Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Nov 2
-
TSA: Security Gaps
Nov 3, 2015 | Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Location: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Energy and Power Subcommittee Markup of H.J. Res. 71 and H.J. Res 72
Nov 3, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 1:00 PM -
Agency Progress in Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Nov 5, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:30 AM -
Energy Security Roundtable
Nov 5, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Processors Want New Resin Capacity To Stay In The US
Oct 30, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Expectations of new polyethylene capacity had two U.S.-based major plastics processors showing their true colors of red, white and blue at a recent industry conference. “I don’t want to put [the new resin] on rails and ship it over,” AEP Industries Inc.’s John Powers said Oct. 29 at Global Plastics Summit 2015 in Chicago. “I want to keep it here and... -
(ACC Mentioned) And For 2016: Democratic Race For U.S. Senate Is One To Watch
Nov 1, 2015 | Pittsburgh Post- Gazette
By Chris Potter
It may seem too early to think about the 2016 elections: Many voters haven’t even finished ignoring this year’s judicial races yet. But politicos are already scrutinizing the Democrats seeking to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey next year. And the candidate with the most unorthodox campaign may not even be the tattooed, 6-foot-8-inch mayor... -
(ACC Mentioned) Test Your Knowledge Of Election Weirdness
Oct 30, 2015 | Seattle Times
By Test Your Knowledge Of Election Weirdness
Only 24 percent of you voted in the primary election in August. If you’re in that hardy group that managed to fill out a piece of paper and put it in the mail, you can blame the pathetic 76 percent for what follows — our annual quiz of the political season’s lowlifes, low blows and low comedy. -
(ACC Mentioned) Carus Group Names New CEO
Nov 2, 2015 | My Web Times
Carus Group, a leading global provider of environmental solutions, announced Monday the promotion of its new chief executive officer, according to a press release from its company. Effective Jan. 1, Dave Kuzy, currently Carus’ President and Chief Operating Officer, will succeed Inga Carus as CEO of the 100-year-old company. -
(ACC Mentioned) Science Advisers to Weigh in on Proposition 65 Proposal
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Scientific advisers for California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will weigh in Nov. 9 on whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to consider adding nickel, pentachlorophenol, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfate (PFOS) and tetrachloroethylene to Proposition 65's list of reproductive toxicants. -
(ACC Mentioned) Why the United States Leaves Deadly Chemicals on the Market
Nov 2, 2015 | In These Times
By Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman
Scientists are trained to express themselves rationally. They avoid personal attacks when they disagree. But some scientific arguments become so polarized that tempers fray. There may even be shouting. Such is the current state of affairs between two camps of scientists: health effects researchers and regulatory ... -
California to List Preservative Mixture as Carcinogen
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced Oct. 30 plans to add the complex mixture of pentachlorophenol and byproducts of its synthesis to the state's list of chemicals linked to cancer. Pentachlorophenol is a wood preservative used on utility poles, railroad ties, wood pilings... -
California Agency To Convene Science Advisory Panel
Nov 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will convene its Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP) to discuss the agency's draft alternatives analysis guidance document (CW 25 September 2015). The draft guidance is the first of two documents that will provide a framework for completing the alternatives analyses required under... -
(ACC Mentioned) Most U.S. Chemical Plants Were Not Inspected In Recent Years, Group Finds
Nov 2, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Less than half of 13,868 U.S. chemical manufacturing facilities were inspected by federal or state governments during the past three to five years, says a new report by the Center for Effective Government, a watchdog group. Of the plants that were inspected, one-quarter had at least one serious workplace safety and environmental violation... -
(ACC Mentioned) Editorial: Railroads Need Time For Safety Fix
Oct 31, 2015 | The Bulletin
It came down to the wire, but Congress moved Wednesday to grant American railroads the time they need to get something called Positive Train Control up and running. In doing so, it avoided the prospect of a nationwide halt in rail service by the end of the year. -
(ACC Mentioned) PTC Extension Given; No To More Extensions
Oct 31, 2015 | The Daily Star-Journal
One scenario is to view Congress as the hero – going at the last moment to the aid of damsel-in-distress railroads tied to their own track – that at the last moment passed an extension to the Positive Train Control mandate. Except that Congress is responsible for tying railroads to the track. In fairness, Congress did so for good reason. -
Montana Auditor Calls for Improved Rail Safety
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Anticipating an increase in oil shipments by rail, the Montana Legislative Audit Division called on the state to improve its railroad safety efforts. In issuing the performance audit of railroad safety in Montana, the division Oct. 29 recommended that the state Public Service Commission and the Disaster & Emergency... -
NTSB Endorses API Oil, Gas Pipeline Safety Approach
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Transportation Safety Board said Oct. 30 that the American Petroleum Institute's recently released oil and gas pipeline safety management system recommended practices exceeds expectations. The board recommended the development of a safety management system standard after a 2010 pipeline incident near... -
House Gears Up For Vote On 6-Year Authorization Plan
Nov 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
What appeared far-fetched a few months ago is now increasingly probable: Congress will soon pass a highway and public transportation bill that sets spending levels for years instead of months. The Senate approved its version in July, and the House is poised to take up a counterpart this week, with the Rules Committee scheduling two days... -
(ACC Mentioned) Efficiency Backers Plotting Energy Efficiency Bill’s Return From The Dead
Oct 30, 2015 | BNA Energy & Environment Blog
Like a zombie that won’t die, the specter of a long-stalled energy efficiency bill is returning to the halls of the Senate. With little chance of a broad energy legislation making it to the Senate floor this year, energy efficiency lobbyists and the authors of the energy efficiency bill—Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)... -
SAB Panel Weighs Recommendation For EPA To Revise Draft Fracking Study
Oct 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel reviewing EPA's draft analysis of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water is weighing whether to recommend that the agency revise its draft conclusion that the study found no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water. -
Murkowski Hammers Obama Admin Over Energy Restrictions
Nov 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A leading Senate Republican hammered the Obama administration over the weekend for energy policies she claimed threaten the nation's security and jobs. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the administration's decisions "ignore the will of hard-working Alaskans" by closing the door to new oil production needed to sustain the Trans-Alaska pipeline. -
Suits Filed Over EPA Carbon Standards for New Power Plants
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Murray Energy Corp. and a free market advocacy group filed lawsuits Oct. 30 challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1396, 10/30/15; Energy & Env't Legal Inst. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1397, 10/30/15). -
Texas Unlikely to Submit Carbon Plan
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
Confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually strike down the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, a senior attorney in the Office of the Texas Attorney General said Oct. 30 his state probably wouldn't submit a compliance plan. Bernard McNamee, chief of staff to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton... -
Colorado Attorney General Says She Can Sue EPA
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said the state constitution clearly grants her the ability to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over the Clean Power Plan despite the objection of Gov. John Hickenlooper (D). “Colorado law clearly grants the Attorney General the ability to take independent legal action in the public interest,”... -
Maryland Panel Backs 2030 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cut
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
The Maryland Commission on Climate Change has urged lawmakers to adopt a more ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 2006 levels by 2030 as they revisit an existing climate change law during the 2016 legislative session. -
EPA Completes Boiler MACT Reconsideration
Oct 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA has completed reconsideration of certain aspects of its boiler air toxics rules setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for the sector, pleasing forestry industry groups that lobbied the agency to make changes and issue them before any requirements take effect early next year. -
Senate Sets Sights On Contentious Obama Rule
Nov 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Annie Snider
With the budget deal done and all eyes turning to end-of-year spending negotiations, the Senate this week will take up measures targeting the Obama administration's contentious water rule. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has teed up the upper chamber's leading measure to kill the Waters of the U.S. rule for a key procedural ... -
EPA Seeks Delay in McCarthy's Job Lawsuit Deposition
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is asking a federal judge to delay deposition of Administrator Gina McCarthy in a lawsuit over a required Clean Air Act jobs review if it denies the agency's bid to shield its top official from the inquiry (Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy, N.D. W.Va., No. 14-cv-00039-JPB, motion for stay 10/29/15). -
EPA Lawyer Points to Sixth Circuit on Clean Water Rule Issue
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
The threshold jurisdictional question relating to judicial review of challenges to the Obama Administration's clean water rule may be decided relatively quickly by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a senior attorney in the Environmental Protection Agency's water division said Oct. 30.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Nov 3, 2015 | Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Location: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Energy and Power Subcommittee Markup of H.J. Res. 71 and H.J. Res 72
Nov 3, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building/ 1:00 PM
-
Agency Progress in Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
Nov 5, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 9:30 AM
-
Nov 5, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Processors Want New Resin Capacity To Stay In The US
Oct 30, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Expectations of new polyethylene capacity had two U.S.-based major plastics processors showing their true colors of red, white and blue at a recent industry conference.
“I don’t want to put [the new resin] on rails and ship it over,” AEP Industries Inc.’s John Powers said Oct. 29 at Global Plastics Summit 2015 in Chicago. “I want to keep it here and grow demand and create new applications.”
Powers is executive vice president of sales and marketing for Montvale, N.J.-based AEP, North America’s sixth-largest film and sheet maker, according to a recent Plastics News ranking. AEP posted sales of almost $1.2 billion in its 2014 fiscal year. The firm employs 2,500 at 12 plants and is the region’s largest custom films maker, said Powers, who joined the firm in 1988.
He cited stand-up pouches and shrink film as growth areas for domestic film extruders. Powers also listed can liners, stretch film, T-shirt bags and car covers as markets where domestic products can replace imports.
“New shale gas has created a huge opportunity and challenge for the industry,” Powers said.
Similar comments in favor of domestic production were made by Chris Quinn, president and CEO of toymaker Step2 Co. LLC of Streetsboro, Ohio. Step2 is North America’s largest rotational molder, with sales of $175 million.
“We can keep resin in the U.S. and grow demand,” said Quinn. “Offshore labor costs are increasing and the supply chain can be complex. You’ve also got issues with intellectual property and geopolitical risks.”
With billions of pounds of new PE resin set to come on, Quinn said Step2 “is moving from a transactional to a transformational relationship” with suppliers Nova Chemicals, Dow Chemical Co. and ExxonMobil Chemical Co.
“You have to understand that it’s a journey,” said Quinn, who held management posts with shoemaker New Balance and Procter & Gamble before joining Step2 earlier this year.
He added that Step2 will increase its capital expenditures by 15-20 percent in 2016 — with all of the new funding going toward product innovation.
The American Chemistry Council estimates that half of the new U.S. resin capacity will be exported. But the half that will stay at home will lead to new capacity in plastics processing, as well as production of compounds and additives, according to Martha Moore, ACC’s senior director of policy analysis and economics.
The investments in the United States will total $46.8 billion and create 127,500 direct jobs, she said.
Since 2008, ACC has tracked almost 250 new shale-based U.S. chemical projects valued at $153 billion. The trade group also has compiled more than 500 plastic processor expansions since mid-2012. Of that list, 70 percent are expansions, with the remainder being new construction.
“There’s more of a desire for ‘Made in USA’ products,” Moore said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) And For 2016: Democratic Race For U.S. Senate Is One To Watch
Nov 1, 2015 | Pittsburgh Post- Gazette
By Chris Potter
It may seem too early to think about the 2016 elections: Many voters haven’t even finished ignoring this year’s judicial races yet.
But politicos are already scrutinizing the Democrats seeking to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey next year. And the candidate with the most unorthodox campaign may not even be the tattooed, 6-foot-8-inch mayor of Braddock.
To be sure, John Fetterman is unusual, possessing what the candidate himself calls a “freak-show appearance” and a singular narrative about his efforts to restore his long-suffering mill town. “What we’re doing in Braddock isn’t partisan or political,” he said. “It’s just trying to rebuild a community.”
He might also seem a dark horse against two Democrats who’ve run statewide before: retired Adm. Joe Sestak, a former congressman who narrowly lost to Mr. Toomey in 2010, and Katie McGinty, who finished well behind Gov. Tom Wolf in 2014 and later became his chief of staff.
But Mr. Fetterman’s campaign isn’t merely a feel-good exercise.
“We have an incredibly gifted team [with] plenty of horsepower,” Mr. Fetterman said. It’s being managed by Bill Hyers, who handled New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s successful campaign, and other heavy hitters may get on board.
Larry Ceisler, a longtime political analyst in Philadelphia, said Mr. Fetterman was attracting interest from political insiders there. “They are getting calls from D.C. and some very credible people saying, ‘You should talk to this guy and take him seriously.’ ”
A serious primary campaign will likely cost at least $4 million, said Christopher Nicholas, a veteran consultant who has worked on statewide Republican campaigns. In its first 17 days, Mr. Fetterman’s campaign raised just under $169,000, of which over $30,000 came from family members. But more than a third of the funds were donated in sums of less than $200, which Mr. Fetterman touts as proof of strong grass-roots support.
Currently, most of the bigger money seems inclined to Ms. McGinty, who raised more than $990,000 between early August and the end of September. Of that, $106,500 came from committees tied to interest groups such as unions, which can also provide political manpower on Election Day.
Ms. McGinty’s bid has been helped by the backing of Mr. Wolf, and supporters ranging from Kutztown Mayor Sandra Green to the United Steelworkers.
“In a relatively short period, she’s demonstrated that she has broad-based support,” said McGinty spokesman Mike Mikus.
High-powered backing can be a double-edged sword at a time when voters seem fed up with party elites, said Jim Burn, a one-time chair of the state Democratic Party. “You almost don’t want to get endorsed by the quote-unquote establishment,” he said. “She has to show that she’s her own person. But she is very personable, and has the ability to connect.”
In fact, Mr. Mikus said Ms. McGinty’s early fundraising included 2,300 people who’d contributed less than $200. “It shows people believe that Katie can get things done,” he said.
Mr. Sestak, meanwhile, is waging a near-insurgency in the face of opposition from party elders. Its centerpiece is a “Walking in Your Shoes” campaign, which began with a statewide hike last spring and continued Friday with a 3-mile walk between events in Pittsburgh. The campaign frequently surfaces to fire off press releases at Mr. Toomey before blending back into the countryside — at up to 200 events for other causes each year, his campaign said.
Mr. Nicholas said that approach plays to Mr. Sestak’s strength as an “indefatigable” retail campaigner, one with “supporters from more pockets throughout the state because he’s been campaigning since 2009.”
Between July and September, however, Mr. Sestak reaped just under $551,000 in contributions, well below Ms. McGinty’s haul. Less than $5,000 of Mr. Sestak’s support came from political committees, as he’s been unable to match Ms. McGinty’s labor backing.
Still, his early start in the race leaves him with $2.4 million in cash, and his campaign seemed unfazed by recent financial news, or by Ms. McGinty’s success with unions. In a statement, it touted his 100 percent rating from the AFL-CIO during his time in Congress, and said, “Joe wants to represent people, not organizations.”
Mr. Toomey, who beat Mr. Sestak by just 2 percentage points in 2010, appears well-positioned to face whichever candidate wins next spring. His campaign is already sitting on a war chest of nearly $8.6 million, and outside interests, including the American Chemistry Council and a conservative veterans group, have already been advertising on his behalf.
In August, a Quinnipiac University poll showed Mr. Toomey leading Mr. Sestak and Ms. Ginty by 15- and 16-point margins, respectively. A Franklin & Marshall poll that same month showed Mr. Toomey holding a slightly wider lead over both candidates.
Mr. Fetterman’s name wasn’t polled until early October, when a Public Policy Polling survey showed tighter margins for Mr. Toomey. But the PPP poll showed Democratic voters with no clear preference for a champion: Mr. Fetterman was the pick of 14 percent of Democrats, while Mr. Sestak and Ms. McGinty were in the 20s.
“The numbers don’t mean much right now,” said PPP director Tom Jensen. “All three of these folks have a chance.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Test Your Knowledge Of Election Weirdness
Oct 30, 2015 | Seattle Times
By Test Your Knowledge Of Election Weirdness
Only 24 percent of you voted in the primary election in August.
If you’re in that hardy group that managed to fill out a piece of paper and put it in the mail, you can blame the pathetic 76 percent for what follows — our annual quiz of the political season’s lowlifes, low blows and low comedy.
Or maybe they’re blaming you. In any case, answers are at the end. At which point you’ll probably be blaming me:
1.Fill in the blank. Seattle City Council candidate Sandy Brown said he’s voting for the big roads levy because: “I’m from Seattle and so I always ___.”
A) Vote for whatever levy is on the ballot.
B) Vote yes because it’s more inclusive than voting no.
C) Do as I’m told.
2.Six days before the election in which three tax increases are on Seattle voters’ ballots, City Councilmember Kshama Sawant held a news conference to urge adoption of which of the following?
A) A business-employee tax
B) A millionaire’s tax
c) Developer-impact fees
D) A commercial parking tax
E) All of the above
3.Who is “Eddie Spaghetti?”
A) It’s the nickname given to Mayor Ed Murray for wilting on so many of his positions.
B) It’s Tim Eyman’s associate, who said complaining signature gatherers should be “stoned to death.”
C) It’s the top menu item at the new “Murraysville” homeless camp.
4. Complete the question City Councilmember Tim Burgess posed to his wife as they headed into the fall campaign: “Do you think I’m ___?”
A) Not liberal enough?
B) A condescending (blank) hole?
C) Too Christian for this town?
5. Republicans in Seattle’s 34th Legislative District gave a surprising endorsement this year to which candidate? A) Burgess, because they heard his wife answered “all of the above.”
B) Port Commission candidate Goodspaceguy, because they heard he was a capitalist.
C) Sawant, because the Republicans have given up around here.
6. Which campaign employed Moxie Media, a consulting company that got one of the largest fines in state history in 2011 for fabricating mailings and faking voter phone calls?
A) The Seattle roads campaign that exaggerated the results of the last roads levy.
B) The independent developer campaign that tried to blackmail a City Council candidate.
C) The campaign for Honest Elections.
7. How much out-of-state cash from big-money contributors fueled the Honest Elections campaign-finance drive?
A) None, silly. It’s an initiative to get big money out of politics.
B) $717,000, the second-most in city history (behind the American Chemistry Council’s 2009 campaign against a bag tax).
8. Which campaigner added “Go Hawks!” at the end of a controversial statement?
A) City Council candidate Pamela Banks, after saying that Kshama Sawant is “not from here.”
B) A developer lobbyist, after trying to coerce City Council candidate Jon Grant into dropping a lawsuit.
C) Tim Eyman, after the state Public Disclosure Commission accused him of an “intentional flouting” of campaign-finance laws.
9. What was the name of the developer-backed political committee that tried to blackmail council candidate Jon Grant?
A) Seattle Needs Ethical Leaders
B) Seattle Needs More Development
C) Seattle Needs More Irony
Match the political actor with the action.
10. Put up “NOT FOR SALE” posters, despite leading in money-raising.
11. Had so much campaign cash that spent $2,055 on tattoos.
12. Listed education in the voters’ guide as “UW Evans School” and “Harvard Kennedy School,” instead of the truth, a degree from Green River Community College.
13. Described herself as an “old white woman” who put more than $300,000 in to oppose the Seattle roads levy.
A) Julie Wise, candidate for King County Elections director
B) Aurora Avenue business owner Faye Garneau
C) Anti-poaching Initiative 1401
D) Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant
14.To what does the phrase “Serious young man, blank expression” refer?
a) It’s how the police report described City Councilmember Mike O’ Brien after he was arrested in his kayak.
b) It’s how outgoing City Councilmember Jean Godden described all four candidates who ran against her.
c) It’s the name of the stock photo used on a Pamela Banks mailer claiming Kshama Sawant is out of touch with her constituents.
15. And finally, to what was City Council candidate Pamela Banks referring when she said something was done “to the community, not for the community.”
a) One of those road diets.
b) One of those tax levies.
c) The election itself.
ANSWERS: 1. A; 2. E; 3. B; 4. B; 5. B; 6. C; 7. B; 8. B; 9. A; 10. D; 11. C; 12. A; 13. B; 14. C; 15. A
-
(ACC Mentioned) Carus Group Names New CEO
Nov 2, 2015 | My Web Times
Carus Group, a leading global provider of environmental solutions, announced Monday the promotion of its new chief executive officer, according to a press release from its company.
Effective Jan. 1, Dave Kuzy, currently Carus’ President and Chief Operating Officer, will succeed Inga Carus as CEO of the 100-year-old company.
Carus will continue to serve as the company’s chairman, a position she has had since 2013. She has been with Carus for 23 years, the last 10 as CEO. Carus says she has been planning this transition for some time, and looks forward to focusing more attention on growth initiatives for Carus as well as personal endeavors.
“I want to spend my time focusing on the growth of Carus, to enable us to grow the number of jobs in the area," she said. "I also want to work with other business leaders in the Starved Rock Country Alliance to support the pillars of tourism, the arts and culture, and education, as a means to promote prosperity in our area.”
She added: “We recruited Dave in 2013 with this transition in mind. Since then he has proven that he has the leadership, experience and desire to lead Carus to further growth and success. This company has been in my family for three generations. Selecting a new CEO is not a decision I take lightly, and I have complete confidence that Dave is the right person for the position.”
Kuzy joined Carus with more than 25 years of leadership experience in operations, sales, marketing, product and business management and strategic planning. He most recently worked for Albemarle Corporation as vice president, refinery catalyst. He also held leadership positions at Engelhard Corporation (now BASF), Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemical Company and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.
“I’m honored to accept this position, and I look forward to further strengthening Carus’ focus on growth, supported by an innovative and ‘customer first’ culture. We’re advancing into new markets with new technologies. I’m surrounded by a great team of leaders here at Carus, and I’m excited for what the future holds,” said Kuzy after Carus’ board approved his promotion.
Acquisitions have long been, and will continue to be, a key component of Carus’ growth strategy.
“Carus has completed 10 acquisitions to date, and we are actively looking for new opportunities that will complement our existing businesses and fuel our growth aspirations,” Kuzy said.
Kuzy is a graduate of the University of Akron, where he received his Master of Business Administration in Finance. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh.
Founded in La Salle in 1915, Carus produces and supplies specialty chemistries and services for water treatment, soil remediation, and air purification to customers around the world. Carus is a member of the American Chemistry Council and actively participates in the industry’s award-winning Responsible Care initiative, sharing a common commitment to improve environmental, health, safety, and security performance.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Science Advisers to Weigh in on Proposition 65 Proposal
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Scientific advisers for California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment will weigh in Nov. 9 on whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to consider adding nickel, pentachlorophenol, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfate (PFOS) and tetrachloroethylene to Proposition 65's list of reproductive toxicants.
The agency released a preliminary toxicological evaluation of the five chemicals in August. For each of the chemicals, the review identified at least two epidemiologic studies showing an association between exposure and an increased risk of development and reproductive harm.
The OEHHA advisers, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, will decide whether any of the chemicals will move on to the next step in the listing process, which would require the development of hazard identification materials.
Proposition 65 is California's landmark right-to-know law, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act. Approved by voters in 1986, the law requires the state to maintain a list of chemicals known to cause cancer and reproductive and developmental harm.
Businesses must provide warnings whenever exposing the public to listed chemicals.
Industry Opposes Listings
In written comments submitted on the agency's 472 page report, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups said there is inadequate evidence to support moving the listing proposal for nickel forward.
Most Californians are not exposed to metallic nickel (CAS No. 7440-02-0), the forms of nickel OEHHA has identified, according to a report the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association submitted. Outside occupational settings, exposure to metallic nickel “via inhalation or the oral route is negligible or non-existent. Similarly, despite dermal exposure to metallic nickel in some consumer items, dermal absorption is very low and the contribution of this exposure route to systemic blood nickel levels is essentially undetectable,” the report said.
As for pentachlorophenol (CAS No. 87-86-5), the Western Wood Preservers Institute said there is insufficient data that the chemical used to treat utility poles and railroad ties poses harm to the general public.
The 3M Co. said in its comments that strong federal restrictions on the manufacture and use of PFOA and PFOS precursors and the Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary stewardship program have resulted in a “downward trend” in levels of the chemicals in human blood over the last decade. As a result, OEHHA need not develop the costly hazard identification materials required for listing the chemicals, 3M said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council submitted comments in favor of advancing PFOA, which had been used in making nonstick cookware, and PFOS, used in stain repellents and other coatings, toward the listing process.
No comments were submitted on tetrachloroethylene (CAS No. 127-18-4), also called perchloroethylene, which is used in dry cleaning fabrics and in metal degreasing operations.
Oral Comments to Be Heard
At the all-day meeting in Sacramento Nov. 9, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee will take additional comment on evidence as to whether the five chemicals are associated with reproductive or developmental harm.
The committee also will consider whether methyl-n-butyl ketone (CAS No. 591-78-6) should be removed from the Proposition 65 list and if 2,5-hexanedione, a metabolite of the industrial solvent should be added to the list.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why the United States Leaves Deadly Chemicals on the Market
Nov 2, 2015 | In These Times
By Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman
Scientists are trained to express themselves rationally. They avoid personal attacks when they disagree. But some scientific arguments become so polarized that tempers fray. There may even be shouting.
Such is the current state of affairs between two camps of scientists: health effects researchers and regulatory toxicologists. Both groups study the effects of chemical exposures in humans. Both groups have publicly used terms like “irrelevant,” “arbitrary,” “unfounded” and “contrary to all accumulated physiological understanding” to describe the other’s work. Privately, the language becomes even harsher, with phrases such as “a pseudoscience,” “a religion” and “rigged.”
The rift centers around the best way to measure the health effects of chemical exposures. The regulatory toxicologists typically rely on computer simulations called “physiologically based pharmacokinetic” (PBPK) modeling. The health effects researchers—endocrinologists, developmental biologists and epidemiologists, among others— draw their conclusions from direct observations of how chemicals actually affect living things.
The debate may sound arcane, but the outcome could directly affect your health. It will shape how government agencies regulate chemicals for decades to come: how toxic waste sites are cleaned up, how pesticides are regulated, how workers are protected from toxic exposure and what chemicals are permitted in household items. Those decisions will profoundly affect public health: the rates at which we suffer cancer, diabetes, obesity, infertility, and neurological problems like attention disorders and lowered IQ.
The link from certain chemicals to these health effects is real. In a paper published earlier this year, a group of leading endocrinologists concluded with 99 percent certainty that environmental exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals causes health problems. They estimate that this costs the European Union healthcare system about $175 billion a year.
Closer to home, Americans are routinely sickened by toxic chemicals whose health effects have been long known. To cite one infamous example, people exposed to the known carcinogen formaldehyde in FEMA trailers after Hurricane Katrina suffered headaches, nosebleeds and difficulty breathing. Dozens of cancer cases were later reported. Then there are workplace exposures, which federal government estimates link to as many as 20,000 cancer deaths a year and hundreds of thousands of illnesses.
“We are drowning our world in untested and unsafe chemicals, and the price we are paying in terms of our reproductive health is of serious concern,” wrote the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics in a statement released on October 1.
Yet chemical regulation in the United States has proceeded at a glacial pace. And corporate profit is at the heart of the story.
That the chemical industry exerts political influence is well documented. What our investigation reveals is that, 30 years ago, corporate interests began to control not just the political process but the science itself. Industry not only funds research to cast doubt on known environmental health hazards; it has also shaped an entire field of science— regulatory toxicology—to downplay the risk of toxic chemicals.
Our investigation traces this web of influence to a group of scientists working for the Department of Defense (DOD) in the 1970s and 1980s—the pioneers of PBPK modeling. It quickly became clear that this type of modeling could be manipulated to minimize the appearance of chemical risk. PBPK methodology has subsequently been advanced by at least two generations of researchers—including many from the original DOD group—who move between industry, government agencies and industry-backed research groups, often with little or no transparency.
The result is that chemicals known to be harmful to human health remain largely unregulated in the United States—often with deadly results. For chemicals whose hazards are just now being recognized, such as the common plastics ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) and other endocrine disruptors, this lack of regulation is likely to continue unless the federal chemical review process becomes more transparent and relies less heavily on PBPK modeling.
Here we lay out the players, the dueling paradigms and the high-stakes health consequences of getting it wrong. The dawn of PBPK simulation
The 1970s and 1980s saw a blizzard of environmental regulation. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Toxic Substances Control Act, along with the laws that established Superfund and Community Right-to-Know Programs, for the first time required companies— and military bases—using and producing chemicals to account for their environmental and health impacts. This meant greater demand for chemical risk assessments as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to establish safety standards for workplace exposures and environmental cleanups.
In the 1980s, the now-defunct Toxic Hazards Research Unit at the WrightPatterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was investigating the toxicity and health effects of chemicals used by the military. Of particular concern to the DOD were the many compounds used by the military to build, service and maintain aircraft, vehicles and other machinery: fuels and fuel additives, solvents, coatings and adhesives. The military is responsible for about 900 of the approximately 1,300 currently listed Superfund sites, many of which have been contaminated by these chemicals for decades.
In the mid-1980s, scientists at the Wright-Patterson Toxic Hazards Research Unit began using PBPK simulations to track how chemicals move through the body. Known as in silico (in computers) models, these are an alternative to testing chemicals in vivo (in live animals) or in vitro (in a test tube). They allow scientists to estimate what concentrations of a chemical (or its breakdown products) end up in a particular organ or type of tissue, and how long they take to exit the body. The information can then be correlated with experimental data to set exposure limits—or not.
PBPK simulations made testing faster and cheaper, something attractive to both industry and regulators. But the PBPK model has drawbacks. “It tells you nothing about effects,” says Linda Birnbaum, director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Toxicology Program (NTP). Observational studies and laboratory experiments, on the other hand, are designed to discover how a chemical affects biological processes.
Even regulatory toxicologists who support PBPK acknowledge its limitations: “[PBPK models] are always going to be limited by the quality of the data that go into them,” says toxicologist James Lamb, who worked for the NTP and EPA in the 1980s and is now principal scientist at the consulting firm Exponent.
The late health effects researcher Louis Guillette, a professor at the Medical University of South Carolina famous for studies on DDT’s hormonedisrupting effects in Florida alligators, put it more bluntly: “PBPK? My immediate response: Junk in, junk out. The take-home is that most of the models [are] only as good as your understanding of the complexity of the system.”
Many biologists say PBPK-based risk assessments begin with assumptions that are too narrow, and thus often fail to fully capture how a chemical exposure can affect health. For example, a series of PBPK studies and reviews by toxicologist Justin Teeguarden of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., and his colleagues suggested that BPA breaks down into less harmful compounds and exits the body so rapidly that it is essentially harmless. Their research began with certain assumptions: that BPA only mimics estrogen weakly, that it affects only the body’s estrogen system, and that 90 percent of BPA exposure is through digestion of food and beverages. However, health effects research has shown that BPA mimics estrogen closely, can affect the body’s androgen and thyroid hormone systems, and can enter the body via pathways like the skin and the tissues of the mouth. When PBPK models fail to include this evidence, they tend to underestimate risk.
Because of its reliance on whatever data are included, PBPK modeling can be deliberately manipulated to produce desired outcomes. Or, as University of Notre Dame biologist Kristin Shrader-Frechette, who specializes in human health risk assessment, says: “Models can offer a means of avoiding the conclusions derived from actual experiments.” In other words, PBPK models can be customized to provide results that work to industry’s advantage.
That’s not to say PBPK itself is to blame. “Let’s not throw the baby out completely with the bathwater,” says New York University associate professor of environmental medicine and health policy Leo Trasande. “However, when you have biology telling you there are basic flaws in the model, that’s a compelling reason that it’s time for a paradigm shift.” A handy tool for industry
That PBPK studies could be used to make chemicals appear safer was as clear in the 1980s as it is now. In a 1988 paper touting the new technique, Wright-Patterson scientists explained how their modeling had prompted the EPA to stop its regulation process for a chemical of great concern to the military: methylene chloride.
Methylene chloride is widely used as a solvent and as an ingredient in making plastics, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and other industrial products. By the 1990s, the U.S. military would be the country’s second greatest user. Methylene chloride was—and remains—regulated under the Clean Air Act as a hazardous air pollutant because of its carcinogenic and neurotoxic effects.
Between 1985 and 1986, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimated that about 1 million workers a year were exposed to methylene chloride, and the EPA classified the compound as a “probable human carcinogen.” A number of unions, including United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers, also petitioned OSHA to limit on-the-job exposure to methylene chloride.
In 1986, OSHA began the process of setting occupational exposure limits. Stakeholders were invited to submit public comments.
Among the materials submitted was a PBPK study by Melvin Andersen, Harvey Clewell—both then working at Wright-Patterson—and several other scientists, including two employed by methylene chloride product manufacturer Dow Chemical. Published in 1987, this study concluded, “Conventional risk analyses greatly overestimate the risk in humans exposed to low concentrations [of methylene chloride].”
Later that year, the &QueryTerms=#”“>EPA revised its previous health assessment of methylene chloride, citing the Wright-Patterson study to conclude that the chemical was nine times less risky than previously estimated. The EPA “has halted its rulemaking on methylene chloride [based on our studies],” wrote WrightPatterson scientists in 1988.
OSHA, too, considered the WrightPatterson study in its methylene chloride assessment—and its rulemaking dragged on another 10 years before the agency finally limited exposure to the chemical.
The usefulness of PBPK modeling to industry did not escape the WrightPatterson researchers. “The potential impact,” wrote Andersen, Clewell and their colleagues in 1988, “is far reaching and not limited to methylene chloride.” Using PBPK models to set exposure limits could help avoid setting “excessively conservative”—i.e., protective— limits that could lead to “unnecessary expensive controls” and place “constraints on important industrial processes.” In other words, PBPK models could be used to set less-stringent environmental and health standards, and save industry money.
So far, they’ve been proven right. The work done at Wright-Patterson set the stage for the next 30-plus years. Results obtained using PBPK modeling—especially in industry-funded research, often conducted by former Wright-Patterson scientists—have downplayed the risk and delayed the regulation of numerous widely used and commercially lucrative chemicals. These include formaldehyde, styrene, tricholorethylene, BPA and the pesticide chlorpyrifos. For many such chemicals, PBPK studies contradict what actual biological experiments conclude. Regulators often defer to the PBPK studies anyway. A web of influence
At the time that PBPK modelling was being developed, the chemical industry was struggling with its public image. The Bhopal, India, disaster—the methyl isocyanate release that killed and injured thousands—happened in 1984. The following year, a toxic gas release at a West Virginia Union Carbide plant sent about 135 people to hospitals.
In response to these incidents, new federal regulations required companies to account for the storage, use and release of hazardous chemicals. The minutes from a May 1988 Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) meeting show industry was feeling the pressure. Noting the federal scrutiny and the growing testing requirements, the CMA recommended that industry help “develop exposure data” and “explore innovative ways to limit required testing to that which is needed.”
Industry had already begun to do this by founding a number of research institutes such as the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT), a nonprofit toxicology research institute (renamed the Hamner Institutes in an act of linguistic detoxification in 2007). This period also saw the rise of for-profit consulting firms like Environ (1982), Gradient (1985), ChemRisk (1985) and K.S. Crump and Company (1986), with which industry would collaborate advantageously in the following decades.
“Our goal was to do the science that would help the EPA and other regulatory bodies make the policies,” explained William Greenlee, Hamner president and CEO, in an interview for a business website. Indeed, over the past 30 years, Hamner and these consultancies have produced hundreds of PBPK studies, often with the support of chemical companies or trade groups. Overwhelmingly, these studies downplay or cast doubt on chemicals’ health effects—and delay regulation.
“I have seen how scientists from the Hamner Institutes can present information in a way that carefully shapes or controls a narrative,” says Laura Vandenberg, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at University of Massachusetts Amherst. She explains that Hamner scientists often use narrow time windows or present data in a limited context, rejecting information that does not conform to their models. “These are the kinds of tactics used to manufacture doubt,” she says.
A close look at the authors of studies produced by these industry-linked research groups reveals a web of influence traceable to Wright-Patterson (see chart on following page). At least 10 researchers employed at or contracted by Wright-Patterson in the 1980s went on to careers in toxicology at CIIT/Hamner, for-profit consulting firms or the EPA. About half have held senior positions at Hamner, including the co-authors of many of the early Wright-Patterson PBPK studies: Melvin Anderson, now a chief scientific officer at Hamner, and Harvey Clewell, now a senior investigator at Hamner and principal scientist at the consulting firm ENVIRON. “I’m probably given credit as the person who brought PBPK into toxicology and risk assessment,” Andersen told In These Times.
A revolving door between these industry-affiliated groups and federal regulators was also set in motion. More than a dozen researchers have moved from the EPA to these for-profit consultancies; a similar number have gone in the other direction, ending up at the EPA or other federal agencies.
Further blurring the public-private line, CIIT/Hamner has received millions of dollars in both industry and taxpayer money. The group stated on its website in 2007 that $18 million of its $21.5 million annual operating budget came from the “chemical and pharmaceutical industry.” Information about its corporate funders is no longer detailed there, but Hamner has previously listed as clients and supporters the American Chemistry Council (formerly the CMA, and one of the most powerful lobbyists against chemical regulation), American Petroleum Institute, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow, ExxonMobil, Chevron and the Formaldehyde Council. At the same time, over the past 30 years, CIIT/Hamner has received nearly $160 million in grants and contracts from the EPA, DOD and Department of Health and Human Services. In sum, since the 1980s, these federal agencies have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to industry-affiliated research institutes like Hamner.
But the federal reliance on industry-linked researchers extends further. Since 2000, the EPA has signed a number of cooperative research agreements with the ACC and CIIT/ Hamner. All involve chemical toxicity research that includes PBPK modeling. And in 2014, Hamner outlined additional research it will be conducting for the EPA’s next generation of chemical testing—the ToxCast and Tox21 programs. Over the past five years, Hamner has received funding for this same research from the ACC and Dow.
Meanwhile, the EPA regularly contracts with for-profit consultancies to perform risk assessments, assemble peer review panels and select the scientific literature used in chemical evaluations. This gives these private organizations considerable sway in the decision-making process, often with little transparency about ties to chemical manufacturers. The upshot: Experts selected to oversee chemical regulation often overrepresent the industry perspective.
These cozy relationships have not gone unnoticed; the EPA has been called to task by both its own Office of Inspector General and by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. “These arrangements have raised concerns that ACC or its members could potentially influence, or appear to influence, the scientific results that may be used to make future regulatory decisions,” wrote the GAO in a 2005 report.
Asked for comment by In These Times, the EPA said these arrangements do not present conflicts of interest. Decades of deadly delay
PBPK studies have stalled the regulation of numerous chemicals. In each case, narrowly focused models developed by industry-supported research concluded that risks were lower than previously estimated or were not of concern at likely exposure levels.
Take, for example, methylene chloride, the subject of the 1987 paper Wright-Patterson scientists bragged had halted the EPA’s regulatory process. Despite the chemical being identified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the U.N. International Agency for Research on Cancer, a “reasonably anticipated” human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and an “occupational carcinogen” by OSHA, the EPA has yet to limit its use. EPA researchers noted this year that the 1987 PBPK model by the WrightPatterson scientists remains the basis for the agency’s risk assessment.
Today, methylene chloride remains in use—to produce electronics, pesticides, plastics and synthetic fabrics, and in paint and varnish strippers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, OSHA and NIOSH have issued health warnings, and the FDA bars methylene chloride from cosmetics— but no U.S. agency has totally banned the chemical. The EPA estimates that some 230,000 workers are exposed directly each year. According to OSHA, between 2000 and 2011, at least 14 people died in the United States of asphyxiation or heart failure after using methylene chloride-containing products to refinish bathtubs. The Center for Public Integrity reports that methylene chloride exposure prompted more than 2,700 calls to U.S. poison control centers between 2008 and 2013.
Another telling example of industry-funded PBPK studies’ influence is formaldehyde. This chemical remains largely unrestricted in the United States, despite being a well-recognized respiratory and neurological toxicant linked to nasal cancer and leukemia, as well as to allergic reactions and skin irritation. The EPA’s toxicological review of formaldehyde, begun in 1990, remains incomplete, in no small part because of delays prompted by the introduction of studies—including PBPK models conducted by CIIT/Hamner—questioning its link to leukemia.
If that link is considered weak or uncertain, that means formaldehyde—or the companies that employ the sickened workers—won’t be held responsible for the disease. The chemical industry is well aware that “more people have leukemia … than have nasal tumors,” says recently retired NIEHS toxicologist James Huff.
Some of this CIIT/Hamner research was conducted between 2000 and 2005 with funding from an $18,750,000 EPA grant. In 2010, Hamner received $5 million from Dow, a formaldehydeproduct manufacturer, for toxicity testing, including PBPK modeling. The ACC, which opposes formaldehyde restriction, also supported this research.
Consequently, apart from a few state regulations and a pending EPA proposal to limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products like plywood, companies can still use the chemical—as in the FEMA trailers.
Cosmetics and personal-care products can also be sources of formaldehyde exposure. This made headlines in 2011 after hair salon workers using a smoothing product called Brazilian Blowout reported nausea, sore throats, rashes, chronic sinus infections, asthma-like symptoms, bloody noses, dizziness and other neurological effects. “You can’t see it … but you feel it in your eyes and it gives you a high,” salon owner and hair stylist Cortney Tanner tells In These Times. “They don’t teach this stuff in beauty school,” she says, and no one warns stylists about these products or even suggests using a ventilator.
OSHA has issued a hazard alert for these products and the FDA has issued multiple warnings, most recently in September, but regulations prevent federal agencies from pulling the products from store shelves. So, for formaldehyde, as in the case of the paint strippers containing methylene chloride, exposures continue. BPA rings alarm bells
The chemical currently at the center of the most heated debates about consumer exposure is BPA. The building block of polycarbonate plastics, BPA is used in countless products, including the resins that line food cans and coat the thermal receipt paper at cash registers and ATMs. While scientific evidence of adverse health effects from environmentally typical levels of BPA mounts, and many manufacturers and retailers have responded to public concern by changing their products, federal regulatory authorities still resist restricting the chemical’s use.
BPA does not produce immediate, acute effects, like those experienced by salon workers exposed to formaldehyde or machinists working with methylene chloride. But in laboratory tests on animals, BPA is a known endocrine disruptor. Structurally similar to natural hormones, endocrine disruptors can interfere with normal cellular processes and trigger abnormal biochemical responses. These can prompt numerous health problems, including cancer, infertility, and metabolic and neurological disorders. BPA has also been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.
To promote the idea that BPA is safe, the chemical industry routinely lobbies policymakers and “educates” consumers. What has not been widely discussed, however, is how industry has backed PBPK studies that marginalized research showing risks from environmentally typical levels of BPA. Many of these doubt-inducing studies have been conducted by researchers whose careers can be linked to the PBPK work done at Wright-Patterson. In published critiques, health effects researchers—among them Gail Prins and Wade Welshons—have detailed the many ways in which these PBPK models fail to accurately reflect BPA exposure. PBPK and endocrine disruption
Over the past several decades, our evolving understanding of our bodies’ responses to chemicals has challenged previous toxicological assumptions— including those that are fed into PBPK models. This is particularly true of endocrine disruptors.
Cause-and-effect relationships between endocrine disruptors and health problems can be hard to pinpoint. We now know that early—even prenatal— exposure to endocrine disruptors can set the stage for adult disease. In addition, a pregnant woman’s exposures may affect not only her children but also her grandchildren. These transgenerational effects have been documented in animal experiments. The classic human evidence came from victims of DES, a drug prescribed in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s to prevent miscarriages. Daughters of women who took the endocrine disruptor developed reproductive cancers, and preliminary research suggests their daughters may be at greater risk for cancer and other reproductive problems.
“The transgenerational work raises an incredible specter,” says Andrea Gore, who holds the Vacek Chair in Pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin and edits the influential journal Endocrinology. “It’s not just what you’re exposed to now, it’s what your ancestors were exposed to.”
Complicating PBPK modeling further, hormone-mimicking chemicals, just like hormones, can have biological effects at concentrations as low as parts per trillion. In addition, environmental exposures most often occur as mixtures, rather than in isolation. And each individual may respond differently.
“PBPK doesn’t come close” to capturing the reality of endocrine disruption, the late developmental biologist Louis Guillette told In These Times, in part because modelers are “still asking questions about one chemical exposure with one route of exposure.” Even for health effects researchers, understanding of mixtures’ effects is in its infancy.
The debate over how endocrine disruption can be represented in PBPK models has intensified the unease between regulatory toxicologists and health effects researchers. That tension is particularly well-illustrated by a recent series of events that also reveal how some journal editors privilege the industry’s point of view. A life-and-death debate
In February 2012 the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) published a report intended to inform regulation worldwide. The authors were an international group of health effects researchers with long experience studying endocrine disruption.
“There is an increasing burden of disease across the globe in which [endocrine disruptors] are likely playing an important role, and future generations may also be affected,” said the report. These diseases, it continued, are being seen in humans and wildlife, and include male and female reproductive disorders, changes in the numbers of male and female babies born, thyroid and adrenal gland disorders, hormone-related cancers and neurodevelopmental diseases.
The backlash from toxicologists was immediate. Over the next few months—as the EU prepared to begin its regulatory decision-making on endocrine disruptors—the editors of 14 toxicology journals each published an identical commentary harshly criticizing the WHO/UNEP conclusions.
The commentary included a letter from more than 70 toxicologists urging the EU not to adopt the endocrinedisruption framework. The letter said that the WHO/UNEP report could not be allowed to inform policy because its science is “contrary to all accumulated physiological understanding.”
This commentary was followed by further attacks. One critique, published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, was funded and vetted by the ACC.
These commentaries infuriated health effects researchers. Twenty endocrine journal editors, 28 associate editors and 56 other scientists—including several WHO/UNEP report authors—signed a statement in Endocrinology, saying in part:
The dismissive approach to endocrine disruption science put forth … is unfounded, as it is [not] based on the fundamental principles of how the endocrine system works and how chemicals can interfere with its normal function.
Endocrinology editor Andrea Gore tells In These Times that she and other health effects researchers don’t think the scientifically demonstrated dangers of endocrine disruptors are subject to debate. “There are fundamental differences between regulatory toxicologists and what I refer to as ‘people who understand the endocrine science.’ ”
The outcome of this debate and the structure of future regulatory toxicity testing in the United States and Europe is not yet clear. The EPA appears to be attempting to incorporate endocrine disruption into PBPK models, but many scientists are skeptical the process will produce reliable results, given the models’ limitations and the complexity of endocrine effects. From science to activism
Although couched in complex language, these arguments are not academic, but have profound implications for public health. Disorders and diseases, increasingly linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors— including metabolic, reproductive, developmental and neurological problems—are widespread and increasing. About 20 percent of U.S. adults show at least three of the five indicators of metabolic syndrome: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and heart disease. Neurological problems, including behavioral and learning disabilities in children as well as Parkinson’s disease, are increasing rapidly. Fertility rates in both men and women are declining. Globally, the average sperm count has dropped 50 percent in the last 50 years.
Scientists typically shy away from activism, but many now believe it’s what’s needed to punch through the machinations and inertia regarding chemical regulation. Shanna Swan, Mount Sinai professor of preventive medicine, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine, notes that some of the biggest reductions in chemical exposures have happened in response to consumer pressure on both industry and policymakers. Or, as the University of California’s Bruce Blumberg says, “I think we need to take the fight to the people.”
The Endocrine Society stressed the urgency of addressing these public health impacts in a statement released September 28. Not surprisingly, industry disagreed, calling this science “unsupported” and “still-unproven.”
Meanwhile, PBPK studies continue to succeed in sowing doubt about adverse health effects of endocrine disorders. Their extremely narrow focus leads to narrow conclusions that often result in calls for more research before regulation. In regulatory decisions, “the assumption is that if we don’t know something, it won’t hurt us,” says University of Massachusetts, Amherst professor of biology R. Thomas Zoeller. In other words, the burden of proof remains on health effects researchers to prove harm, not on industry to prove safety—and proving harm is difficult, especially when other scientists are seeding doubt.
But the clock is ticking. As Washington State University geneticist Pat Hunt told In These Times, “If we wait [to make regulatory decisions] for ‘proof’ in the form of compelling human data, it may be too late for us as a species.”
-
California to List Preservative Mixture as Carcinogen
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced Oct. 30 plans to add the complex mixture of pentachlorophenol and byproducts of its synthesis to the state's list of chemicals linked to cancer.
Pentachlorophenol is a wood preservative used on utility poles, railroad ties, wood pilings, fence posts and construction lumber and timber products. Federal regulations restrict its use.
California added pure pentachlorophenol (CAS No. 87-86-5) as a carcinogen to the list OEHHA maintains under Proposition 65 in 1990.
Proposition 65 is the state's landmark right-to-know law, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, that voters approved in 1986. The law requires businesses to provide warnings whenever exposing the public to unsafe levels of listed chemicals the state has identified as causing cancer or reproductive and developmental harm.
OEHHA now wants the complex mixture of the technical grade of pentachlorophenol and commonly found byproducts of its synthesis and pentachlorophenol sodium salt (CAS No. 131-52-2) identified under Proposition 65 as carcinogens.
Many of the by-products of pentachlorophenol synthesis are higher chlorinated dioxin compounds and may contribute to the chemical's carcinogenicity, according to the National Toxicology Program.
OEHHA is basing the listing on the National Toxicology Program's “2014 Report on Carcinogens,” which concluded “the complex mixture of pentachlorophenol and byproducts of its synthesis is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”
The National Toxicology Program report relied on limited evidence of carcinogenicity from human studies and “sufficient evidence” from animal studies linking exposure to the wood preservative to benign and malignant liver tumors in mice.
Report Satisfies Proposition 65 Criteria
OEHHA said the report satisfies the formal identification and sufficiency of evidence criteria under Proposition 65 regulations for listing under the “authoritative bodies mechanism,” an administrative process requiring listing of chemicals once other agencies, like the National Toxicology Program, have identified them as causing cancer.
Sodium pentachlorophenol is proposed for listing because the National Toxicology Program included it in the report's substance profile, OEHHA said in the Oct. 30 notice of intent to list.
Meanwhile, in a separate action, OEHHA is asking its scientific advisers to weigh in on whether there is sufficient data to also list pentachlorophenol as a reproductive and developmental toxicant (see related story).
OEHHA is accepting comments on the proposed listing through Nov. 30.
-
California Agency To Convene Science Advisory Panel
Nov 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will convene its Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP) to discuss the agency's draft alternatives analysis guidance document (CW 25 September 2015).
The draft guidance is the first of two documents that will provide a framework for completing the alternatives analyses required under the DTSC's Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The 12-13 November GRSP meetings will include discussion of the alternatives analysis document as well as an update on the implementation on the agency's three-year Priority Products Work Plan. Opportunities for public comment will be offered on both days.
The GRSP is the advisory group to the DTSC for scientific and technical matters, and for topics related to the implementation of the SCP programme (CW 17 January 2014). It is comprised of 15 panellists, representing corporations, governmental bodies, and academia.
The deadline for comments on the alternative assessment guidance has been extended to 16 November (CW 20 October 2015).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Most U.S. Chemical Plants Were Not Inspected In Recent Years, Group Finds
Nov 2, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Less than half of 13,868 U.S. chemical manufacturing facilities were inspected by federal or state governments during the past three to five years, says a new report by the Center for Effective Government, a watchdog group. Of the plants that were inspected, one-quarter had at least one serious workplace safety and environmental violation, according to the report.Seven facilities had more than 50 serious violations. The analysis is based on EPA, OSHA, and . . .
The rest of the article is inaccessible due to password protection.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Editorial: Railroads Need Time For Safety Fix
Oct 31, 2015 | The Bulletin
It came down to the wire, but Congress moved Wednesday to grant American railroads the time they need to get something called Positive Train Control up and running. In doing so, it avoided the prospect of a nationwide halt in rail service by the end of the year.
Congress moved in 2008 to require Positive Train Control, a system that warns a train’s engineer of coming danger. If the engineer does not slow, the train takes over and does it for him. Had PTC been in place in May, a deadly Amtrak crash in Philadelphia could have been avoided and eight lives saved. The system was to have been in place nationwide by Dec. 31.
It has been clear for several years that meeting the deadline was likely to be impossible.
According to the Government Accountability Office, which issued a report on the subject in 2013, the technology for PTC had not been fully developed when the law passed. Even today, not all the various components of PTC are ready to be put to use.
A nationwide PTC system on some 63,000 miles of track doesn’t come cheap. To date, railroads have spent nearly $6 billion on the system.
As for the deadline extension, it included a three-week extension of funding for a surface transportation highway bill. It gives railroads until the end of 2018 to get PTC up and running, with the possibility of another extension if it’s required.
That means that Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the railroad that serves Central Oregon, will not shut down after Halloween, as it had said it would. It means Amtrak will continue to run nationwide, and that goods will continue to move around the nation by rail in a relatively clean and inexpensive fashion.
And it means the national economy, which is not in recession but equally not in a dramatic growth spurt, will be spared the $30 billion loss the American Chemistry Council estimated a shutdown would cost in its first month. That was a pain worth avoiding.
-
(ACC Mentioned) PTC Extension Given; No To More Extensions
Oct 31, 2015 | The Daily Star-Journal
One scenario is to view Congress as the hero – going at the last moment to the aid of damsel-in-distress railroads tied to their own track – that at the last moment passed an extension to the Positive Train Control mandate.
Except that Congress is responsible for tying railroads to the track. In fairness, Congress did so for good reason.
Congress mandated in 2008 that railroads put Positive Train Control into place. During the seven years since then, railroads made progress on putting in PTC, but have not completed the task. They need about three more years.
Congress issued the PTC mandate for safety reasons. The system will slow or stop trains that go too fast. PTC should reduce the type of deadly wrecks that can occur, including earlier this year in Philadelphia when eight people died because an Amtrak train moved at roughly twice the safe speed.
Sen. Barbara Boxer and others in Congress balked at granting an extension to railroad. They reason that seven years should have been enough time to do the job. Their frustration is understandable.
Railroads said from the beginning they would need more time to get PTC in place. They have proven themselves right by not getting the job done by the deadline.
Congress then faced a tough situation: Grant an extension or see the nation’s railroads shut down with a devastating effect for the economy. A total rail service shutdown would reduce the nation’s work force by about 700,000 jobs and cost $30 billion in the first quarter of 2016, possibly ushering in a new recession, an American Chemistry Council study released this month suggests.
The House, and on Wednesday the Senate, granted the extension.
Sen. Claire McCaskill said the extension will hold railroads’ feet to the fire to make the new deadline. One should hope so.
To do less, to even consider another extension, would make Congress look more flaccid than Congress does already on this issue.
-
Montana Auditor Calls for Improved Rail Safety
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Anticipating an increase in oil shipments by rail, the Montana Legislative Audit Division called on the state to improve its railroad safety efforts.
In issuing the performance audit of railroad safety in Montana, the division Oct. 29 recommended that the state Public Service Commission and the Disaster & Emergency Services and Transportation departments all take a more active role in ensuring rail safety.
A spokesman for the PSC told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 30 that the commission will discuss the report the week of Nov. 2. Eric Sell added that the commission is scheduled to meet with the Legislative Audit Committee next week to discuss the report as well.
Sell said commission discussions will focus on whether the state can take a more active role in railroad safety. State authority on railroads is typically superseded by the federal government, he said. He said the commission will want to know whether it can act to improve rail safety, or whether its efforts will be limited to enforcing federal standards but doing so with state money. Simply put, he said, the state needs to know what authority it has and what steps it can take.
The report noted that the state is currently seeing about four trains a day carrying oil shipments from North Dakota's Bakken oil region. When a new crude oil transfer facility comes on line, however, the state could be seeing as many as 40 trains per week.
Rail Safety Risk Assessment
It said the current state rail safety inspection program is inadequate, that the absence of statewide emergency planning is leading to weaknesses in local emergency planning systems, and that there is a lack of hazardous materials response capability in a large portion of the state. It added that Montana first responders are not properly trained or equipped to respond to hazardous materials incidents and that the state highway-rail crossing safety program is adequate.
The division recommended that the PSC perform a state rail safety risk assessment and develop a state rail safety plan that would be reviewed annually by the Federal Railroad Administration. Further, it recommends the PSC work with the Department of Disaster & Emergency Services in emergency planning to ensure the rail safety program addresses risk in the state.
A spokeswoman for the division said it would not be commenting on the audit until after the Legislative Audit Committee meetings scheduled for Nov. 4 and 5.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
NTSB Endorses API Oil, Gas Pipeline Safety Approach
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Transportation Safety Board said Oct. 30 that the American Petroleum Institute's recently released oil and gas pipeline safety management system recommended practices exceeds expectations. The board recommended the development of a safety management system standard after a 2010 pipeline incident near Marshall, Mich., that resulted in about 20,000 barrels of crude oil being released into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The “broad and inclusive” standard, API 1173, shows API's “commitment to increasing safety in the pipeline industry,” NTSB Chairman Chris Hart said in a news release (131 DEN A-3, 7/9/15). API 1173 incorporates processes for companies to identify, monitor and address safety issues related to operations. The voluntary practice document that was developed over two years was released in July. The government hasn't ruled out regulating this area.
-
House Gears Up For Vote On 6-Year Authorization Plan
Nov 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
What appeared far-fetched a few months ago is now increasingly probable: Congress will soon pass a highway and public transportation bill that sets spending levels for years instead of months.
The Senate approved its version in July, and the House is poised to take up a counterpart this week, with the Rules Committee scheduling two days of meetings that could put the legislation on the floor not long after.
"I have to say that I'm very optimistic," said Susan Binder, a former congressional staffer now at Cambridge Systematics Inc., a Massachusetts consulting firm that works on transportation issues. "My hopes have been dashed before, but this is looking very good."
The House bill would authorize $325 billion in funding over six years. Like the rival Senate measure, however, it contains only enough money to pay for the first three. Because the House Ways and Means Committee was unable to come up with a way to cover even the legislation's three-year price tag, House leaders are relying on the Senate-passed package of "pay-fors" to offset the cost. That package totals about $45 billion and includes a provision to raise some of that money by selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and another to outsource some tax collecting responsibilities to private businesses.
Opposing the latter provision is the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents many IRS employees. In a Friday letter to Rules Committee members, Union President Tony Reardon urged them to allow an amendment by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) to strike the outsourcing requirement. The proposed change is among 265 amendments that have been filed, according to a list on the committee's website.
But any serious attempt to remove one plank of the bill's financial underpinning could put others at risk.
"We don't expect the leadership to allow those pay-fors to change at this time," said Joe McAndrew, policy director for Transportation for America, an advocacy group. In what could be two lengthy sessions today and tomorrow, the Rules Committee will also have to decide whether to allow House members to vote on a smorgasbord of other amendments, including proposals that would: raise the federal gas tax; divert some federal oil and gas royalties into the Highway Trust Fund; and bar Export-Import Bank assistance to companies that financially support Planned Parenthood.
"From our understanding, most of the things that are germane in any sort of way should expect to get through," said Erich Zimmermann, director of transportation programs for the National Association of Regional Councils.
Whatever the outcome, the legislation's progress thus far represents a dramatic reversal from its prospects a few months ago, when House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) balked at taking up a three-year bill (E&E Daily, July 28). Contributing to the turnaround was a decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to make transportation a priority and the backing of influential industry groups eager for an end to the cycle of stopgap transportation spending bills. Final passage of a longer-term measure could also let newly elected House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) take credit for an early win. The latest stopgap extension, signed last week, expires Nov. 20.
That doesn't mean that acclaim is universal. McAndrew is critical of what he calls a "status quo" measure that doesn't address current transportation needs and challenges. In a letter to lawmakers late last month, 10 environmental groups blasted what they called "a Trojan horse" to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act. They singled out proposed limits on public feedback and a pilot program that would allow states in some circumstances to conduct environmental reviews under their laws, not federal statutes.
"This would throw environmental reviews -- and potentially Clean Air Act protections -- into an uneven patchwork quilt of state laws, many of which fall short of federal safeguards," they wrote. At a committee markup last month, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said the bill would "streamline the federal bureaucracy and accelerate project delivery."
Schedule: The House Rules Committee meetings are Monday, Nov. 2, at 5 p.m. in H-313 at the Capitol and Tuesday, Nov. 3, at 3 p.m. in H-313 at the Capitol.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Efficiency Backers Plotting Energy Efficiency Bill’s Return From The Dead
Oct 30, 2015 | BNA Energy & Environment Blog
Like a zombie that won’t die, the specter of a long-stalled energy efficiency bill is returning to the halls of the Senate.
With little chance of a broad energy legislation making it to the Senate floor this year, energy efficiency lobbyists and the authors of the energy efficiency bill—Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)— are quietly looking for ways to move their narrower measure forward.
“It’s absolutely not dead,” said Kateri Callahan, president of the non-profit Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington-based organization that promotes energy conservation.
Various versions of the Portman-Shaheen bill—most recently S. 720—have been introduced in recent years, but a combination of Senate dysfunction and unrelated fights over issues such as the health care law have brought the bill down each time.
The measure would increase energy efficiency through national model building energy standards as well as programs to decrease energy use in the manufacturing and commercial sectors. Its backers hope they can get the legislation across the Senate floor as an amendment to another bill or by unanimous consent, meaning no one would object to its approval.
A similar procedure was used to clear a much smaller version of the bill by the Senate in the dead of night earlier this year. It was eventually passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the president.
“I think Portman and Shaheen have been masterful in getting things through in the 29th hour,” Callahan previously told Bloomberg BNA. “They have been willing to stay on the floor until 4 in the morning to get things through.”
Backers of the bill hope they can do it again given wide-ranging support for the measure. Groups ranging from the National Association of Manufactures to the American Chemistry Council have endorsed it.
“I think [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell (R-Ky.) would like to give us the opportunity to vote on it. Getting it out of committee 20-2 helps,” Portman told Bloomberg BNA. “It shows growing support.”
Though the legislation contains a hodge-podge of minor programs, such as grants for training workers to install energy-efficient technologies and requiring government data centers to use less energy, the energy savings from the bill add up.
A study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which supports the legislation, estimated the bill would, by 2030, save consumers $16.2 billion a year and cut carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollutants by the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road.
While most of the provisions in the measure were included in a broader energy bill (S. 2012) crafted by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), that legislation is seen as unlikely to get floor time as the Senate grapples with major must-pass items such as funding the government and raising the debt limit.
“It may be that Plan B [the energy-efficiency-only bill] gets to be Plan A pretty soon,” Callahan, of the Alliance to Save Energy, said. “Certainly for all the years [Portman and Shaheen] worked on it they want to see it get to the finish line.”
-
SAB Panel Weighs Recommendation For EPA To Revise Draft Fracking Study
Oct 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel reviewing EPA's draft analysis of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water is weighing whether to recommend that the agency revise its draft conclusion that the study found no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water.
Panel members during an Oct. 28-30 meeting held in Washington, D.C., raised concerns over the draft finding, suggesting the agency did not clearly define what would constitute “widespread” and “systemic” impacts and that a paucity of data hindered EPA's ability to draw such a conclusion.
James Bruckner, of the University of Georgia’s pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences department, said Oct. 29 that the draft language, as written, makes “too strong a statement” given “fragmented and insufficient information.”
And Thomas Davis, of the Colorado School of Mines' geophysics department, added that EPA should have explained what findings would have constituted “widespread, systemic impacts,” what methodology the agency would have used to make those determinations, and what evidence would have allowed such a finding. “Why the disconnect is so apparent is because we don't know exactly what is meant” by widespread or systemic impacts, Davis said.
Additionally, the SAB panel appears poised to make a number of recommendations for addressing what members flag as possible holes in the draft report, including greater examination of how seismic impacts could affect drinking water resources, best practices that could mitigate spill and other risks, modeling scenarios that better flush out potential exposure risks, and risks from naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).
The panelists also discussed a recommendation that EPA include more focus in its draft report on three high-profile groundwater investigations the agency conducted in Parker County, TX; Dimock Township, PA; and Pavillion, WY that were later dropped without finalizing the studies.
“I really think we ought to go with our conscience here and say we ought to include this,” Dean Malouta, of White Mountain Energy Consulting, said Oct. 30, adding that the studies are “germane” to circumstances that can go wrong at fracking sites.
Susan Brantley, of Pennsylvania State University's Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, added that she supported a recommendation that EPA should include the three studies, “period,” instead of recommending that the agency include the studies or provide justification for omitting them, as discussed earlier. Brantley said, “The part that's political, I think, is why they weren't included,” and that rationale is not necessary to include in the draft study.
Environmentalists and property owners near hydraulic fracturing wells during the public comments portion of the meetings also renewed their calls for EPA to re-open its investigation into fracking’s drinking water impacts, saying the draft report is deeply flawed.
“The study was limited in scope, it was poorly designed and relied on industry data,” Food & Water Watch (FWW) Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said at an Oct. 28 press conference. She added that the study “has been used to justify the ongoing narrative about the safety of fracking” and that the report still contains “many examples of fracking groundwater contamination” such as the Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania examples.
Prospective Studies
And panelists raised concerns over the lack of “prospective studies” in the draft study, which EPA planned to include at drill sites that were just being developed. The studies would have allowed researchers to track changes in the water quality near the site as drilling progressed and thus accumulate valuable "baseline" data, but those were hindered by setbacks, including difficulties identifying appropriate sites and a failure to reach legal agreements with operators.
But Jeffrey Frithsen, of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment within its research office, said Oct. 28 that EPA currently has no plans to continue working toward prospective studies, saying, “The resources are such that we don't think even if the partner or sites came to pass,” the agency would be able to conduct them.
In response, Brantley noted that the prospective studies “would have been helpful in addressing some of the uncertainty, perhaps,” and suggested that EPA should clarify in the final report whether it believed the prospective studies to be essential to the study, and if not, to clarify its rationale.
And Daniel Goode, a hydrologist with U.S. Geological Survey, asked whether all of the money allocated for the study in fiscal year 2016 has already been spent to conduct the study, to which Frithsen said it was unclear, but that the agency would welcome any recommendations on prioritizing further research to address some of the uncertainties.
EPA conducted the massive study at the behest of a federal budget law, examining findings across five phases of the fracking-water lifecycle for potential impacts: water acquisition, chemical mixing, well injections, flowback and produced water and wastewater management. For example, on chemical mixing, EPA found that the frequency of on-site spills from hydraulic fracturing activities could be estimated for two states, Colorado and Pennsylvania, from approximately 0.4 to 12.2 spills per 100 wells, but not nationally due to data availability constraints.
The draft assessment, released in June, is not intended to be a quantitative risk assessment, but instead identifies mechanisms by which fracking could potentially impact drinking water.
These mechanisms include water withdrawals in areas of low water availability; spills of fracking fluids and wastewater; fracking directly into underground sources of drinking water; underground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate wastewater management, according to the agency's draft assessment.
The panel is charged with reviewing the draft study and coming up with consensus advice in response to the set of eight charge questions and then draft a report summarizing its recommendations for the agency. The chartered SAB will then review the panel's draft advice before issuing a final report, and the agency anticipates a final report some time in 2016.
Possible Revisions
During the three-day SAB meeting, panelists discussed possible ways EPA should consider revising its draft conclusion on impacts, with members generally agreeing that both limited data and a lack of clarity on the meaning of the phrase, “widespread, systemic impacts” necessitated revisions. For example, Thomas Young, of University of California, noted Oct. 29, “I don't think there is a lot of evidence to refute [EPA's conclusion] it's more that this unease that it sweeps under the rug all the things we don't know about.”
And Goode said that while he is likely to agree that EPA's statement may be true, “to me it is incomplete in the way it's presented,” and that EPA should find a way to qualify it to reflect that although hampered by data constraints, there have been specific impacts in conditions on drinking water.
And Joseph DeGeorge, of Merck Research Laboratories, said that EPA could highlight some of the severe local impacts that are site-specific but still documented in the draft report, such as extreme water withdrawals or wellhead incidents.
The panel's chair, David Dzombak of Carnegie Mellon University, discussed during the Oct. 30 wrap up drafting language to reflect that “it is not clear how” the statement reflects the myriad uncertainties in both data limits and definitional questions.
Panelists also noted EPA's lack of attention to seismic impacts related to underground injection wells used to dispose of fracking wastewater, with Stephen Randtke, of University of Kansas, suggesting Oct. 28 it may be of concern for drinking water resources if seismic concerns limit disposal options, saying there may be less fracking activity as a result.
And some panel members criticized the lack of specificity in the draft report. For example, on Oct. 28, Shari Dunn-Norman, of Missouri University of Science of Technology, noted that some parts of EPA's draft section on chemical fate and transport are “very speculative because they just don't have the data.”
And Bruce Honeyman, of the Colorado School of Mines, noted that EPA presents “no new information on chemical fate and transport,” echoing another panel member in saying it is “generously called what you would find in an undergraduate textbook.” The fate and transport information was severely hindered, for example, by a lack of chemical analytics, lack of safety data for many additives to fracking fluid, and no information of geologic formations, Honeyman said.
On spill risks, panelists discussed whether to include suggestions on how EPA could introduce the idea of best practices for mitigating risks from spills, but emphasized that it was difficult to get a sense of the likelihood of such spills. Goode suggested that EPA seek operational data that companies provide to state environmental agencies on specific spill events.
And Malouta suggested that “more needs to be done on the degree of risk or probability” of spills, to better understand the circumstances that could increase the likelihood of spills. Panelists also discussed that the draft report appears to give short shrift to NORM and technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM), which is produced when activities such as uranium mining, or sewage sludge treatment, concentrate or expose radioactive materials that occur naturally in ores, soils, water, or other natural materials. Richard Jack, of Thermo Fisher Scientific, suggested that Pennsylvania's recent work on TENORM should be included in the EPA report, and Brantley also noted the study could have delved further into the NORM concerns.
-
Murkowski Hammers Obama Admin Over Energy Restrictions
Nov 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
A leading Senate Republican hammered the Obama administration over the weekend for energy policies she claimed threaten the nation's security and jobs.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the administration's decisions "ignore the will of hard-working Alaskans" by closing the door to new oil production needed to sustain the Trans-Alaska pipeline.
"These decisions mean fewer jobs, less security for our country, and more of our dollars going overseas," Murkowski said in the weekly Republican address to the nation, which aired Saturday. "It is only a matter of time until the administration applies this shortsighted strategy to the rest of our nation."
Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, took specific aim at Interior Department decisions to reduce access to oil and gas resources in the National Petroleum Reserve; recommend wilderness protections on the oil-rich coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; impose a "constantly-shifting regulatory environment" in the Chukchi Sea that contributed to Royal Dutch Shell PLC abandoning its $7 billion exploration program; and cancel two future oil and gas lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
"Since taking office, the Obama administration has repeatedly denied Alaska's best opportunities to produce energy for our nation and the world," Murkowski said. "I want to highlight what is happening in my home state, because it foreshadows challenges to come all across our nation."
Murkowski also criticized U.S. EPA rules to reduce ozone and greenhouse gas pollution and its Waters of the U.S. rule, which increases the number of waterways that are covered by the Clean Water Act.
She touted a "better path" that includes her committee's passage in July of a comprehensive energy package that advanced on an 18-4 vote, as well as efforts to build bipartisan support for lifting the ban on crude oil exports.
Murkowski has introduced bills to block the administration's policies in Alaska, including S. 494 to open a small percentage of ANWR to drilling and S. 2011 to extend lease terms and require new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas as well as share offshore revenues with coastal communities.
The Alaskan lawmaker doesn't have the votes to pass either of those measures, but her role as the chairwoman of the Appropriations panel that funds Interior gives her unique leverage as lawmakers seek to pass an omnibus spending bill before Dec. 11.
The Appropriations Committee passed a fiscal 2016 spending bill during the summer authored by Murkowski that contained policy riders targeting EPA's Clean Power Plan, its WOTUS rule, the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule and EPA's proposed update of federal air quality standards for ozone, among other administration priorities.
While it will be tough to get any of those policy riders enacted into law, Murkowski may use her post to advance lower-profile Alaska priorities in the spending bill. A prime example is language included in the committee-passed bill to authorize a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, a route Murkowski said is critical to the health and safety of the remote Alaskan city of King Cove.
The administration will have to negotiate with Murkowski and other Republicans over a host of other policy riders that could emerge in a spending bill, with issues ranging from gray wolves to lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle.
Administration officials will also have to negotiate with Murkowski and her colleagues over how to allocate funding within Interior, EPA and the Forest Service. If the administration wants robust funding for its favored programs -- such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund -- it may have to make funding or policy concessions elsewhere.
-
Suits Filed Over EPA Carbon Standards for New Power Plants
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Murray Energy Corp. and a free market advocacy group filed lawsuits Oct. 30 challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1396, 10/30/15; Energy & Env't Legal Inst. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1397, 10/30/15).
The lawsuits filed by Murray Energy and the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit follow a similar lawsuit brought by North Dakota challenging the EPA's new source performance standards (RIN 2060-AQ91) (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 10/23/15; 207 DEN A-4, 10/27/15).
Murray Energy filed an earlier lawsuit over the EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which sets carbon dioxide emissions limits for the power sector in each state. The standards will be implemented by state regulators and phased in between 2022 and 2030. Both the Clean Power Plan and the new source performance standards for new power plants were published in the Federal Register on Oct. 23.
The Energy & Environment Legal Institute filed a separate lawsuit Oct. 30 challenging the Clean Power Plan as well (Energy & Env't Legal Inst. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1398, 10/30/15).
Murray Energy led challenges to the EPA's Clean Power Plan when the rule was still in its proposed stage. That lawsuit was rebuffed by the D.C. Circuit as premature (In re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330, 2015 BL 180996 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
Coop Seeks Reconsideration of Stay Review
On Oct. 29, the D.C. Circuit already established a schedule to hear arguments in favor of staying the Clean Power Plan, but Basin Electric Power Cooperative asked the court to reconsider that timeline (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, motion for reconsideration 10/29/15).
The court Oct. 29 ordered that additional motions for an immediate stay of the Clean Power Plan would be due Nov. 5 with a response from the EPA due Dec. 3 (210 DEN A-1, 10/30/15).
Basin Electric argues in its motion for the court to reconsider that the Nov. 5 deadline is only 13 days after the rule was published in the Federal Register and 47 days before the deadline for parties to file challenges to the rule.
“Basin Electric has no objection to establishing a consolidated briefing schedule for stay motions in order to facilitate a more orderly process and ensure that the court can consider these motions in a thoughtful and efficient manner,” the cooperative said in its motion. “Basin Electric submits, however, that all interested parties should first be afforded the opportunity to submit their petitions for review within the statutorily established 60-day period, and that any deadline for submitting motions for stay be set after expiration of that period.”
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
Texas Unlikely to Submit Carbon Plan
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
Confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually strike down the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, a senior attorney in the Office of the Texas Attorney General said Oct. 30 his state probably wouldn't submit a compliance plan.
Bernard McNamee, chief of staff to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), complained about the Clean Power Plan during a panel discussion at the fall meeting of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy and Resources in Chicago.
McNamee said the Environmental Protection Agency lacked proper legal authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to promulgate the rule. In this context, he predicted the two dozen states challenging the carbon reduction program would emerge victorious when the issue inevitably comes before the Supreme Court. Texas and West Virginia are leading the coalition of states challenging the rule (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, 10/23/15).
Asked directly whether Texas would submit a plan to the EPA next year, as required under the program, McNamee said, “No,” adding, “we don't expect we'll need one.”
Texas officials have previously given mixed signals about the state's clean power strategy.
Last week, Brian Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, said the state was “developing a response,” adding “we have not taken anything off the table.”
McNamee accused the EPA of engineering “an end run” around Congress.
“Because Congress would not pass legislation giving it authority to regulate carbon dioxide, EPA extracted, out of a 300-word statute, a way to reorganize the entire electric grid,” he said. “That's just not appropriate, and that's why the states are challenging it.”
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) creates unique carbon dioxide emissions standards for the power sector in each state. Each state is expected to phase in a compliance plan between 2022 and 2030.
EPA Plan Called Flexible
Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, dismissed McNamee's suggestions that the EPA lacks legal authority to control carbon pollution.
Patton also said that flexibility in the plan would permit Texas to manage its compliance duties easily.
“There are lots of ways for Texas to bring innovative solutions to bear to reduce carbon emissions and to manage consumer costs and reliability,” Patton said during the same ABA panel discussion.
-
Colorado Attorney General Says She Can Sue EPA
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said the state constitution clearly grants her the ability to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over the Clean Power Plan despite the objection of Gov. John Hickenlooper (D).
“Colorado law clearly grants the Attorney General the ability to take independent legal action in the public interest,” she said in an Oct. 30 statement provided to Bloomberg BNA. “If, as the governor asserts, only he can determine when Colorado files or joins a lawsuit, he can prevent important legal questions from being put before our courts simply because he wishes to avoid conflict with this Administration.”
Roger Hudson, spokesman for Coffman, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 30 that Coffman decided to issue the statement while waiting for Hickenlooper to file suit in the Colorado Supreme Court to prevent her from taking legal action on behalf of the state without his express permission.
Amanda Ford, a spokeswoman for Hickenlooper, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 30 that the governor's petition to the state Supreme Court would be filed “soon.”
Joined Other States
At Coffman's direction, Colorado joined 25 other states in a lawsuit filed Oct. 23 against the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal challenge seeks to clarify whether the EPA has authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to implement the new regulations (209 DEN A-1, 10/29/15).
The rules would cap carbon dioxide emissions “in a manner that reorders our country's power grid,” Coffman said.
“I firmly believe one of the central roles of the state attorneys general is to push back against federal agency action when it crosses the line from legitimate policy-making to unlawful overreach,” she said. “Thankfully, the framers of the State Constitution chose a system of government that includes a plural executive—a system in which the powers of the executive branch are diffused so they cannot be wielded by a single person.
“Each state-wide elected official has their own authority, and the Attorney Generals' is to uphold the rule of law,” she added.
-
Maryland Panel Backs 2030 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cut
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
The Maryland Commission on Climate Change has urged lawmakers to adopt a more ambitious goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 2006 levels by 2030 as they revisit an existing climate change law during the 2016 legislative session.
The commission's recommendation was bolstered Oct. 30 by the Maryland Department of the Environment's (MDE) release of a report, “2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act Plan Update,” which announced that “Maryland is on target to not only meet but to exceed” its 2020 emissions reductions goal.
Maryland's current goal is to reduce emissions 25 percent by 2020, a target adopted in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2009.
That law is slated to sunset on Dec. 31 under a political compromise that helped win support for the 2009 measure by ordering a legislative reexamination of the bill's climate and economic impacts in 2016 before requiring continued emissions reductions.
With an eye toward that reassessment, the Maryland commission took a unanimous voice vote Oct. 29 to recommend that the General Assembly adopt a new 40 percent by 2030 target, provided that lawmakers retain aspects of the 2009 statute that established “safeguards, exemptions, studies of those exemptions, reassessment provisions and other relevant language” intended to have a “net positive impact on both the economy and job creation in Maryland.”
On Track to Meet 2020 Goal
MDE's 2015 update, which was mandated under the 2009 statute, said Maryland will have racked up an estimated reduction of 38.37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020, more than the original target of 25 percent, or 34.66 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Current projections indicate that these reductions “will result in as much as $3.5 billion in increased economic output by 2020 and help create and maintain as many as 33,000 new jobs,” MDE said in a news release announcing the 207-page report.
The agency noted that some of progress already made was attributable to changes in energy markets, with greater use of cleaner natural gas, and reductions in travel during the recession.
Taking that into account, MDE recommended additional strategies to foster further reductions.
The report included a recommendation to look beyond 2020 toward deeper cuts, but it didn't specifically mention the climate change commission's recommendation to set a new target of a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030.
Economic Considerations Underscored
Matt Clark, spokesman for first-term Gov. Larry Hogan (R), said in a statement that the governor hasn't seen MDE's report, but he considered the commission's recommendation “promising,” given its “focus on keeping strong safeguards in place to protect jobs and encourage economic growth.”
On a similar note, Hogan's MDE secretary, Ben Grumbles, said in a statement that it was “crucial” to note that the commission's recommendation “strengthens the linkage between greenhouse gas reductions and economic benefits.”
Grumbles said the commission's 26 members representing a variety of interests “have found common ground on practical steps to achieve further reductions without putting our economy or jobs at risk.”
Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the commission's unanimous vote “represents a new era of bi-partisan, ambitious action to reduce carbon pollution and increase jobs in our state.”
On the eve of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris “and in the wake of the pope's visit, this breakthrough Maryland vote could be a source of inspiration for other states to move forward even under divided government,” he said.
Manufacturing Exemption Studied
In addition to the compromise pact to reassess the greenhouse gas reduction law in 2016, the 2009 bill also required no reductions from the manufacturing sector, on the grounds that it accounts for fewer emissions and that an exemption could get the bill passed, thus fostering reductions from larger sources such as electricity generation and transportation.
The 2009 compromise also called for an economic impact study of what might happen if lawmakers decided to require manufacturers to cut emissions at a later date.
A study performed by Towson University's Regional Economic Studies Institute was listed as an appendix to the 2015 update, but it wasn't included in the version of the plan released Oct. 30.
MDE's update did, however, recommend that the manufacturing sector exemption in the 2009 statute be maintained as part of any future efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This most recent update follows a host of reports and studies prepared by representatives of multiple state agencies, including an original 2012 greenhouse gas reduction plan (56 DEN A-6, 3/23/12)(56 DEN A-6, 3/23/12).
A followup analysis of the plan was released during a 2013 climate change “summit” (144 DEN A-11, 7/26/13).
-
EPA Completes Boiler MACT Reconsideration
Oct 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA has completed reconsideration of certain aspects of its boiler air toxics rules setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for the sector, pleasing forestry industry groups that lobbied the agency to make changes and issue them before any requirements take effect early next year.
“With the compliance deadline of January 2016 looming, we’re pleased that the final Boiler MACT reconsideration rule has been completed and addresses many of the issues we asked EPA to reconsider, particularly around how to safely and quickly start-up and shutdown our boilers while preventing damage to control equipment,” the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) said in a statement.
The boiler MACT, part of a package of combustion measures, sets air toxics limits for major source boilers emitting 10 tons per year (tpy) of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs. The underlying rule is facing legal challenges, though some of those are on hold after EPA granted industry petitions to reconsider portions of the rules.
The proposed version of the reconsideration, which was signed last December, addressed issues related to startup and shutdown periods, monitoring requirements and the use of carbon monoxide as a proxy for other pollutants.
The American Wood Council (AWC) also issued a statement welcoming the final rule. The group said it was especially pleased that EPA had added “dry biomass” as a qualifying “clean fuel” for boiler startup.
“With just three short months before the compliance deadline, AWC is pleased that this critical piece of the rulemaking is completed,” AWC's president and CEO Robert Glowinski said in a statement.
“Wood product manufacturers produce almost 80 percent of their own energy through the use of carbon neutral biomass residuals, and this reconsideration will allow mills to avoid costly retrofits required to burn alternative fuels,” he adds. “Clean fuels” are used during startup to reduce emissions when emissions controls are not yet operational.
At press time EPA still had not publicly released the reconsidered rule, however. Litigation over the boiler MACT rules, which apply to small “area source” boilers and larger “major source” boilers, continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, where oral arguments are set for Dec. 3.
-
Senate Sets Sights On Contentious Obama Rule
Nov 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Annie Snider
With the budget deal done and all eyes turning to end-of-year spending negotiations, the Senate this week will take up measures targeting the Obama administration's contentious water rule.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has teed up the upper chamber's leading measure to kill the Waters of the U.S. rule for a key procedural vote tomorrow afternoon.
That bill, S. 1140, from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would send the administration back to the drawing board on the rule, setting new criteria for how a future rule should be developed and what streams and wetlands should qualify for Clean Water Act protection under it.
Three Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors to the measure, but more will be needed if the bill is to achieve the 60 votes necessary to move forward.
A test vote in March suggested that enough farm-state Democrats were worried about the rule to squeak the bill over the finish line, but at least one key lawmaker has since said that changes made in the final rule this summer alleviated her concerns (E&ENews PM, June 11).
If S. 1140 fails on the procedural vote, the upper chamber could then turn to Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. The 1996 law allows such resolutions to be approved with only a simple majority vote.
Either measure is likely to draw a swift veto from President Obama, though, leading many to speculate that this week's events have more to do with election politics and end-of-year spending negotiations, where a fierce fight looms over policy riders (E&E Daily, Oct. 30).
Schedule: The cloture vote on S. 1140 is Tuesday, Nov. 3, at 2:30 p.m.
-
EPA Seeks Delay in McCarthy's Job Lawsuit Deposition
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is asking a federal judge to delay deposition of Administrator Gina McCarthy in a lawsuit over a required Clean Air Act jobs review if it denies the agency's bid to shield its top official from the inquiry (Murray Energy Corp. v. McCarthy, N.D. W.Va., No. 14-cv-00039-JPB, motion for stay 10/29/15).
The motion asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to stay McCarthy's deposition for 30 days if the court denies the EPA's prior motion to exclude her from deposition. Murray Energy Corp., which is suing the EPA to compel the agency to evaluate the impacts its various air pollution rules have on jobs as required by the Clean Air Act, has sent notice to the agency saying it would like to depose McCarthy Nov. 24.
The EPA argues that senior administration officials such as McCarthy should be barred from being deposed “absent extraordinary circumstances.” The agency in an Oct. 16 motion sought to have McCarthy excluded from depositions.
The EPA's stay request is opposed by the petitioners.
The EPA has relentlessly fought discovery in the lawsuit, brought by Murray Energy Corp. and 11 other coal companies. Murray Energy and the other companies contend that regulations such as carbon dioxide performance standards for power plants and air toxics emissions limits for power plants and industrial boilers are causing job losses in the industry. They argue the EPA has failed in its statutory duty to evaluate the impact its rules have on employment as required by Section 231(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Judge John Preston Bailey has scheduled the case for trial for April 5, 2016 (147 DEN A-3, 7/31/15).
-
EPA Lawyer Points to Sixth Circuit on Clean Water Rule Issue
Nov 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
The threshold jurisdictional question relating to judicial review of challenges to the Obama Administration's clean water rule may be decided relatively quickly by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a senior attorney in the Environmental Protection Agency's water division said Oct. 30.
Steven Neugeboren, associate general counsel in the EPA Water Law Division, told environmental attorneys to pay close attention to oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 8 before a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit (see related story).
The court is expected to make a determination on whether the federal courts of appeals or district courts hold jurisdiction over the administration's rule defining waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act, frequently described as the WOTUS rule.
“How this jurisdictional question will be resolved will determine the future course of the litigation—very significant implications,” Neugeboren told attorneys attending the fall meeting of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy and Resources in Chicago.
Neugeboren said the WOTUS rule (RIN 2040-AF30) has triggered significant litigation in multiple jurisdictions since it was issued by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on June 29. The rule seeks to clarify which waters and wetlands are subject to federal permitting, oil spill prevention and state water quality certification programs under the Clean Water Act.
District Court Cases
Neugeboren said 14 cases had been filed by 16 parties in district courts across the country, but EPA believes the merits of the WOTUS rule should be argued before an appeals court panel.
“So we have had different courts addressing this jurisdictional question,” he said. “Two courts said it belongs in the courts of appeals. A North Dakota court said no, it belongs in district court and actually issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the rule in 13 states. Currently we have motions for stay for all the district court cases pending. We think the case does belong in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Neugeboren expressed optimism that the dispute would be fully resolved by the Sixth Circuit. Pursuant to a lottery by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, a series of petitions for review filed in appeals courts were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit. The court then scheduled oral arguments on the jurisdictional question.
Neugeboren also noted that the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling on Oct. 9 staying the rule pending its determination on exclusive jurisdiction. Among other things, the court found the petitioners had a “substantial possibility of success on the merits.” At the same time the court found the breadth of the rule warranted a stay during the course of litigation (In re EPA, 6th Cir., MDL No. 135, stay issued 10/9/15; 197 DEN A-1, 10/13/15).
Neugeboren noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also has been asked to weigh in on jurisdiction. Arguments are not expected in that matter until next year, creating space for a Sixth Circuit solution.
“So it all turns on what the Sixth Circuit does, in our view,” he said. “If the Sixth Circuit finds it has jurisdiction, then all those 14 district court cases should be dismissed and all of the litigation should be consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
If the court rules it does not have exclusive jurisdiction, Neugeboren said, “we would be facing a long period of time for litigation in the district courts on this rule.”
Senate Action
Deidre Duncan, an attorney with Hunton & Williams LLP in Washington, D.C., speaking on the same panel, said parties interested in the WOTUS rule should keep an eye on the Senate next week as it considers S. 1140. The bill would require the EPA and the corps to write a new clean water rule no later than Dec. 31, 2016, and include only streams that have enough flow to transport pollutants at levels that would impair traditional navigable waters.
“So there will be this interplay between S. 1140, which is a very substantive bill that would require the agencies to go back to the drawing board, redo the rule,” Duncan said. “It gives very specific guidance on what the rule should and should not cover.”
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested