Preview Newsletter
NI - ACC PM 11/11/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Teflon Ingredient Linked to Childhood Weight Gain -- Study
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Children of mothers exposed to high levels of a chemical previously used to make Teflon may face a higher risk of obesity as they get older, a study found. -
Inside the TSCA talks
Nov 11, 2015 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Sen. Barbara Boxer and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg were close friends in the Senate for decades. But when Lautenberg decided to work on a bipartisan chemical safety bill that had support from the chemical industry... -
Towards Safer Food Additives
Nov 11, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
For many years this blog has focused on the safety of chemicals and nanomaterials used in industrial and consumer products. -
Senators Float Bill to Fund PHMSA, Prioritize Rulemakings
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A group of bipartisan senators yesterday moved to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration through fiscal 2019 and require the agency to prioritize how and when it crafts new rules. -
Stakeholders Seek More Money over Shorter Time in Highway Bill
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Transportation groups wrote to Congress yesterday urging that the highway bill under debate increase federal investments in transportation projects, even if it means reauthorizing surface transportation programs for less time. -
Oil Train Bridges in Dismal Shape -- Report
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Marcus Stern
Significant deterioration was found on nearly half the 250 oil train bridges surveyed for a report released yesterday by a trio of environmental groups. -
EPA Proposes Changes to Ozone 'Exceptional Event' Regs
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has unveiled proposed changes to its "exceptional events" regulations, a tool the agency has said states could use to address high levels of background ozone. -
Green Group Presses Dem Lawmakers on Carbon Rule
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
Environment America launched an ad campaign today pressuring a trio of Democratic senators to vote against a resolution aimed at overturning U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Carbon Tax Could be Coming to a Handful of Regions
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Chelsea Harvey
Several states are moving close to charging fees on carbon emissions and passing the proceeds to residents in the form of dividend checks. -
Following Citizen Suit Defeats, Advocates Increase Scrutiny Of Air Permits
Nov 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a group that has championed citizen suits against industrial polluters to curb their emissions, is planning to place a heavier emphasis on getting EPA to challenge plants' state air permits in future actions... -
On the Keystone Pipeline, President Obama Missed an Opportunity
Nov 11, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Greg Ip
World leaders will gather later this month in Paris to set new targets for greenhouse-gas emissions. The targets will be the easy part. Meeting them with the least possible harm to the economy will be much harder, requiring a deft mix of science and economics. -
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says
Nov 11, 2015 | New York Times
By Nicholas St. Fleur
Global concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million for a monthly average this past spring, breaching a symbolic barrier set by climate scientists and policy makers, according to a report released Monday. -
GOP Candidates Slam Climate Regulations, Promise Repeal
Nov 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Energy
By Alex Guillen
Several Republican presidential candidates took aim at President Barack Obama's climate change regulations at Tuesday night's debate in Wisconsin, promising to repeal the landmark Clean Power Plan if they are elected and blasting the administration for ignoring fossil fuels. -
On Climate Change, Faint Lights Fade in GOP White House Race
Nov 11, 2015 | National Journal
By Ben Geman
Until the final moments of Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate, nearly everything viewers heard about global warming and energy came during the commercials.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Teflon Ingredient Linked to Childhood Weight Gain -- Study
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Children of mothers exposed to high levels of a chemical previously used to make Teflon may face a higher risk of obesity as they get older, a study found.
Researchers at Brown University, the University of Cincinnati, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Simon Fraser University and the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center followed children of more than 200 mothers in Cincinnati who were exposed to elevated levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, during pregnancy. Those children saw higher levels of body fat and gained weight more quickly between birth and age 8 than children of mothers exposed to less PFOA, the study found.
Three similar chemicals examined were not associated with weight gain, the study said. The findings were published today in the journal Obesity and were funded with grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.
Several other studies have failed to find associations between prenatal exposure to PFOA and childhood weight gain, potentially because of poor data collection that didn't involve standardized measurements of children, the study noted.
The authors speculated that the chemical caused an effect "similar to the phenomenon observed among tobacco smoke-exposed children who are smaller at birth, grow more rapidly than their unexposed peers and are at increased risk of obesity later in life."
Cincinnati was chosen because it sits downstream from the Parkersburg, W.Va., site where a DuPont chemical plant used PFOA, also known as C8, to produce Teflon, the researchers wrote.
The region has been the subject of more than a decade of litigation regarding the substances.
DuPont settled a class-action lawsuit brought in 2001 by residents who claimed they experienced health problems as a result of discharges of C8 into area drinking water and the Ohio River from the plant. Under the 2004 settlement, DuPont agreed to install new water treatment systems and fund medical monitoring programs. The company also established a process by which residents who establish that they have at least one of six health conditions could sue the company individually for damages.
The first such case came to trial at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio this year and ended last month in a $1.6 million verdict in favor of plaintiff Carla Bartlett of Guysville, Ohio. DuPont said it plans to appeal the ruling (Greenwire, Oct. 8).
Representatives from the FluoroCouncil, a branch of the American Chemistry Council, have noted that companies are expected to complete a voluntary phaseout of the chemicals examined by the end of this year.
The group has defended the industry's shift to a related class of chemicals, called short-chain PFAs, saying they are "some of the most robustly studied new chemicals introduced into the market" in the face of warnings from some public health scientists that these substances may be too similar to avoid the same problems (Greenwire, May 1).
-
Nov 11, 2015 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
INSIDE THE TSCA TALKS: Sen. Barbara Boxer and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg were close friends in the Senate for decades. But when Lautenberg decided to work on a bipartisan chemical safety bill that had support from the chemical industry, Boxer could not go along because she worried it would undermine tough rules in her native California. A new band of green-minded senators negotiated some of their own changes, and the bill now enjoys filibuster-proof support. But the road to this point has also left some bruised feelings and broken friendships along the way. Pro's Darren Goode has the tale: "The senators were flying to New York to pay their respects at Frank Lautenberg's funeral. But Barbara Boxer was doing something else as well: urging her fellow Senate Democrats to reject the late New Jersey lawmaker's signature chemical safety bill. ... But Boxer's opposition raised eyebrows among her colleagues — after all, she and Lautenberg had been longtime allies on environmental causes. And it left Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie, aghast. ... 'So, I was horrified and hurt, so hurt, when I heard that Barbara was bad-mouthing the bill on the way to his funeral, oh my God.'"
Other Democrats cut the deals on TSCA: "A new guard of Democrats handled most of the delicate negotiations that have kept the bill on track, although they agree [Boxer] was never explicitly cut off ... 'There were a large number of Democratic members who believed that the progress that had been made on the bill through the committee process had been constructive and could be built upon," recalled a Senate aide involved in the TSCA talks, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "And she was not one of those members.'
Boxer says she backed off on purpose: Boxer told Darren, "You know, you have to be willing to take yourself out at the right moment and trust other people. And it worked." ... "I know exactly who improved the bill and how."
-
Nov 11, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
For many years this blog has focused on the safety of chemicals and nanomaterials used in industrial and consumer products. Most of these substances are regulated federally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). But we also encounter chemicals in other ways, including those present in or added to food. Such chemicals are regulated under a different law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This blog introduces EDF’s “Safer Food Additives” initiative to get unsafe and questionable chemicals out of our food by using dual levers of change—corporate leadership and public policy. Making our food trustworthy demands leadership in both the private sector and the FDA.
The food market is changing rapidly as manufacturers work to keep up with consumer concerns about what’s in our food. And it’s not just about added sugar, salt and trans fats, or whether the food was grown locally or with or without pesticides. Public campaigns increasingly put the spotlight on many chemicals commonly used in food and food packaging—food additives—with growing scientific evidence questioning the safety of their use.
A respected industry survey released in May 2015 showed that 36% of consumers rated chemicals in food as their most important food safety concern – greater than pathogens, pesticides, animal antibiotics and allergens, and up from 23% in 2014 and 9% in 2011. These concerns translated into action; 45% of consumers reported changing their buying habits.
A CivicScience survey released the same month showed similar results, with those having concerns more likely to live in rural areas, not use social media, and make their lunch rather than going out to eat—suggesting that this is not just about the latest trend among ‘foodies’.
In 2015, major food companies such as Nestle, General Mills, Kellogg's, Hershey’s and Campbell’s announced commitments to reformulate many of their iconic brands to be free of artificial colors and flavors. National restaurant chains such as Panera, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Subway and Noodles & Company also made similar commitments. They are following the lead of grocers such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Kroger and ALDI who have reformulated some of their private brands. Tens of billions of dollars of products are being reformulated. And that’s a good thing.
These commitments are only one step in addressing the much larger problem of potentially unsafe chemicals present in food and their cumulative effect on our health. After years of research, in 2013, The Pew Charitable Trusts concluded that the regulatory system is “plagued with systemic problems.”
The key problem dates back to the 1958 amendment to the FFDCA, which provided an exemption for substances “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) – an exemption that has been stretched so far it has swallowed the law. Today, an estimated 1,000 chemicals have been designated as GRAS by additive and food manufacturers without review by or even notice to FDA, the agency charged with ensuring that our food is safe and improves public health. Pew’s analysis confirmed the Government Accountability Office’s conclusion in 2010 that “FDA’s oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations.”
Among Pew’s findings:“Conflicts of interest. Food manufacturers make GRAS safety decisions without FDA’s knowledge despite conflicts of interest among those making the determinations. The GRAS loophole as currently used is inconsistent with Congress’ plan and the practices of other developed countries.”“Lack of information. FDA lacks even basic information needed to assess the safety of thousands of chemicals that” the agency has reviewed and either approved or cleared for use in food. Even when the information is developed, “the agency reevaluates the safety of only a relative handful of existing additives.”“Outdated science. FDA uses outdated science to evaluate additive safety. It relies on a process that does not ensure independent scientific input and is often not transparent, particularly for food contact substances.”
In 2014, FDA’s deputy commissioner for food said “we simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals.” Reports and videos from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Public Integrity and WebMD have also documented and publicly highlighted the problem with the GRAS loophole.
Systemic problems demand systemic solutions based on the latest science. This means going beyond a game of whack-a-mole—where companies react to the latest concerns by replacing one problematic additive with another that is no safer or no better understood—to adopt a forward-looking approach that promotes market competition for the safest ingredients while strengthening regulatory and scientific standards.
In the coming weeks and months, we’ll be outlining the problem of untested and questionable chemicals in food, our failed public policies, the current state of the market response to rising concerns, and our vision for leadership in ensuring the safety of chemicals in food and food packaging. Stay tuned.
Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director.
-
Senators Float Bill to Fund PHMSA, Prioritize Rulemakings
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
A group of bipartisan senators yesterday moved to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration through fiscal 2019 and require the agency to prioritize how and when it crafts new rules.
Republican Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Steve Daines of Montana and Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Gary Peters of Michigan introduced the "Securing America's Future Energy: Protecting Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (SAFE PIPES) Act," a bill that would fund the agency -- an arm of the Department of Transportation -- from fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2019.
"The SAFE PIPES Act will improve the protection of pipeline river crossings, help fill vacant inspector positions and better facilitate communications between PHMSA and state agencies," Daines said in a statement.
A key provision in the bill would require PHMSA's administrator to prioritize the use of agency resources to complete any outstanding statutory requirements for a rulemaking before beginning a new rule -- unless the secretary of Transportation proves to Congress there's a need to move forward with a new rule.
Other provisions in the measure would require PHMSA to communicate with pipeline operators more quickly following inspections, and provide the agency with more hiring authority to fill vacant inspector positions. Among other things, the legislation would also require PHMSA to prioritize statutory requirements for new rulemakings and assess natural gas and liquid pipelines.
PHMSA has been a hot topic on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress in recent weeks.
In the lower chamber, a group of bipartisan House members is pushing legislation to allow PHMSA to directly hire pipeline inspectors, with an eye toward boosting the ranks of women, minorities and veterans (Greenwire, Oct. 26).
Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas), Pete Olson (R-Texas), Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) and Brian Babin (R-Texas) introduced the bill (H.R. 3823), which would move hiring authority from the Office of Personnel Management to PHMSA, which the sponsors said "would streamline and expedite the hiring process for pipeline inspectors." However, that power would sunset at the end of 2017.
In the Senate, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said recently that he's considering legislation to reform PHMSA, citing the need for better oversight and understanding of exactly where pipelines are expanding to as shale plays are plumbed deeper for domestic gas (E&E Daily, Sept. 30).
-
Stakeholders Seek More Money over Shorter Time in Highway Bill
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
Transportation groups wrote to Congress yesterday urging that the highway bill under debate increase federal investments in transportation projects, even if it means reauthorizing surface transportation programs for less time.
The letter, sent by 40 stakeholder groups, was written as legislators prepare to go into conference to hammer out the differences between House and Senate versions of the highway bill.
"The goal of the conference committee should be to produce final legislation that confronts the nation's surface transportation challenges with policy reforms AND increased federal investment levels," the letter says. "To that end, a reauthorization bill of less than six years duration with significant highway and public transportation investment increases is far superior to a six-year bill with status quo funding levels."
Determining how to finance the $325 billion road and public transit package has been a major point of contention as the bills moved through Congress (E&E Daily, Nov. 5).
Currently, the Senate bill authorizes funding for six years but provides enough money only to pay for the first three. The House was able to cover five years of the bill's cost at the last minute last week thanks to an amendment by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) that would help finance the bill by reducing dividends that the Federal Reserve pays to some large member banks (Greenwire, Nov. 5).
That last-minute fix has some members of the conference committee considering authorizing a fully funded five-year authorization package.
But the transportation groups say the House solution is not enough because it would "fail to keep pace with the projected annual inflation increases."
"While the reliability of future federal highway and public transportation funds is a critical benefit of a multi-year reauthorization bill, such predictability alone is not sufficient to drive needed surface transportation improvements," the letter says. "We urge you to ensure any surface transportation conference report seeks to maximize the benefits it would provide as opposed to the number of years it would last."
-
Oil Train Bridges in Dismal Shape -- Report
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Marcus Stern
Significant deterioration was found on nearly half the 250 oil train bridges surveyed for a report released yesterday by a trio of environmental groups.
The study from the Waterkeeper Alliance, Riverkeeper and ForestEthics highlighted the risk of a "catastrophic" accident posed by corrosion, cracks, eroded footings and rotted timber found frequently in the sampling of the nation's estimated 100,000 rail bridges.
Waterkeeper Alliance Executive Director Marc Yaggi said the Federal Railroad Administration is "shirking" its regulatory responsibility by allowing railroads to conduct their own inspections. The report urges Congress or the Obama administration to step in to ensure bridge safety.
"We are shining a light on the need for immediate, independent inspections of all rail bridges that carry explosive oil trains," he said.
According to the Department of Transportation, bridge failures caused 58 train accidents from 1982 to 2008, but no collapse was involved in any of the 10 explosive oil train derailments in North America over the last 29 months.
Association of American Railroads spokesman Ed Greenberg said bridges are some of America's safest infrastructure, and outward appearance is not an indication of whether a bridge can support mile-long trains carrying millions of gallons of oil.
Greenberg said "an aggressive 24/7 safety-first process" takes bridges out of commission until inspectors have addressed concerns, but critics blast the lack of documentation on public inspections.
Federal Railroad Administration head Sarah Feinberg last week warned railroads that Congress is being inundated with complaints about bridges and will ask the agency "to step in more aggressively" if lawmakers continue "coming away unconvinced."
The remarks come after Feinberg sent a letter to Canadian Pacific Railway in September demanding that Milwaukee officials and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) receive "a timely and transparent response" to concerns about a local 99-year-old steel bridge.
The railroad agreed to answer technical questions about the bridge, but only behind closed doors, and inspection reports were still not released (Marcus Stern, Al Jazeera America, Nov. 10).
-
EPA Proposes Changes to Ozone 'Exceptional Event' Regs
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has unveiled proposed changes to its "exceptional events" regulations, a tool the agency has said states could use to address high levels of background ozone.
The proposed rule posted online yesterday would revise existing regulations in ways that appear geared toward making it easier for states to prove that spikes in ozone levels were due to natural events, not local human activity. The proposed rule would, for example, drop one provision from the existing regulations requiring states to show a direct connection between a particular event and a subsequent violation or exceedance.
While green groups are still reviewing the proposal, "I can tell you there are concerns that this is, in effect, a deregulatory move made in response to lobbying by Western governors," Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said in an email this morning. Environmental organizations "are certain to file negative comments," he added.
Attempts to reach several industry representatives last night and today -- a federal holiday -- were unsuccessful. The draft rule, which runs more than 200 pages and must still be published in the Federal Register, sets a Jan. 19 deadline for public comments. A Dec. 8 public hearing will be held in Phoenix.
While Congress gave EPA the authority to excuse spikes in ground-level ozone readings in a 2005 amendment to the Clear Air Act, the agency has since rarely used that power. Implementation of the follow-up 2007 rule has been a headache for both state air agencies applying for exemptions and the EPA regional offices charged with reviewing those filings.
"Because exceptional events are fact-specific and thus unique and varied, providing templates or general guidance was, and still is, challenging," the proposed rule says. Under the current definition, the exceptional events are one-time occurrences, caused by either natural forces or human activity, that affect air quality.
But the issue of background ozone -- defined as readings of the pollutant that are not attributable to local, human-related sources -- has drawn increasing attention in light of EPA's decision's last month to lower the ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb. High-elevation sites in the West sometimes approach that threshold because of background ozone; in a recently released, NASA-led study, researchers found that about 48 ppb -- or 77 percent -- of total ozone in Northern California and Nevada stemmed from background sources.
At the 70 ppb level, "we have reached the point where some parts of the country would fail to meet the standard even if they were to eliminate all industrial activity within their borders," Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA's air chief during President George W. Bush's administration, said in prepared testimony at a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing last month.
In unveiling the new ozone standard last month, EPA officials noted that they were updating the exceptional events rule "to simplify and expedite the process for air agency development and EPA review" of individual exemption applications.
To date, however, the agency has granted only one waiver for an exceedance traced to background ozone. In response to a claim from Wyoming, the agency last year agreed not to count as a violation a June 2012 day when two air monitors in the state's western reaches registered ozone readings of 76 and 77 ppb, respectively (Greenwire, Nov. 17, 2014).
But EPA has said it has been working to improve communications with states; under the proposed rule, the agency would also reduce the number of criteria states must address in seeking to prove an exceptional event.
Those criteria include demonstrating that the event was not reasonably preventable and stemmed from natural forces or "a human activity unlikely to recur at a particular location." Although the proposed rule would drop the current requirement that states show "there would have been no exceedance or violation but for the event," it would retain another requirement that states demonstrate "a clear causal relationship between the specific event and the monitored exceedance." If the practical distinction between the two mandates seems slight, states have voiced concern that EPA "has, in many cases, historically interpreted the 'but for' criterion as implying the need for a strict quantitative analysis … of the estimated air quality impact" from a particular event, according to the draft rule.
EPA is also proposing to revise its existing regulations to make clear that "a mix of natural emissions and reasonably controlled human-affected emissions sources may be considered a natural event," according to the proposal. It adds, however, that an exceedance triggered solely by "reasonably controlled" human emissions would not be considered a natural event.
-
Green Group Presses Dem Lawmakers on Carbon Rule
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
Environment America launched an ad campaign today pressuring a trio of Democratic senators to vote against a resolution aimed at overturning U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The green group's online ad blitz urges Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Mark Warner of Virginia and Michael Bennet of Colorado -- who is up for re-election next year -- to oppose a Congressional Review Act resolution that would block the Obama administration's rules for power-sector carbon emissions.
"Senator Warner, will you let big polluters and their allies take away public health benefits, or will you support cleaner air, protect our climate [and] ensure a healthy future for our families?" the ad targeting the Virginia Democrat asks.
The ads aimed at Bennet and Casey -- who, like Warner, have both publicly supported the Clean Power Plan -- thank the lawmakers for "protecting our climate." The ads are running online in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Richmond, Va., through Friday, an Environment America official said.
The push comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to hold a vote next week on the CRA resolution blocking the Clean Power Plan. The EPA rule is a favorite target of congressional Republicans and moderate Democrats from energy-producing states.
Environment America isn't the only green group ramping up its messaging effort ahead of the CRA vote.
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune urged members of a new Senate Republican working group on energy and environmental policy -- made up of Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- to reject the resolution (E&ENews PM, Nov. 10).
-
Carbon Tax Could be Coming to a Handful of Regions
Nov 11, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Chelsea Harvey
Several states are moving close to charging fees on carbon emissions and passing the proceeds to residents in the form of dividend checks.
In Washington state, advocates are working to gather signatures for a ballot initiative to cut the state's carbon footprint and reform its tax system. If it qualifies, it would be the first carbon tax to reach the ballot in the United States.
Citizens and state lawmakers in Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Oregon have also considered similar proposals. British Columbia already has a carbon tax that it returned to residents.
The plan, if enacted, will show consumers that action on climate change can offer benefits to them, not only personal sacrifices.
"I think it's a relatively new idea for a lot of people," said Yoram Bauman, who founded a group, Carbon Washington, that supports the plan. "When you talk about climate change, they think they're going to have to spend money on solar panels or stuff like that" (Chelsea Harvey,Washington Post, Nov. 10). -- SP
-
Following Citizen Suit Defeats, Advocates Increase Scrutiny Of Air Permits
Nov 11, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a group that has championed citizen suits against industrial polluters to curb their emissions, is planning to place a heavier emphasis on getting EPA to challenge plants' state air permits in future actions, following some defeats in citizen actions seeking to directly enforce permit and other limits.
Speaking Oct. 23 at an event sponsored by the American Law Institute -- Continuing Legal Education (ALI-CLE) in Washington, D.C., EIP Executive Director Eric Schaeffer said that, "we will be reviewing and asking EPA to object to more permits than we did in the past."
Under the Clean Air Act, citizens can petition EPA to object to state air permits -- such as the umbrella Title V permits -- that they believe are not consistent with the air law. Environmental groups often ask for such permit objections, and Schaeffer noted that EPA "will generally give you a good response" if the petition is well crafted.
Title V permits are "umbrella" permits that are supposed to incorporate all air permits for a facility, such as prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits issued under the New Source Review (NSR) program. They generally do not impose substantive requirements, but courts are split on whether polluters can be held liable for unlawful provisions in the Title V permit.
Schaeffer told the conference that EIP has been involved in some recent attempts to directly enforce against industrial polluters because of alleged air law violations, using the citizen suit provisions of the air law, and the results have been poor -- and in one case, "catastrophic." This case was environmentalists' suit over alleged NSR violations at the Big Brown, Martin Lake and Monticello coal-fired power plants operated by utility Luminant in Texas, Sierra Club v. Energy Future Holdings Corporation, et al, a major loss for environmental groups including EIP.
But Schaefer noted the importance of raising issues with sufficient specificity in comments on a proposed permit to the responsible air regulator.
In one instance where EPA used a lack of specific comment to refuse a permit petition, the agency Jan. 23 told EIP that it would reject the group's petition for the agency to object to the air permits of the Big Brown and Martin Lake plants.
The agency's refusal to object to the power plant's permits came after serious losses in direct citizen enforcement in Texas. In Sierra Club, a federal district judge backed the company and punished environmentalists for what he said were "frivolous" claims. In his opinion for the court, Judge Walter Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco found Sierra Club's accusations unfounded and ruled that TCEQ correctly handled any enforcement issues with alleged air law violations.
The judge in his March 28, 2014, bench ruling determined that Sierra Club's civil enforcement suit was frivolous, and later awarded Luminant more than $6 million in legal fees at Sierra Club's expense.
The ruling was considered unprecedented and a "miscarriage of justice" by environmentalists, as courts typically do not award such large sums in legal fees against environmental groups in air law citizen suits. Environmentalists argued that Luminant and its parent company Energy Future Holdings repeatedly violated permit limits on opacity.
'Affirmative Defense'
Smith in his March 28 written opinion found that all of the spikes in opacity, or "upset" incidents, recorded by Luminant and flagged by Sierra Club were in fact covered by an "affirmative defense" that provides a shield from emissions limit violation liability in certain circumstances.
Also, the Big Brown plant took appropriate steps to minimize such incidents, and properly reported them to TCEQ, Smith found. Sierra Club ultimately reached a settlement with Luminant to end several citizen suits against the company in return for not having to pay the massive fees in the Big Brown case.
Following the Big Brown suit, environmentalists then lost another civil enforcement action in Texas, against ExxonMobil over alleged excess emissions from the company's huge Baytown refinery complex. Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc., et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation that environmentalists' allegations of excess air toxics emissions, violations of flaring requirements and illegal upset emissions were unfounded.
Then, in an Aug. 21 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas' Dallas division in United States v. Luminant Generation Company, LLC and Big Brown Power Company, LLC, rejected most of EPA's objections to the air permits of Big Brown and Martin Lake plants in the agency's own enforcement action against Luminant for alleged NSR violations.
In his opinion for the court, Judge Ed Kinkeade said the air law "does not authorize a collateral attack on a facially valid, but allegedly improper, state permit. . . . The plain text of Title V accounts for two ways in which Title V can be violated: (1) operating without a Title V permit and (2) violating the terms of a Title V permit while operating a source. . . . The plaintiff in an enforcement case is limited to challenging whether or not the permit holder complied with the terms of the permit."
Kinkeade's opinion therefore narrows further the options for direct enforcement against holders of Title V permits, whether by citizens or EPA, at least in the Dallas area. Environmental sources at the time said it underscored the importance of petitioning EPA to object to permits with perceived flaws, as EIP is now advocating.
By contrast, EIP, along with Sierra Club and Air Alliance Houston, successfully asked EPA to object to the Title V air operating permits of the Shell Deer Park chemical plant and refinery in Texas. EPA on Sept. 24 partially granted and partially denied two petitions from the groups.
EPA granted the petitions with respect to what it says are inadequate monitoring provisions at the plants, but denied the groups' objection to the permits incorporating other air permits by reference, a practice environmentalists say obscures the true permit obligations of facilities but EPA in the petition response says is acceptable
-
On the Keystone Pipeline, President Obama Missed an Opportunity
Nov 11, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Greg Ip
World leaders will gather later this month in Paris to set new targets for greenhouse-gas emissions. The targets will be the easy part. Meeting them with the least possible harm to the economy will be much harder, requiring a deft mix of science and economics.
President Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to show how when he formally killed the Keystone XL pipeline last week.
In explaining his decision, Mr. Obama said saving the planet from a warmer climate will require that some fossil fuels, such as the carbon-intensive oil from Canada’s tar sands, be left in the ground.
Yet as Mr. Obama also knows, killing Keystone, which would have carried that crude to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, will have little impact on the production of such crude. World market conditions will determine how much of Canada’s oil finds its way to market, either in Asia or the U.S.—whether via train, ship or pipeline. The most reliable way to limit the burning of fossil fuels is to alter market signals so as to divert demand toward cleaner sources of energy or conservation.
We know how to do that: Put a price on carbon-dioxide emissions via a tax, or via tradable emission allowances in a cap-and-trade system. Both incentivize the market to find the least economically harmful way to reduce emissions.
How might that have worked?
According to the State Department, producing, transporting, refining and burning a barrel of Canada’s oil-sands crude emits 569 kilograms of carbon dioxide, 81 kilograms more than an average barrel of U.S. crude. The U.S. could have coupled approval with a plan that offset this larger footprint.
Based on the White House’s own estimate of the “social cost of carbon,” this difference could be offset with a carbon tax of about $3.25 a barrel. Alternatively, purchasing carbon allowances on the Northeast’s RGGI would have done the same thing at roughly 50 cents a barrel. Or the Canadian or Alberta governments could have undertaken some offsetting policy, such as carbon capture-and-storage or rebates for clean energy.
All of these options have practical obstacles. Imposing such requirements on Keystone but not other pipelines or freight trains might be unfair or render the project uneconomic. TransCanada PipeLines, Keystone’s operator, maintains that as a transporter it is not responsible for the carbon dioxide associated with the production of crude.
Imposing a tax only on Canadian crude might violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the North American Free Trade Agreement or World Trade Organization rules. Dealing with such obstacles would have required good-faith negotiations by the U.S., Canada and TransCanada.
“Our government had volunteered to impose regulations on oil production in concert with the United States, but Mr. Obama’s administration did not take up our offer,” Joe Oliver, a former minister of natural resources and later finance in Canada’s Conservative government that was ousted in last month’s election,wrote in The Globe and Mail on Nov. 11. “To my knowledge, the administration never suggested anything we should do to achieve a favourable ruling on Keystone.”
Indeed, there is no sign Mr. Obama ever considered a deal that would couple Keystone approval with carbon-offsetting steps. It would have made it far harder to reject it for its symbolic importance, as he ultimately did.ENLARGEThe Keystone Steele City pumping station, into which the Keystone XL pipeline would have connected, is seen in Steele City, Neb., earlier this month.
Nonetheless, it’s not too late to apply market mechanisms to greenhouse-gas emissions elsewhere. Mr. Obama could still make a number of decisions during the rest of his term that affect the production of fossil fuels, from leasing federal land for coal mining and oil and gas drilling to easing the ban on exports of U.S. crude.
One potential area for this approach: Michael Greenstone, an economist at the University of Chicago, reckons that the climate damage of coal mined from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is five times as great as its market value. The federal government could take those damages into consideration when calculating leases and royalty rates on federal land.
As with all things where the environment and business intersect, such actions will be politically fraught. Raising fees on federal lands would rile Western state legislators and divert drilling to private land. Environmentalists don’t want the oil export ban lifted. The risk is that, as on Keystone, proponents and opponents stake out absolutist positions. But the climate and the economy would be better served if Mr. Obama chose pragmatism over symbolism.
-
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says
Nov 11, 2015 | New York Times
By Nicholas St. Fleur
Global concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million for a monthly average this past spring, breaching a symbolic barrier set by climate scientists and policy makers, according to a report released Monday.
Concentrations of other greenhouse gases produced from human activities, such as methane and nitrous oxide, also reached records in 2014, the World Meteorological Organization announced in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. The report is one of several measurements made by different climate agencies to address the state of greenhouse gases in advance of theParis Climate Summit.
“This evidence shows us that the concentrations are increasing, and they are increasing with increasing rates,” said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the W.M.O.’s Atmospheric Environment Research Division. “This calls for urgent and very strong actions to limit the emission of those greenhouse gasses.”
In 2014, the average global atmospheric carbon dioxide level rose to 397.7 parts per million, substantially higher than the 278 parts per million floating in the atmosphere during preindustrial time, or before 1750. The researchers reported that the annual average is expected to pass 400 parts per million in 2016.
But Dr. Tarasova noted that exceeding the 400 mark does not denote an immediate catastrophe.
“There is nothing magic about 400, it’s nothing better than 399 or 401,” she said. “This is like our obligation to ourselves, we’d like to not go over 400. It’s symbolic.” She said that surpassing the threshold “only shows that our commitments are not there.”
In 2014, methane in the air increased by nine parts per billion over 2013, which represented two and a half times its preindustrial levels. Nitrous oxide reached 1.1 parts per billion more than its levels in 2013, an increase of 20 percent from its preindustrial levels, according to the findings.
The report also noted interactions between greenhouse gas emissions and water vapor in the atmosphere. Humans produce carbon dioxide that heats up Earth’s surface, which then heats up the atmosphere.
Hotter air can hold more moisture, which exacerbates greenhouse warming. According to Dr. Tarasova, if carbon dioxide levels reach 560 parts per million, or double their preindustrial levels, the feedback loop would cause water vapor and clouds to increase atmospheric warming to a rate that is three times as much as what the human-caused gases can do by themselves.
“We shouldn’t blame water vapor for making this place warmer,” she said. Rather, she said, by limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, people can balance the feedback loop and mitigate future warming.
-
GOP Candidates Slam Climate Regulations, Promise Repeal
Nov 11, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Energy
By Alex Guillen
Several Republican presidential candidates took aim at President Barack Obama's climate change regulations at Tuesday night's debate in Wisconsin, promising to repeal the landmark Clean Power Plan if they are elected and blasting the administration for ignoring fossil fuels.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was among those calling for an end to the Clean Power Plan, arguing that “we ought to repeal that and start over on that.” Bush also called for an end to EPA’s Waters of the United States rule, which he described as a regulation that's “going to be devastating for agriculture and many industries.”
Bush’s statement could indicate that he is open to considering a regulation curbing greenhouse gases. EPA is required to regulate GHGs following key Supreme Court rulings and the agency’s 2009 endangerment finding. His campaign did not immediately respond to questions.
The League of Conservation Voters called Bush's statement "a desperate attempt to please the big polluters that fund his campaign" and said Bush is "misguided about the benefits of the Clean Power Plan, which protects the health of our families, grows the economy and creates jobs."
Bush also knocked Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that she "hinted she was for the Keystone XL pipeline, now she's opposed to it."
Sen. Rand Paul said Obama's rules had punished Kentucky's economy, which still has one of the nation's largest coal industries.
“The first thing I would do as president is repeal the regulations that are hampering our energy that the president has put in place, including the Clean Power Act,” said Paul.
He went on to argue that human activity “may” play a role in climate change, but that the government should strike a balance between environmental protection and the economy. “It would be a mistake to shut down all of our industries and the coal fields and shut down the coal powered plants. If we did so, we’re gonna have a day where we wake up and some of our big cities are either very cold or very hot,” he said.
Bush reached back to Obama's first term to cite the solar loan guarantee scandal that gave the president's renewable energy push a black eye, and he pointed to the shale gas boom as the biggest factor in cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
“We’ve had a 10 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and it isn’t because of Solyndra. It isn’t because of the central planners in Washington, D.C.,” Bush said. The reduction came from a “great American success story — the explosion of natural gas.”
The drop in U.S. emissions was due to the growth of natural gas as a power source, pushing out coal, as well as decreased electricity demand caused by the recession.
Carly Fiorina, meanwhile, called for passage of the REINS Act, legislation that would require Congress' approval of any regulation with an expected economic impact of $100 million or more. The REINS Act would mean “Congress is in charge of regulation, not nameless faceless bureaucrats accountable to no one,” the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said.
The House in July passed the REINS bill after it attracted a White House veto, though it has yet to get far in the Senate.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also reiterated his call to shut down the Energy Department, along with the Commerce Department, the IRS and other agencies.
And Donald Trump returned to his arguments that the U.S. should have “kept the oil” from the Iraq War and given “big chunks” of it to wounded veterans and the families of killed soldiers.
-
On Climate Change, Faint Lights Fade in GOP White House Race
Nov 11, 2015 | National Journal
By Ben Geman
Until the final moments of Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate, nearly everything viewers heard about global warming and energy came during the commercials. The American Petroleum Institute, which is the oil-and-gas industry’s lobbying arm, and lefty billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate group ran dueling ads touting the virtues of drilling and fighting climate change with renewable energy.
That was a lot more than the brief onstage shout-outs to more oil-and-gas development, and rolling back President Obama’s carbon emissions rules that Republicans almost uniformly call an economic disaster. But in the final question of the night, Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo went there: she reminded Senator Rand Paul that he was among among 15 Republicans who voted for an amendment declaring that human activity contributes to climate change.
“President Obama has announced an aggressive plan to cut carbon emissions. At the same time, energy production in America has boomed. Is it possible to continue this boom, and move toward energy self-sufficiency, while at the same time pursuing a meaningful climate change program?,” she asked.
“The first thing I would do as president is repeal the regulations that are hampering our energy that the President has put in place,” Paul replied to applause, before singling out Obama’s sweeping mandate to cut power plant emissions.
The Kentucky Republican then took stock of the reality of human-induced global warming with a resounding maybe. “While I do think that man may have a role in our climate, I think nature also has a role. The planet’s 4.5 billion years old, we’ve been through geologic age after geologic age. We’ve had times when the temperatures been warmer, we’ve had times when the temperatures been colder. We’ve had times when the carbon in the atmosphere’s been higher. So, I think … we need to look before we leap,” he said.
Bartiromo’s question was a flashback to Paul’s vote on one of the climate-related amendments that the Senate rejected while debating the Keystone pipeline on January 21. But she didn’t ask about the very next vote that day, which was on liberal Democrat Brian Schatz’s amendment, one that better summed up what scientists believe by stating that it’s “extremely likely” that higher global temperatures stem from human activities, and that people contribute “significantly” to climate change.
That one drew just four GOP votes as Paul and most of the other 15 Republicans backed away. One of those four was South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, who, like Paul, is running for president. But viewers were given no clue to his candidacy Tuesday night. Graham’s microscopic polling numbers were too dismal to make even the earlier “kids table” debate that aired at 7 p.m. Also excluded was New York Governor George Pataki, who flatly says humans are heating up the earth.
“One of the things that troubles me about the Republican Party is too often we question science that everyone accepts,” he said at a late October debate, calling. Pataki has even tried to use his climate stance as a way to get traction in the GOP contest, saying over Twitter a month earlier that climate change is real and he would “shout it from the rooftops.” It linked to a fundraising page.
Pataki, when he was New York’s governor, helped launch a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions from power plants in northeastern states. In the Oct. 28 debate. however, he emphasized more common GOP themes of encouraging private-sector innovation.
Graham, for his part, spent months negotiating a sweeping bill to limit greenhouse gases in 2010 with then-senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, but then walked away from the talks, making the bill’s already steep climb even tougher without a GOP co-sponsor. It never got a vote. There is plenty of distance between Graham and most Democrats on climate policy — he has voted against EPA regulation of carbon emissions. But at the late October debate he made his views on the science clear, noting: “I’ve talked to the climatologists of the world, and 90 percent of them are telling me that greenhouse gas effect is real. That we’re heating up the planet.”
It is, to be sure, awfully hard to imagine that climate change has anything to do with the polling numbers that reshuffled the debate lineups. But the disappearance of Graham and Pataki from the stage, and the demotion of another climate change acknowledger, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, to the lower-tier debate Tuesday underscores how small a role climate change will have in the Republican presidential primary—even as others in the party demonstrate an increasing willingness to discuss the issue.
Republicans are having something of a moment on global warming. In September, 11 House GOP lawmakers introduced a resolution calling for action to address climate change, while three weeks ago New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte became the first — and thus far only — Senate Republican to support Obama’s sweeping power plant rule.
But when it comes to the GOP race, climate change has been largely an afterthought among the main contenders in the fractious GOP field. Donald Trump flatly rejects global warming and Ben Carson has questioned evidence of global warming and has said “there’s always going to be cooling or warming going on.” Marco Rubio, who is rising in the polls, voted against both those Senate amendments and has been openly skeptical about whether humans are having a substantial effect.
Jeb Bush, who came into the race with a more moderate pedigree, has argued that humans play some role but says it’s unclear how much. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, also on the more moderate end of the field, told National Journal through a spokesman this summer that “we know man has an impact, and we know we need to do something.”
But Bush and Kasich have nonetheless downplayed the issue during the campaign. And both have unveiled energy policy platforms that call for rolling back Obama’s plans and expanded domestic drilling, with low-carbon energy addressed more obliquely with support for efficiency and basic research into green energy. Neither plan mentions climate change or global warming, while Bush’s plan explicitly references the topic in calling for repeal of “Obama’s Carbon Rule.”
On Tuesday night Bush did, however, offer his own answer to the climate question that went to Paul. He heralded the role of natural gas — which produces fewer carbon emissions than the coal it’s displacing in power production — in lowering U.S. greenhouse gases, and arguing more broadly that “High growth is the path to lower carbon, and more jobs.”
That was more on the topic than Ted Cruz got a chance to say. The Texas senator tried to jump in but Bush had already begun talking. But he will get another chance. Cruz, who flatly disputes the existence of global warming, has got the money and poll numbers to stay firmly in the mix.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested