbores.
"Average probability estimates for the entire region of New York underlain by the Marcellus Shale range from 0.00 percent to 3.45 percent," according to the study, which suggested the results held broader national implications.
It said oil and gas companies could reduce the probability of triggering methane leaks by seeking to identify the locations of abandoned wells before any new fracking, a potentially daunting task given the large number of unmarked abandoned wells across the country.
New York banned fracking earlier this year, citing concerns that the technology could cause water and air pollution. Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep underground to break up rock formations.
Researchers at Princeton University last year published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that showed abandoned wells in nearby Pennsylvania were emitting an average of 0.27 kg (0.6 lb) of methane per day. But that study did not outline what might be causing the leaks.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August proposed new standards to cut greenhouse gas emissions and smog-forming pollutants from oil and gas facilities as part of President Barack Obama's broader strategy to slash methane emissions in the energy sector over 10 years.
Methane warms the climate at least 80 times more than the same amount of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, over a 20-year period.
-
West Virginia Agency Seeks Clean Power Plan Comments
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
West Virginia has begun gathering information to craft a Clean Power Plan feasibility study as required by state law.
The state Department of Environmental Protection wants feedback from the public and affected industries and will be collecting comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants through the end of the year, agency spokeswoman Kelley Gillenwater told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail Oct. 19.
A feasibility study is required under H.B. 2004, passed by the West Virginia General Assembly during the 2015 session in anticipation of the EPA's release of the final carbon emissions rule.
Under the law, the study must provide a comprehensive analysis of the rule and its potential impacts on West Virginia, its people and its economy.
West Virginia's DEP has 180 days from the effective date of the rule to conduct the study. That clock starts when the rule is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to occur later this month (170 DEN A-2, 9/2/15)
If development of a state implementation plan is deemed feasible, the DEP will put together a plan and submit it to the West Virginia Legislature for approval prior to submitting it to the EPA.
Plan's Impact
The final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), released Aug. 3, sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state.
State regulators are tasked with developing plans to meet the targets, which will be phased in through 2030.
As with every state, West Virginia is facing a Sept. 16, 2016, deadline for submitting an implementation plan or an initial plan with an extension request. Final completed state plans must be submitted no later than Sept. 6, 2018.
West Virginia has been at the forefront of states opposed to the rule. Since it was announced, every state leader has spoken out against it, calling it an attack on the coal industry and an irresponsible mandate that will negatively impact the state's economy.
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), a leading figure in the fight against the Clean Power Plan, said in a Bloomberg BNA interview published Oct. 19 that he expects to file a lawsuit challenging the rule on the day it is published in the Federal Register(201 DEN B-1, 10/19/15).
This follows an earlier legal challenge of the rule he spearheaded that was dismissed as premature (175 DEN A-16, 9/10/15).
West Virginia DEP Secretary Randy Huffman said, in an Oct. 11 statement, that comments being gathered now will form the basis of at least two feasibility determinations—whether creation of a SIP is feasible and whether it's possible to implement it within the 2030 time frame.
The public can submit comments via e-mail at dep.comments@wv.gov or by writing to Clean Power Plan Study Comments, West Virginia DEP, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304
-
Neighbors' Actions Said to Complicate Power Plan Compliance
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
In addition to evaluating all of the regulatory variables involved, state regulators say planning their compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan must account for the actions of neighboring states.
In addition to decisions on whether to develop plans to measure compliance with the carbon dioxide standards for power plants based on emissions mass or rate, states say they are carefully watching what others are doing to determine how that may affect their own plans. Given the option for interstate emissions trading and the interconnected nature of the electricity grid, each state's decision has the potential to affect their neighbors.
“Nobody is putting their cards on the table,” Michael Dowd, air division director for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, said during an Oct. 20 Clean Power Plan forum organized by Infocast.
Scott Rupp, commissioner of the Missouri Public Service Commission, likened state discussions to the classic prisoner's dilemma, a classic game theory thought experiment in which two prisoners being interrogated separately must determine whether to stay silent and hope the other prisoner does as well so they both receive a lesser sentence or make the decision to betray their compatriot and potentially risk more severe punishment.
“I think a lot of people feel like, ‘should we take the plea, should we not?’ ” Rupp said.
The EPA Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets unique carbon dioxide emissions standards for the power sector in each state that will be phased in between 2022 and 2030. State regulators are tasked with developing their own compliance plans with initial submissions due to the EPA by Sept. 6, 2016. Final plans are due in 2018.
Although the final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, states are already moving to evaluate their options ahead of that 2016 submission deadline. State regulators, however, say they have not yet chosen a path forward.
States Feel Pressure Toward Trading
Although the EPA rule does not require states to adopt emissions trading programs, many state regulators said they felt pushed in that direction by the carbon dioxide standards.
Chris MacCracken, principal at ICF International, said the language of the final EPA Clean Power Plan seemed to have “a little smiley face next to” its mentions of states adopting a mass-based plan that would include new generation as well in their trading programs.
“I think the mass-based approach is getting more EPA support,” Robert Powelson, a commissioner with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, said.
States said the mass-based approach appears to be the easier option to implement. But once that decision is made, states must still make decisions on whether to include new units in a trading program or on how to allocate or auction compliance allowances to the power industry all before initial submissions are due to the EPA.
Pennsylvania already has begun outreach efforts as it prepares its compliance plan, with participants pushing the state toward a mass-based option that would also include new generation (199 DEN A-6, 10/15/15).
Powelson said no decisions have been made yet, but he predicted the state would not join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
“We might look for a new dance partner or two,” but Powelson said he didn't see Pennsylvania joining the Northeast's nine-state emissions trading program.
Complicating those trading decisions is that states cannot trade between mass-based and rate-based approaches. That means states will be carefully watching their neighbors while they plot their own compliance plan, Muhsin Abdur-Rahman, senior market strategist at the PJM Interconnection, said.
“From a trading perspective, states have to think about who am I going to be able to trade with,” he said.
Litigation Complicates Compliance
The inevitable lawsuits to overturn the Clean Power Plan will further complicate state efforts to map out their compliance strategies, state regulators said.
Several states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, have already said they will file suit to block the rule the day it is published in the Federal Register (201 DEN B-1, 10/19/15).
Timothy Keck, deputy chief counsel for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said the rule faces staunch opposition in that state from Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and the Legislature
“Frankly, we're hoping for a stay” while the rule is litigated, Keck said.
Rupp said Missouri is likely to file its initial submission with the EPA next year, and that may mean the court could hand down a decision on the rule's legality before the 2018 deadline for final plans.
The EPA's push toward emissions trading could be one of the features of the Clean Power Plan that undoes the rule, Peter Glaser, a partner at Troutman Sanders, LLP, said.
“Despite Congress repeatedly resisting giving EPA cap and trade, that's exactly what's happening,” he said.
-
Senators Question Interior, Energy Department Nominees
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A Senate committee during a hearing questioned whether several nominees for Interior and Energy department positions have conflicts of interest based on prior work experiences.
Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee discussed three nominations for Interior Department positions and three for the Energy Department at the Oct. 20 hearing.
Of the six nominees, four have been performing the functions of the offices for which they were nominated as the principal deputies: Mary Kendall, nominated to be inspector general at the Interior Department; Kristen Sarri to be Interior's assistant secretary for policy, management and budget; Suzette Kimball to be director of the U.S. Geological Survey; and John Kotek, to be assistant secretary for nuclear energy.
“The tenure that you have been involved with thus far in this position has been marked by controversy,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said to Kendall, who has been acting inspector general for six-and-a-half years.
Republicans particularly questioned Kendall and Kotek about any potential conflicts of interest or controversy tied with previous work.
Kendall was asked about her handling of a redacted report in December 2013 on the Interior Department's stream protection rule (50 DEN A-7, 3/14/14).
Kotek was asked about his previous strategic consulting work with Fluor Corp., a large engineering company that has contracts with the Energy Department for the management of enriched uranium at various plants (193 DEN A-10, 10/6/15).
Previous Controversies
Murkowski, who chairs the energy committee, asked Kendall about the Interior Department's decision not to respond to a subpoena issued in March 2014 by the House Natural Resources Committee chairman for an unredacted copy of the report on the stream protection rule.
Kendall provided an update on the subpoena, saying she sent a letter last November referring the issue formally to the interior secretary. She said her office urged the department's Office of the Solicitor to “activate the issue” and reconsider their decision not to take action on the subpoena.
“As recently as yesterday, I spoke to the chief for the secretary [of the interior] and urged him to ask someone from the department to actively engage the House Committee on Natural Resources,” Kendall said. She said a department official reached out to the House committee on Oct. 19.
“They will be engaged in the process of accommodation, which is the precise process I've been asking both sides to engage in,” Kendall said.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) asked Kotek about his previous consulting work with Fluor Corp. and whether this presents a conflict of interest with his work at the Energy Department.
Kotek said he has been in contact with the ethics department at the Energy Department about his previous work and said he has been “completely forthcoming.”
Additional DOE Nominations
The committee also considered two other nominations.
Cherry Ann Murray, formerly the dean of Harvard University's Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, was nominated to be the director of the Office of Science at the Energy Department(151 DEN A-21, 8/6/15).
Victoria Wassmer, currently an assistant administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration, was nominated to be the undersecretary for management and performance at the Energy Department(142 DEN A-14, 7/24/15).
-
Proposed Energy Bills Offer Lobbying Opportunities
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jacqueline Montgomery and Jorge Uquillas
Senate legislation that would promote energy efficiency in federal government buildings as well as the residential, commercial and industrial sectors presents a business opportunity for lobbying firms.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 (S. 2012), sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), also would affect energy policy through changes to infrastructure and supply management, as well as conservation programs. A vote hasn't been scheduled.
How to Use the Analysis
Lobbying firms can use the attached spreadsheet to target business development. Corporate government affairs lobbyists can use it to better understand peers’ level of engagement and identify the top lobbying firms engaged on these issues.
Here's a rundown of the spreadsheet components:
• The “Companies” tab contains a list of 67 publicly traded U.S. companies engaged in efficiency-related technologies with exposure to new energy of at least 10 percent of the company's value, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The tool lists each company's estimated exposure, high-level lobbying activity and availability of contact information. Double-clicking on a company name will take you to a company's profile page.
•The “Company Profile” tab provides more details on each opportunity. Make a selection from the pull-down menu to view more information on the organization's internal and external lobbying and available government affairs contact information.
•The “Lobbying Firms” tab lists lobbying firms that were engaged on lobbying related to energy efficiency. Click on an organization's name to view its Bloomberg Government profile.
Unknown Timeline
The wide-ranging provisions of S. 2012 include reauthorizing weatherization programs, retrofitting buildings for greater efficiency and directing the Office of Management and Budget to set energy performance goals for energy use in federal information technology centers.
The measure would codify an executive order that directs agencies to reduce building energy intensity by 2.5 percent per year for fiscal 2016 through 2025 and would encourage local governments to establish their own building energy codes to require greater efficiency.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved S. 2012 in July, although the timeline for any further action is unknown (147 DEN A-4, 7/31/15).
The committee approved S. 720, stand-alone energy efficiency legislation from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Several provisions of that bill were included in S. 2012.
With assistance from Adam M. Taylor in Washington.
-
OECD: Climate Pledges Not Yet Strong Enough
Oct 21, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The top emitting nations all have pledges on the table to cut greenhouse gas emissions under a global climate deal to be finalized in 2015, but their offers would only put off the day of reckoning for a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius for 15 years, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said today.
The nation-by-nation pledges, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, are to anchor the international agreement to be negotiated at United Nations talks in Paris in December.
But according to an OECD report, the combined impact of those pledges will almost surely fall short of achieving what many countries hope to be a global goal included in the deal: to hold rising temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) beyond preindustrial levels to avoid the worst climate impacts.
The OECD said that without stronger action, the 2-degree temperature rise would be delayed, but only until 2040. It said to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius from the preindustrial era, countries would need to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050—using 2010 levels as a baseline—and need to be at “net zero” by 2100.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested