Preview Newsletter
ACC ACC Nov 20
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Withdraws Three New Use Rules
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will withdraw and then repropose direct final significant new use rules (SNURs) for three chemicals, according to a Federal Register notice scheduled for publication Nov. 20. EPA identified the three chemicals using their generic names and the premanufacture notice (PMN) numbers. -
TSCA Bill Faces Implementation Hurdles Despite Potential For Senate Vote
Nov 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could face implementation hurdles with EPA struggling with a suite of new regulatory definitions and deadlines under the bill, even as prospects for it receiving a long-awaited floor vote improve given a potential deal on a funding fight that has held up the legislation. -
Ex-EPA Officials Predict TSCA Reform Despite Gridlock
Nov 19, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A panel of former U.S. EPA officials today said they expect Congress to pass a bill this year to reform the nation's aging chemical law, though it's taken longer than expected. Implementing the reforms could be challenging but would benefit the public in the long term, the officials said... -
EPA Expects to Authorize More Rapid Toxicity Tests
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
By 2017, pesticide and chemical manufacturers will be able to use “high throughput” tests to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency mandated data about whether a chemical has the potential to affect androgen, a senior agency official predicted Nov. 19. By January 2017, “I expect we'll—actually you'll—have cracked the androgen... -
New Wristband Technology Illuminates Chemical Asthmagens in our Environment
Nov 19, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Asthma presents a huge public health challenge. Over the past few decades, asthma rates in the U.S. have nearly tripled – increasing from 3.1% in 1980 to 8.4% in 2010. Today, more than 25 million people suffer from this chronic respiratory illness. While air pollution and allergens like pet dander are clearly big triggers for asthma... -
Supply Chain Communication Key To Managing ‘GHS Conversion Storm’
Nov 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin and Leigh Stringer
Managing the "challenging" transition to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling requires strong communication throughout the supply chain, says Suzanne Janicki, North American GHS project manager for BASF. In this month’s Global Business Briefing, Chemical Watch reports... -
Us Microbead Ban Moves Forward
Nov 19, 2015 | Plastic News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A House committee this week moved forward on a bill that would ban the manufacture or sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads in the United States. The bill (HR 1321) would ban the U.S. manufacture of products with microbeads starting July 1, 2017, and the sale... -
Rep. Sessions Introduces Cosmetics Regulation Plan
Nov 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A bill by a Texas Republican would make changes to how the Food and Drug Administration regulates cosmetics manufacturing and distribution by adding some new regulations but preventing state action. Rep. Pete Sessions introduced H.R. 4075, or the "Safe Cosmetics Modernization Act," on Wednesday. -
CSB's Compliance With Payment Law to Be Probed
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's compliance with federal improper payment legislation is coming under the scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general, the EPA said Nov. 17. The audit, which is required by the Office of Management and Budget, will seek to determine compliance with the Improper Payment... -
PG&E Safety Culture Review Could Take Two Years: Utility Commission
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak and Harry R. Weber
An investigation into the safety practices of PG&E Corp. following a deadly natural-gas pipeline explosion in 2010 could take two years to complete, California's chief utility regulator said Nov. 19. The California Public Utilities Commission is examining whether the San Francisco-based utility holding company ... -
PHMSA Official Lays Out Safety, Enforcement Vision
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Actively promoting the use of safety management systems in pipeline and hazardous materials transportation programs is the “next step” to improving safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said Nov. 19. Safety management systems are set business processes... -
Hazmat Groups Offer Wish List for Highway Bill
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The congressional conference committee working on the multiyear highway bill should incorporate several hazardous material transportation provisions from the House bill into its final legislation, more than two-dozen hazmat shipper, carrier and packaging manufacturer groups told the committee in a letter obtained by Bloomberg BNA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Looks to Congress for Ozone Relief
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Industry groups that advocated against more stringent national ozone standards are now looking for Congress to step in and stop, or at least slow down, implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's new 70 parts per billion ozone standards. Several industry officials told Bloomberg BNA that they like a comprehensive bill... -
East Coast Leaders Tell Obama To Reject Offshore Drilling In Atlantic
Nov 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jackie Savitz
Today, a group of business representatives, local government officials and coastal leaders from towns along the Eastern Seaboard arrived in Washington with a clear message to the president: They don't want oil drilling off their coast, and they want to make sure their concerns are being heard in the White House. -
Clean Power Plan Trading Could ‘Dwarf' Other Markets
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
How emissions credits for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan are generated and allocated have yet to be determined, but attorneys at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP said the program has the potential to “dwarf” other air pollution trading markets. David McCullough, counsel at the law firm, likened the Clean Power Plan's... -
Southern Co. Seeks Options in EPA Carbon Rules
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
One of the nation's largest utility companies is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to provide broad flexibility in compliance options for states that chose not to develop their own plan to implement carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing power plants. As the EPA implements its Clean Power Plan, the agency should keep both... -
Senate Panel Approves Obama Energy Department Nominees
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted Nov. 19 to approve the nomination of John Kotek to be assistant secretary of nuclear energy and two other of the Obama administration's Energy Department nominees, clearing the way for full Senate consideration. -
Senators Float Resolution To Pressure Obama To Submit Climate Deal
Nov 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Sens. Jim Inhofe, Joe Manchin and Roy Blunt introduced a resolution today aimed at undercutting the international climate agreement that President Barack Obama hopes to clinch in Paris next month. The nonbinding resolution says any agreement finalized at the Paris summit next month should have no force in the United States until it is submitted... -
House GOP Bills Aim To Block EPA Energy Sector Air Rules
Nov 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) is pushing three bills that aim to block EPA air and climate rules for the oil and gas sector, including legislation that would prohibit the agency regulating the industry's emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane and a measure to bar any energy-related rules with costs of more than $100 million. -
Democrats Oppose EPA Policy Riders In House FY16 Bill
Nov 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
A group of more than 160 House Democrats are crafting a letter to the chamber's GOP and Democratic leadership urging them to strike all policy riders -- including measures aiming to block major EPA rules -- from the fiscal year 2016 spending omnibus bill, warning that such provisions could lead to a budget impasse and a government shutdown. -
Boiler MACT Reconsideration Effective Nov. 20
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Revised national air toxics standards for major source industrial boilers, including alternative work practice standards for startup procedures, will go into effect Nov. 20. The final rule, which is effective upon publication in the Federal Register, was promulgated to address various industry concerns with the maximum achievable control technology (MACT)...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Withdraws Three New Use Rules
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will withdraw and then repropose direct final significant new use rules (SNURs) for three chemicals, according to a Federal Register notice scheduled for publication Nov. 20.
EPA identified the three chemicals using their generic names and the premanufacture notice (PMN) numbers. The chemicals are isocyanate prepolymer (PMN No. P-15-221), methylene diisocyanate polymer with diols and triols (PMN No. P-15-247) and polymer of isophorone diisocyanate and amine-terminated propoxylatedpolyol (PMN No. P-15-278). Two of the chemicals are used to make adhesives, while the third helps make polymers, according to the EPA.
Withdrawing previously published direct final SNURs to issue them as proposed rules is the process the agency uses to respond when companies or other interested parties object to direct final rules.
In this case, the American Chemistry Council and the council's Diisocyanates and Aliphatic Diisocyanates panels filed comments Nov. 2 announcing their intent to object to the direct final SNURs for the three chemicals, which the agency issued Oct. 2.
The three chemicals were among 30 for which the agency issued direct final SNURs (80 Fed Reg. 59,593; 191 DEN A-9, 10/2/15).
ACC and its diisocyanates panels did not describe the reasons for their objection, nor is the reason required.
Only a notice of intent to file an objection is sufficient to trigger the EPA to withdraw a direct final SNUR. Typically, the agency reproposes the new use rule soon after it has withdrawn the final regulation.
-
TSCA Bill Faces Implementation Hurdles Despite Potential For Senate Vote
Nov 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could face implementation hurdles with EPA struggling with a suite of new regulatory definitions and deadlines under the bill, even as prospects for it receiving a long-awaited floor vote improve given a potential deal on a funding fight that has held up the legislation.
If the pending bill, S. 697, becomes law then EPA is likely to be faced with a “tremendous amount of policy making that would have to be done very quickly,” said George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health Dean Lynn Goldman at a Nov. 19 Environmental Law Institute (ELI) event in Washington, D.C.
Potential implementation hurdles include EPA struggling with clarifying a number of new definitions, orchestrating a set of what may be unrealistic deadlines to take regulatory actions within two years, a lack of experience in establishing a fee structure, and addressing persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals.
For example, the TSCA bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (R-NM) would require EPA to strengthen the reviews it conducts on new chemicals and make a finding on their safety before allowing new substances to enter the marketplace, which may be difficult in terms of implementation, Goldman said.
Among other rulemaking requirements, the Senate bill would require the agency to within a year of enactment to establish a risk-based screening system for identifying substances that are a high priority, or unlikely to meet the bill's safety standard, or low priority or likely to meet the safety standard.
The bill also includes requirements for EPA to promote sustainable chemicals, Goldman said, noting that “EPA needs to be able to articulate what that means,” and that EPA may “have to establish a new mechanism” for engaging the external scientific community on some of the criteria it should be using.
Former EPA toxics official Jim Aidala, now with the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, at the ELI event identified some of the time frames on rulemakings, new definitions, and administrative fees as potential “early implementation hurdles” associated with reform legislation if it clears a Senate floor vote.
Goldman said EPA had to establish a fee structure when Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, suggesting, “there might be a few people left [at the agency] that remember how to do that.”
Even before the agency grapples with how to implement the TSCA bill, the Senate would have to resolve a dispute over reauthorizing the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The battle -- while unrelated to anything in the text of the TSCA bill -- is preventing a floor debate on S. 697. And even if senators can resolve the LWCF dispute, the bill still has to head to conference talks to reconcile it with a House-approved TSCA bill.
LWCF Dispute
S. 697 has broad bipartisan support and has at least 60 declared votes in support that could overcome any filibuster threat. But the bill has been twice blocked in October by objections from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), because Burr sought an amendment to TSCA that would allow a vote on reauthorizing the LWCF.
Burr objected on Oct. 21 and then Oct. 28 when Udall sought unanimous consent to bring the bill to the floor. Burr sought an amendment to the S. 697 bill to reauthorize the LWCF, but Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and other GOP senators oppose reauthorization of the fund without changes to how it operates, stymieing both the LWCF and TSCA bills.
The LWCF helps acquire and maintain park lands and is funded by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas. Lee and Burr are supporters of the TSCA reform legislation, but their push on the LWCF has created major uncertainty about when a vote could take place on either the measure to reauthorize the fund or the TSCA bill.
But on Nov. 19 the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee unanimously approved full reauthorization of the LWCF as an amendment to S. 556, according to a press release from Burr's office. S. 556 is legislation that would expand access to federal lands for fishing and hunting.
“The legislation the Committee supported on a bipartisan basis makes some critical reforms to the program, but maintains the original intent of the fund which is to assist in the conservation of both scenic landscapes and local ballfields and parks, without asking taxpayers to pick up the tab,” Burr said.
A group of 14 senators Nov. 18 sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), asking the leadership to consider attaching a measure to permanently reauthorize the LWCF in any “must-pass” legislation up for a vote before the end of the year. Udall and Burr both signed the letter, indicating a possible deal that could allow TSCA to move forward.
Timing 'Challenge'
One chemical industry source says the letter could reflect an agreement to allow the TSCA bill to advance to a vote by potentially resolving the LWCF fight. But that source adds, “There is still the challenge of the clock, other legislative priorities, and the Dec. 18 deadline” for legislation.
A second industry source previously told Inside EPA that the TSCA bill could struggle to win floor time among competing legislative priorities. "There are several issues that could eat up floor time," that source said, including those that are seen as higher legislative priorities than TSCA reform in a "political year" -- including negotiations over how to address a budget continuing resolution that ends Dec. 11 and a GOP push to defund Planned Parenthood.
Assuming the Senate is able to pass the TSCA bill, lawmakers would then convene a conference to discuss the differences between S. 697 and the narrower House toxics measure, H.R. 2576. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who authored the House legislation, previously said that the two chambers will eventually hold "staff to staff meetings" to discuss the bills and options, including "informal conference, negotiating on the same bill, [or] formal conference."
-
Ex-EPA Officials Predict TSCA Reform Despite Gridlock
Nov 19, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A panel of former U.S. EPA officials today said they expect Congress to pass a bill this year to reform the nation's aging chemical law, though it's taken longer than expected.
Implementing the reforms could be challenging but would benefit the public in the long term, the officials said at a forum on the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 held at George Washington University. EPA is likely to face internal conflict as it works to meet deadlines in the bill but deals with the reality of limited resources, panelists said.
Though Congress has not reconciled differences between a House bill, H.R. 2576 or the "TSCA Modernization Act," and a competing Senate plan, S. 697 or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," panelists say they assume the Senate bill would become law.
The Senate bill passed the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this year and is awaiting floor time. The House bill was approved by a vote of 398-1 in June (E&E Daily, June 24).
Though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called the chemicals legislation a priority, it's been repeatedly pushed back in favor of other issues. Most recently, even as the bill now boasts the support of more than 60 Senate co-sponsors, a dispute over whether to use the chemicals bill as a vehicle to make changes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund has tied up the legislation's progress.
Lawmakers last month blamed Senate leaders, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and other senators for linking the two issues to the detriment of the TSCA legislation (E&ENews PM, Oct. 28).
If the bill is approved and reconciled with the House version, "There's going to be early implementation hurdles" as EPA works to complete a series of early rulemakings connected to the legislation, said James Aidala, a senior government consultant at Bergeson & Campbell and a former assistant administrator in what was then EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Advocates have previously identified at least 15 required rules, guidances and procedures that EPA would be required to issue under S. 697, which some have argued could distract the agency from its primary mission of evaluating the safety of chemicals (Greenwire, Sept. 24).
It may be possible for EPA to win inclusion of report language or changes to the legislative text to help the agency "triage" -- that is, prioritize how to tackle the deadlines, Aidala said.
Lynn Goldman, the dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University and another former EPA assistant administrator, said the issue is too important for Congress to walk away from.
Under current law, a future administration that is less interested in regulating chemicals would not be required to maintain even many existing EPA chemical programs that have been criticized as inadequate, Goldman said.
To change that, though, the Senate has to clear its logjam, the ex-officials said.
The issues with the LWCF are "seemingly nongermane," said Lawrence Culleen, a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter LLP who once led EPA's new chemicals branch, "but it's the Senate, so everything is germane."
-
EPA Expects to Authorize More Rapid Toxicity Tests
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
By 2017, pesticide and chemical manufacturers will be able to use “high throughput” tests to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency mandated data about whether a chemical has the potential to affect androgen, a senior agency official predicted Nov. 19.
By January 2017, “I expect we'll—actually you'll—have cracked the androgen nut,” Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, told about 300 toxicologists and other scientists. Jones spoke at a conference organized by the Society of Toxicology, which focused on regulators' use of emerging types of toxicity tests.
Jones discussed his expectations for the agency's use of rapid, or high throughput, tests that would generate information showing whether a chemical or pesticide has the potential to affect the function of androgen, the male reproductive hormone. That type of information is part of the data package that pesticide manufacturers and some chemical manufacturers must submit to comply with the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.
In September, for the first time, the EPA authorized the use of three high throughput tests designed to identify a chemical's ability to mimic or interfere with estrogen, the female reproductive hormone (80 Fed. Reg. 35,350).
The regulatory use of similar types of tests detecting a chemical's potential to affect androgen and the thyroid hormone “are within our sights,” Jones said.
Jones predicted he will sign a Federal Register notice authorizing the use of rapid screening tests to identify effects on androgen function by Jan. 27, 2017, when he will retire.
New Tests as Alternate Source of Required Data
As with the rapid screening estrogen tests, the results from these additional androgen tests could substitute for data generated through more traditional toxicity tests, he said.
Pesticide and chemical manufacturers that must generate data for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program currently obtain that data from a battery of 11 tests designed to detect a chemical's potential to affect estrogen, androgen or the thyroid hormone. The EDSP evolved from requirements in the Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Act amendments enacted in 2006 (12 DEN B-11, 1/19/07).
Companies pay an estimated $500,000 to $800,000 per chemical run through that 11-test battery, according to information from a consulting firm, the Technology Sciences Group Inc. Additional tests that may cost up to $2 million may be triggered by the results of the 11-test battery.
The rapid screening tests the EPA already authorized for estrogen activity were proven to be as or even more accurate than the traditional tests, Jones said.
Data in Years, Not Decades or Centuries
High throughput tests also will enable companies to evaluate thousands of chemicals far more quickly than could be done using traditional test methods, he said.
It took companies five years to conduct the 11-test battery on the first batch of 52 chemicals and pesticides that went through the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, Jones said.
Use of the rapid screening tests open the door to securing required data within a couple of years instead of decades or even centuries, he said.
-
New Wristband Technology Illuminates Chemical Asthmagens in our Environment
Nov 19, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Asthma presents a huge public health challenge. Over the past few decades, asthma rates in the U.S. have nearly tripled – increasing from 3.1% in 1980 to 8.4% in 2010. Today, more than 25 million people suffer from this chronic respiratory illness.
While air pollution and allergens like pet dander are clearly big triggers for asthma, we know that certain chemical exposures play an important role as well. A number of chemicals used in everyday consumer products – from household cleaners and building materials to shampoos and cosmetics – are known or suspected "asthmagens"– environmental agents that cause or exacerbate asthma. Unfortunately, such chemicals are poorly regulated and we, as individuals, rarely have any way of knowing which ones are lurking in our environment.
EDF recently conducted a pilot project to explore which chemicals we are exposed to in our day-to-day lives. The project employed simple chemical-detecting wristbands that absorb certain chemicals present in the environment. We enlisted 28 volunteers to become “environmental sensors” for a week by wearing the wristbands.
Among the results: Over the course of that week, the participants came into contact with a total of 57 potentially hazardous chemicals, 16 of which are linked to respiratory health effects such as asthma.
What were some of the chemical asthmagens picked up by the wristbands?
Phthalates
Across all participants, a total of eight phthalate compounds were detected—with an average of three per participant. Phthalates have a wide range of uses. They can be found in building materials like PVC pipes, vinyl flooring, and adhesives as well as cosmetics, personal care products, and food.
Five of the eight phthalates we detected are suspected asthmagens, according to the Healthy Building Network’s 2013 report. A growing body of research is finding that exposure to phthalates can interfere with normal development of children’s lungs and immune systems, increasing their risk of developing asthma and allergies. One study (about which we blogged previously) found that children born to women who were exposed to certain phthalates during pregnancy – including butyl benzyl phthalate, which was detected by nearly every wristband in our pilot project – were more likely to develop asthma.
Isocyanates
We detected one isocyanate (4-chlrophenyl isocyanate) in the pilot project. Isocyanates are highly reactive chemicals used to make polyurethane materials such as spray polyurethane foam insulation, automotive paints, and flexible foams used in upholstery, mattresses, automobile seats and dashboards.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes isocyanates as the number one cause of workplace-related asthma. An estimated 280,000 U.S. workers are exposed to isocyanates through their jobs, especially in the manufacturing and construction industries. Isocyanate chemicals volatize into the air when they are still unreacted (or “uncured”), as when applying a wet paint. Breathing in these volatilized chemicals can cause respiratory tract sensitization, and frequent workplace exposure can lead to the development of asthma.
As isocyanates are also added to consumer products like arts and crafts materials, there has been growing concern about exposure to the general population as well.
Fragrances
Every participant’s wristband detected the common synthetic fragrance galaxolide. Over 3 million pounds of this chemical is produced or imported in the U.S. annually. Many wristbands also detected naturally occurring compounds with fragrant properties, like eugenol – an essential oil of clove that is associated with allergies, skin irritation, and respiratory effects.
Synthetic and natural fragrances are virtually ubiquitous in products like cosmetics, household cleaners, lotions, scented candles, air fresheners, dryer sheets – even cat litter! While they can provide a pleasant scent, many fragrance chemicals can trigger asthma and other respiratory conditions.
The of tip of the iceberg
When it comes to chemical exposures, our understanding is woefully inadequate. Of an estimated 100,000 chemicals having some data on toxicity, less than one-fifth have any exposure-related information, and even that information is extremely limited (e.g., production volume).
Imagine if people from all walks of life – such as school children, nail salon workers, gas attendants or the 15 million Americans living within a mile of an oil or gas production site – could monitor chemical exposures in their personal environments. Then we could begin to draw a more accurate and complete picture of our daily chemical exposures, and use that information to identify effective interventions to prevent those exposures that are harmful. EDF has and is working towards this vision – and we’re asking interested individuals to join us.
-
Supply Chain Communication Key To Managing ‘GHS Conversion Storm’
Nov 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin and Leigh Stringer
Managing the "challenging" transition to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling requires strong communication throughout the supply chain, says Suzanne Janicki, North American GHS project manager for BASF.
In this month’s Global Business Briefing, Chemical Watch reports on Ms Janicki’s presentation, given at a recent meeting of the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication in Virginia, where she said a company’s supply chain, marketing, operations, logistics and IT staff are all pulled into issues related to updating GHS.
“It may seem to be a job for a company’s environmental, health and safety (EHS) staff, but it is actually a process that needs to be managed across many job functions,” she told delegates.
“Speaking EHS” to such varied roles in the company will not work, she said.
Ms Janicki said that it is likely to be at least five more years before the “GHS conversion storm” passes. “Managing this ‘hurricane’ for the next several years will be a challenge and will require industry and agency cooperation, and an understanding of the difficulties of the transition from a practical application standpoint,” she added.
A formal internal and external communication programme has been a cornerstone of BASF’s GHS transition, she said.
Ms Janicki acknowledged that, while there are “a lot of confused and frustrated people out there right now”, efforts to provide clear, transparent and consistent communication have alleviated some of these challenges.
-
Us Microbead Ban Moves Forward
Nov 19, 2015 | Plastic News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A House committee this week moved forward on a bill that would ban the manufacture or sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads in the United States.
The bill (HR 1321) would ban the U.S. manufacture of products with microbeads starting July 1, 2017, and the sale of products containing the plastic pieces, imported or domestic, as of July 1, 2019. It also would define “microbead” as “any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters in size.”
The measure now moves on to the full House; a Senate version introduced by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) has stalled out in committee action, but the House bill could conceivably be taken up in the other chamber before the end of the session.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), applies to any non-prescription, rinse-off cosmetic product. Pallone said while he is not usually a fan of federal laws that pre-empt state or local decisions, he was convinced after the committee’s May hearing that a national law was necessary — and that he intentionally crafted a bill that would be more aggressive than any state law passed so far.
While the non-controversial, bipartisan bill has inched through Congress since spring, states and counties have been taking matters into their own hands. Pallone’s home state of New Jersey in March became the second to pass a microbead ban after Illinois in 2014. California soon followed suit, as did five New York counties after the state legislature’s efforts flopped.
Microbeads have only become popular in the cosmetics market over the last decade, as a gentle exfoliating alternative to items such as ground walnut shells, which can have sharp edges that tear sensitive skin or pose an allergy risk to some consumers. But the plastic bits are small enough to slip through municipal water treatment facilities and into the watershed and eventually, when eaten by fish, the food supply.
Cosmetics companies began pledging to remove microbeads from products in 2013, after a study by California-based environmental group 5 Gyres found 600,000 microbeads per square kilometer in Lake Erie water samples. Unilever plans to complete its microbead phase-out this year along with Body Shop. Johnson & Johnson plans to be free of microbeads by the end of 2015 and Procter & Gamble expects its PE phaseout to take until 2017. However, none of the pledges are legally binding.
-
Rep. Sessions Introduces Cosmetics Regulation Plan
Nov 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
A bill by a Texas Republican would make changes to how the Food and Drug Administration regulates cosmetics manufacturing and distribution by adding some new regulations but preventing state action.
Rep. Pete Sessions introduced H.R. 4075, or the "Safe Cosmetics Modernization Act," on Wednesday.
Sessions said in a statement that the bill "reforms and improves the Food and Drug Administration's ability to streamline and strengthen consumer safety requirements without strangling small businesses in the cosmetic industry with onerous regulations."
The bill also "creates uniform standards and provides entrepreneurs and innovators in the cosmetic industry with the opportunities they need to compete in both national and international marketplaces," Sessions said.
The bill would require sites that manufacture cosmetics for sale in the United States to register with the FDA.
These sites would be required to submit to the FDA documentation of the cosmetic and its ingredients, but only as those chemicals are required to be disclosed under current FDA regulations. The companies wouldn't be required to disclose fragrance or flavor ingredients, and the FDA would be barred from suspending or revoking the ingredients' registrations. Ingredients classified as trade secrets under current regulations could not be disclosed by the FDA.
Companies would also be required to submit reports to the FDA if customers report adverse health events associated with their products. States, meanwhile, would be barred from setting their own labeling or registration requirements.
Pam Busiek, president and CEO of the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors Association, said in a statement that Sessions' bill would help member companies.
"This legislation increases consumer protections on cosmetics while allowing continued growth of small and entrepreneurial cosmetics enterprises in the U.S.," Busiek said. "The bill will empower these small businesses, who have been the source of product innovation and creativity in our industry, to compete on the national and international stage through national uniformity of regulation."
Lawmakers in the Senate are considering their own bill to reform how the FDA regulates cosmetics: S. 1014, or the "Personal Care Products Safety Act," by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), which was introduced earlier this year (E&E Daily, April 22). Unlike the Sessions bill, the Feinstein-Collins proposal would require the FDA to evaluate the safety of at least five chemicals used in cosmetics each year. The FDA would also be empowered to order recalls of products deemed unsafe under the same standards used by U.S. EPA for pesticides.
S. 1014 also would require annual registration of products and the creation of an online database of ingredients and product warnings. The Sessions bill would set up a National Cosmetic Regulatory Databank at FDA, but the system appears to be intended to let FDA share information with state agencies, rather than the public at large, and some of the information would be non-public.
The Feinstein-Collins bill has so far added five bipartisan co-sponsors and the support of industry groups like the Personal Care Products Council, as well as advocacy groups like the Environmental Working Group, the Society for Women's Health Research, HealthyWomen and the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, among others.
Consumer groups and Democrats are unlikely to support the Sessions plan, Feinstein spokeswoman Ashley Schapitl said.
-
CSB's Compliance With Payment Law to Be Probed
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's compliance with federal improper payment legislation is coming under the scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general, the EPA said Nov. 17. The audit, which is required by the Office of Management and Budget, will seek to determine compliance with the Improper Payment Act for fiscal 2015 and follow up on last year's audit finding and recommendation. In April, the EPA IG said the CSB didn't use a system designed to verify the eligibility of payments, nor does it have any provisions for testing its payroll and benefits prepayments. The EPA notice is available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/newstarts_11-17-15_improperpayment.pdf.
-
PG&E Safety Culture Review Could Take Two Years: Utility Commission
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Chediak and Harry R. Weber
An investigation into the safety practices of PG&E Corp. following a deadly natural-gas pipeline explosion in 2010 could take two years to complete, California's chief utility regulator said Nov. 19.
The California Public Utilities Commission is examining whether the San Francisco-based utility holding company has corporate governance practices in place to hold its management accountable for safety issues, commission President Michael Picker said during an interview at Bloomberg's office in San Francisco. The investigation will lay the groundwork for regular safety audits of utilities, he said.
In August, the commission opened an investigation into whether PG&E has improved safety operations since the pipeline explosion in 2010. The audit comes after the agency said the utility should pay $1.6 billion for failures that led to the blast that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno, Calif. (161 DEN A-2, 8/20/15)
“Our focus is on becoming the safest and most reliable utility in America,” said Keith Stephens, a spokesman for PG&E. “While we have made incredible progress toward that goal, we have more work to do.”
Regulators should have authority to weigh PG&E's performance on safety standards when considering rate increases and executive compensation, Picker said. The commission should have the option of reviewing increases if targets aren't met. The commission has the authority to break up PG&E, if necessary, although the agency hasn't told the utility that it thinks it should be split, he said.
-
PHMSA Official Lays Out Safety, Enforcement Vision
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Actively promoting the use of safety management systems in pipeline and hazardous materials transportation programs is the “next step” to improving safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said Nov. 19.
Safety management systems are set business processes that help companies identify, monitor and address safety issues related to operations. The systems help businesses better inform and control risk and improve detection and correction of problems, Dominguez said.
“It's pretty clear that this is the direction we need to go in,” Dominguez said at the start of a two-day Pipeline Safety Trust conference in New Orleans.
Dominguez's comments are among the most detailed statements that the new administrator has offered about the agency's path forward since being confirmed by the Senate. While these systems have been discussed for the pipeline sector, the mention of using them for hazmat transport is new.
The American Petroleum Institute finalized its pipeline safety management system Recommended Practice 1173 in July and it was subsequently endorsed by the National Transportation Safety Board. PHMSA officials have in the past emphasized that they would promote this document, which was drafted cooperatively with government officials and others, but haven't ruled out eventually developing a rule on the issue (211 DEN A-16, 11/2/15).
Stronger Rules, Enforcement
Dominguez and Jeff Wiese, associate administrator for pipeline safety for the agency, also charted a path forward for the agency and where it intends to focus its effort. Chief among its efforts were stronger regulations and enforcement, which the agency needs to “ramp up its enforcement presence,” Dominguez said.
Wiese said the agency will focus on completing pending congressional mandates in the next year and harnessing a boost in funding given to PHMSA's pipeline safety programs during the last funding bill. For example, PHMSA has moved some attorneys to increase its enforcement efforts.
Other areas to expect rules include small-scale liquefaction facilities related to liquefied natural gas movement and oil spill response, Wiese said. Some members of Congress also are looking for information on small-scale liquefaction, as the subject has come up during Senate appropriations discussions for PHMSA and other transportation agencies in a related bill (H.R. 2577).
“These rules need to be beefed up,” Wiese said.
Predictive, Interpreted Data
Finally, predictive use and effective interpretation of data for rulemakings and other activities will be key for the agency, Dominguez said, adding that PHMSA is conducting its own data assessment.
Dominguez said PHMSA will release an online pipeline tool by Nov. 20 that will further improve transparency and resources for the public.
“I fundamentally feel like [this is an] opportunity moving forward,” Dominguez said.
-
Hazmat Groups Offer Wish List for Highway Bill
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The congressional conference committee working on the multiyear highway bill should incorporate several hazardous material transportation provisions from the House bill into its final legislation, more than two-dozen hazmat shipper, carrier and packaging manufacturer groups told the committee in a letter obtained by Bloomberg BNA.
The committee should adopt in its final version of H.R. 22 language requiring the Transportation Department to rescind its proposed “wetlines” rule, requiring an accountability review of the department's third-party classification labs and requiring improvements to the transparency of the special permits and approvals process, among other issues. The groups also expressed concern regarding hazardous materials emergency response grants provisions in the House that could result in an increase in fees.
“No hearings were held to ascertain the need for the House-passed changes or the impacts on fee payers, especially given other federal emergency training programs that are available to the emergency response community,” the Nov. 17 letter said.
“Before [the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] is allowed to implement changes that increase the amount of fees that must be collected, we ask Congress to task the Government Accountability Office to assess the continued need for and effectiveness of these grant programs,” it said.
The letter, signed by 26 groups, including the American Trucking Associations and the Institute for Makers of Explosives, that was sent under the Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation letterhead, was sent the day before the highway conference committee's first public conference on the bill, which is expected to be finalized by Dec. 4 (222 DEN B-1, 11/18/15).
The Senate formally passed the extension (H.R. 3996)—moving the deadline from Nov. 20 to Dec. 4—Nov. 19 by a voice vote, which will now be sent to President Barack Obama to sign.
Senate Halts Debate on Transportation Spending Bill
Meanwhile, the Senate halted debate on a related transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, which the chamber began debating on Nov. 18. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) withdrew his motions for cloture on the bill (H.R. 2577) in the early afternoon (223 DEN A-11, 11/19/15).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Looks to Congress for Ozone Relief
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Industry groups that advocated against more stringent national ozone standards are now looking for Congress to step in and stop, or at least slow down, implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's new 70 parts per billion ozone standards.
Several industry officials told Bloomberg BNA that they like a comprehensive bill (H.R. 4000) introduced by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) that would delay the designations process under the new ozone standards for several years, prohibit the application of the 70 ppb standards to preconstruction permits issued under the EPA's new source review program until those designations are complete and delay the next review of the ozone standards until 2025.
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said while there are always challenges in getting legislation through Congress, especially when entering a presidential election year, opponents of the EPA's new ozone standards are confident that their issue may be able to “break through” thanks to a substantial groundswell of support from industry groups and state and local officials.
“If that translates into a different kind of momentum, then maybe anything is possible,” Eisenberg told Bloomberg BNA.
Eisenberg said he was encouraged that multiple members of Congress are “taking this [ozone issue] seriously,” as evidenced by the Nov. 16 introduction of H.R. 4000, as well as Sen. Jeff Flake's (R-Ariz.) Nov. 17 introduction of a resolution (S. J. Res. 25) under the Congressional Review Act that would immediately nullify the 70 ppb ozone standards.
Those measures join several other legislative proposals that have been floated in the 114th Congress, including language in fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills in both chambers that would have barred the EPA from issuing and implementing stronger ozone standards.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Oct. 1 decided (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the 2008 ozone standards of 75 ppb, set under President George W. Bush, to a level of 70 ppb.
The EPA estimates the more stringent ozone standards could cost as much as $1.4 billion in 2025, while providing billions in annual public health benefits through avoided asthma attacks and other adverse health effects (191 DEN A-1, 10/2/15).
Industry Open to Various Solutions
Lawsuits over the new ozone standards have already been filed, with industry arguments expected to focus on the attainability and health effects of the 70 ppb standards (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 10/26/15; 187 DEN A-1, 9/28/15) .
With litigation over the ozone standards likely to take a year or more to be resolved, a coalition of 61 industry associations, including organizations representing the petroleum, chemical, mining and manufacturing sectors, urged congressional leadership in a Nov. 6 letter to take immediate action to reduce the economic effects of the new ozone standards.
Eisenberg said the manufacturing sector considers the ozone standards to be a top-tier priority and would be supportive of any legislative solution that Congress could pass.
“From a legislative standpoint, we're open to anything that would provide some relief,” Eisenberg said.
Window ‘Has Passed' on Blocking Proposals
Lorraine Gershman, director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said now that the EPA has issued the rule, the “window has passed” on previous proposals that would have blocked EPA from setting new standards.
Those included the Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act (S. 751, H.R. 1388), which would have barred the EPA from setting more stringent ozone standards until 85 percent of current nonattainment areas for the 75 ppb standards came into attainment, and the Ozone Regulatory Delay and Extension of Assessment Length (ORDEAL) Act (S. 640), which would have prohibited the EPA from issuing new ozone standards until Feb. 1, 2018.
While Flake, the sponsor of the ORDEAL Act, introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to nullify the ozone standards, Gershman said any legislative proposal that would completely block the standards is “a lot more polarizing” than other industry-backed solutions.
Gershman said the Flores bill, H.R. 4000, wouldn't “necessarily undo” anything the EPA has already done but would instead focus on specific implementation issues, which can be a “much easier lift” when asking lawmakers to support a bill.
“Of everything we've seen so far, this [H.R. 4000] is the approach that has the most logic attached to it,” Gershman said.
Fierce Environmental Opposition Expected
While industry advocates are looking to Congress to provide some sort of regulatory relief, several environmental groups told Bloomberg BNA that they would strongly oppose any legislation that would affect implementation of the ozone standards.
Lyndsay Moseley, assistant vice president and director of the American Lung Association's Healthy Air Campaign, said the association would have concerns with “any piece of legislation that would block, weaken or delay” implementation of the new ozone standards.
Moseley said she strongly opposes H.R. 4000, which she said would “undermine clean air” by delaying nonattainment designations by eight years. Under that bill, the EPA wouldn't be able to issue final nonattainment designations until Oct. 26, 2025.
“Delaying the designations means we're delaying cleanup,” Moseley said.
Moseley also objected to provisions in H.R. 4000 that would bar the EPA from completing its next review of the ozone standards until Oct. 26, 2025. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to complete a review of all national ambient air quality standards at least once every five years, meaning that the next ozone review would be due by October 2020 under the statute.
Many environmental and public health groups were disappointed in the EPA's decision to set the ozone standards at 70 ppb, a level those groups said doesn't offer enough protection for people with asthma and other vulnerable populations.
McCarthy had said she decided on a level of 70 ppb due to uncertainty about the health effects at lower levels of ozone exposure. Moseley said that given the science will continue to evolve, the EPA can't wait until 2025 to conduct another ozone review.
“Ten years is far too long to wait to review the science and look at the evidence again,” she said.
Veto Predicted for CRA Resolution
In addition to traditional standalone bills, members of Congress have looked to the Congressional Review Act, which allows for expedited consideration of a joint resolution of disapproval, to halt EPA regulations.
Luke Popovich, vice president of external communications at the National Mining Association, told Bloomberg BNA the Congressional Review Act process would be the most effective way for Congress to act on the ozone standards. However, Popovich noted that President Barack Obama has threatened to veto CRA challenges on the EPA's waters of the U.S. rule (RIN 2070-AQ91) and a pair of rules establishing carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing (RIN 2060-AR33) and new (RIN 2060-AQ91) power plants.
The Senate passed resolutions of disapproval on the water jurisdiction and the climate rules in November, but those votes fell well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overcome a veto.
Terry McGuire, the Sierra Club's Washington representative on clean air, told Bloomberg BNA that a resolution of disapproval on the ozone standards also would be “dead on arrival” at the White House.
“With regard to the CRA, we feel very confident that the president would veto that,” McGuire said.
Frank O'Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Watch, said it would be “a struggle” for opponents of the ozone standards to get a standalone bill or Congressional Review Act resolution enacted over a likely presidential veto.
“You never can say never, I suppose,” O'Donnell said. “We have to remain alert and aware of these threats.”
Appropriations Highlighted as Possible Avenue
O'Donnell indicated he was more concerned about the possibility of an ozone rider being attached to “must pass” appropriations legislation.
“Certainly when you get into must pass legislation involving appropriations, you cannot take for granted that the standards will survive without people pushing back to uphold them,” O'Donnell said.
The federal government is currently funded under a continuing resolution that expires Dec. 11, and appropriators are working on an omnibus package to fund the government through the rest of fiscal year 2016.
More than 160 House Democrats sent a Nov. 19 letter to leadership urging a clean appropriations bill, but Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters Nov. 19 that the appropriations package will include policy riders, though he didn't specify what issues they will address.
“We will have riders, everybody knows that ...we always have,” Ryan said.
Eisenberg, when asked about the possibility of an appropriations rider on ozone, said it is too soon to tell what will eventually be included. He acknowledged that there are a “lot of competing priorities” amongst appropriations, particularly on environmental issues.
Have to Find ‘Sweet Spot' on Riders
Several Republicans told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 19 that they will aggressively push for environmental riders on the appropriations package but acknowledged the need to find a “sweet spot” to avoid a veto (see related story).
Gershman of the ACC said she has heard that there is a chance of something happening on ozone in the appropriations process.
As far as other environmental issues go, Gershman said the inclusion of a Clean Power Plan rider would likely be a “non-starter” since it is such a political issue, while pressure for a legislative fix on the Waters of the U.S. rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule, has subsided since a federal appeals court in October issued a nationwide stay on its implementation (In re EPA, 6th Cir., MDL No. 135, stay issued 10/9/15; 197 DEN A-1, 10/13/15).
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 18 that it's possible that some sort of ozone rider could be attached to the omnibus legislation. Farenthold introduced an amendment to the highway bill (H.R. 22) that would have delayed implementation of the 70 ppb ozone standards, but that amendment was determined not to be in order by the House Rules Committee.
‘Tough' to Get Measure in Omnibus
“It's going to be tough, but it's a possibility,” Farenthold said about the inclusion of ozone language in the omnibus.
Farenthold said he would not seek to attach his amendment to the omnibus but highlighted H.R. 4000, which he said would “do more” to help refinery operators in Texas. A spokesman for Flores told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the congressman introduced H.R. 4000 “so that it would be included in all ongoing legislative discussions.”
McGuire of the Sierra Club and Moseley of the American Lung Association both said their organizations would be opposed to the inclusion of any environmental riders in the omnibus package, including an ozone implementation delay rider.
“Our message is no harmful environmental riders,” McGuire said. “On ozone specifically, our message is pretty clear ...hands off the Clean Air Act.”
-
East Coast Leaders Tell Obama To Reject Offshore Drilling In Atlantic
Nov 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jackie Savitz
Today, a group of business representatives, local government officials and coastal leaders from towns along the Eastern Seaboard arrived in Washington with a clear message to the president: They don't want oil drilling off their coast, and they want to make sure their concerns are being heard in the White House.
For the first time in U.S. history, the Atlantic coast is at risk of being opened to industrial offshore drilling. Coastal industrialization in the form of refineries, pipelines and trains could encroach on previously untouched beach towns. Marine mammals, like the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, could be bombarded with the noise from seismic airguns while they traverse their migratory routes or care for young in their calving grounds. Historically, where we have drilled, we have spilled, and drilling continues to be dirty and dangerous, so we can expect to see leaks, spills and yes, even explosions that take human lives, if we proceed with these plans in the Atlantic. We could see wildlife contaminated, fisheries shut down and tourist dollars disappear. We could see the end of a way of life for millions of people. We need only look to the Gulf of Mexico for confirmation of the risks.
But the people who live, work and vacation on the Atlantic coast are refusing to allow that way of life to be threatened. At least, not without a fight.
Over the last year, opposition to seismic blasting and offshore drilling has quickly spread. This movement has united business interests, environmentalists, Republicans, Democrats, scientists and policymakers. Nearly 90 East Coast cities and towns have now passed formal resolutions formally opposing seismic blasting and/or offshore oil. All of South Carolina's coastal municipalities stand against oil development, three-quarters of coastal towns in North Carolina also oppose oil development so far and several other states are close behind. New resolutions pass every week, following the lead of cities like Charleston, S.C.; Wilmington, N.C.; Savannah, Ga.; and Baltimore. In March, 75 leading marine scientists signed a letter urging President Obama to reject proposals for seismic oil and gas surveys, due to mounting evidence that the blasts would seriously harm ocean animals and ecosystems.
One of the flashpoints of the movement was sparked early last year, when residents of the normally placid community of Kure Beach, N.C. discovered that their mayor had written a letter in support of seismic blasting. He soon found himself facing a room packed with furious constituents demanding that he rescind his position. He did not. Two weeks ago, he was voted out of office. The new mayor-elect, Emilie Swearingen, was one of the Kure Beach councilmembers to oppose the measure. This week, Swearingen has traveled to Washington to talk to national media and federal policymakers.
Legally, the people who will be most affected by offshore oil development have no say in whether or not to allow oil companies to disrupt the places they live, work and play. They rely on their elected officials, most importantly, Obama, to protect their well-being. But it's not clear that their voices are being heard. People like Swearingen are determined to change that. The coastal leaders visiting Washington today are meeting with national reporters and federal officials; a coalition of environmental groups, including Oceana, has placed ads in a series of publications highlighting the significant and still-growing opposition; and grassroots activists across the country are sharing the video above that depicts the extent and strength of the resistance to oil development in the Atlantic. All of these actions send a clear message: The people on the coast are saying "no" to big oil and rejecting the false promises made by oil and gas lobbyists.
That oil companies still have any credibility is mystifying. Oil representatives insisted that their ships were safe before we saw hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil pour from a gash in the Exxon Valdez in 1989. They continue to assure us their oil trains are safe, despite at least five derailments and a number of massive explosions just this year. They insisted they had everything under control before BP's Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and spilling millions of gallons of oil into the ocean. I saw firsthand the ecological and economic tragedies unfolding after that disaster. Examples of negligence and false assurances abound.
The people paid by oil companies downplay the risks of oil drilling and talk up revenue sharing and job creation. At Oceana, we've looked at these claims, and the numbers being provided by oil companies just don't add up. Industry assessments about job creation and revenue are based on an outdated industry-funded study that uses false assumptions that lead to inflated projections. Oceana's calculations conclude that jobs and revenues from Atlantic oil would be a small fraction of the industry's estimates and that they would in fact be outnumbered by the jobs from clean energy.
In Wilmington, after presentations from both oil industry representatives and marine scientists, one of the councilmembers addressed the revenue sharing that was repeatedly brought up by the industry spokesperson: "I bet there are a lot of people on the Gulf coast that would give all that money back. It's nice to know there's not been an oil spill on the Atlantic Seaboard. I hope there never is," he said. With that final remark, and after listening to all of the arguments from the industry, the Wilmington City Council voted unanimously to oppose seismic blasting and offshore drilling.
That Wilmington resolution passed in July. Since then, the number of municipalities officially opposing offshore oil and seismic activity has grown by nearly a third. The opposition is extensive and diverse, it is unified and it is growing. It's time for Washington to listen. It's time for President Obama to protect our coast and reject permits and leases for seismic blasting and offshore drilling in the Atlantic.
-
Clean Power Plan Trading Could ‘Dwarf' Other Markets
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
How emissions credits for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan are generated and allocated have yet to be determined, but attorneys at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP said the program has the potential to “dwarf” other air pollution trading markets.
David McCullough, counsel at the law firm, likened the Clean Power Plan's emissions trading programs to the renewable identification number (RIN) markets established by the EPA's renewable fuel standards, given its breadth, during a Nov. 19 webinar hosted by the law firm.
“This is to be much more akin to the federal renewable fuel standard where you have a federal program that really cuts across an entire swath of a very, very large market and goes to the core of what that market is,” he said. “It will create carbon markets on a scale we have not seen before.”
Key questions to be resolved for commodities traders include whether states or the EPA will establish rate-based or mass-based emissions trading programs, how allowances will be generated and allocated and how the credits will be verified, attorneys said.
However, the potential for a wide-ranging trading program could broaden existing markets such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (A.B. 32), creating new opportunities for commodity traders, they said.
“With respect to RGGI, we're looking at 20 times that size that opportunity, five times larger than the A.B. 32 program,” Joshua Belcher, an associate at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, said. “There's a lot of opportunity here that states can take advantage of.”
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) limits carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants. With the Clean Power Plan, the EPA also has proposed a federal implementation plan (RIN 2060-AS47) that includes both rate-based and mass-based emissions trading programs.
The agency would impose the federal plan on states that choose not to write their own. The proposed federal plan also is intended to serve as a guide for states as they develop their own compliance strategies (223 DEN A-1, 11/19/15).
Details to be Determined
Key details of the trading program have yet to be determined, and McCullough said he doesn't expect to see much liquidity in the market until 2022 when the Clean Power Plan takes effect, despite the EPA's push to reward states that take early action with additional emissions credits.
How the markets eventually take shape will ultimately be decided by which compliance options states choose. States could opt for a mass-based trading program, which would set a tonnage cap on carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, or a rate-based program that limits the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.
However, states are only allowed to trade with other states that choose a similar compliance mechanism. Mass-based trading programs would provide allowances for regulated utilities, while a rate-based system would award emissions rates credits for renewable energy and power plants able to keep their emissions below the required emissions rate.
The carbon dioxide trading market also could be influenced by the number of states that choose to participate in the EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program, which will award additional credits to states that take steps to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions in 2020 or 2021 before the Clean Power Plan takes effect, Belcher said.
Verifying Validity of Credits
A key challenge for commodities traders will be verifying the validity of the carbon dioxide credits, McCullough said. The credits are “very difficult to quantify and very easy to forge,” he said.
“Documentation is key from our experience because, while you can certainly do your due diligence, it's hard to go out to every single project that may be generating a credit,” McCullough said.
-
Southern Co. Seeks Options in EPA Carbon Rules
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr
One of the nation's largest utility companies is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to provide broad flexibility in compliance options for states that chose not to develop their own plan to implement carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing power plants.
As the EPA implements its Clean Power Plan, the agency should keep both the mass-based and rate-based compliance options in its federal implementation plan, said Mark Berry, vice president of environmental affairs for Georgia Power, who was speaking on behalf of parent company Southern Co.
Berry spoke to EPA staff members at a public hearing in Atlanta on Nov. 19, part of a series of hearings in several cities on the agency's proposed federal implementation plan (RIN 2060-AS47) for its Clean Power Plan.
The agency would impose the federal plan on any state that opts not to draft its own state plan and is seeking comments now on the federal plan as well as model rules for emissions trading programs. Its draft federal plan includes both mass-based and rate-based emissions trading options, but the agency has indicated the final plan might include only one option.
“EPA is ignoring the negative impacts certain federal plan pathways may have for a state. We urge EPA to retain both rate- and mass-based pathways for federal plans that may be issued to individual states and broadly available compliance options,” Berry said.
A mass-based program would set a tonnage cap on carbon dioxide emissions from regulated power plants, while a rate-based system sets limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity produced.
Berry also called for the EPA to give an opportunity for public comments on any state-specific plan being imposed by the federal agency, in addition to giving more careful consideration to reliability of the electricity supply in the final version of its federal plan.
Stronger Efficiency Incentives Needed
Environmental advocates, meanwhile, want the EPA to include stronger incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy under the federal plan and model rules, several witnesses told EPA staff members in Atlanta.
“The [federal implementation plan] and model trading rules are shockingly weak on energy efficiency,” said Aaron Pardieu, a representative for Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. Many states, particularly in the Southeast, have few or no requirements for utilities to consider efficiency programs as an alternative to building new power plants, he said.
“The very states requiring an FIP are likely to be the same states with weak energy efficiency plans themselves,” Pardieu added, alluding to the federal plan being imposed on states that opt not to draft their own implementation plan.
The EPA has proposed both a mass-based and a rate-based emissions trading program but has said it might finalize only one option.
Pardieu noted the rate-based option, as currently written, would appear to disqualify efficiency programs as a means of compliance with emissions limits.
Clean Energy Incentive Program
Several speakers also called for making the provisions of the Clean Energy Incentive Program a required rather than optional part of the federal plan. The incentive program is designed to reward states for early investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in low-income communities.
“The early adoption of energy efficiency and renewable energy should be the gold standard for states. All states should be encouraged to start investing now in the renewable energy sources of wind and solar,” said Laura Seydel, co-founder of Mothers and Others For Clean Air.
Environmental advocates and representatives of the business community disagreed on a number of the particulars in the proposed federal plan and model rules. Among those issues were whether nuclear power and biomass energy should be given credit as clean, carbon-free alternatives to burning fossil fuels.
Environmental advocates had also raised concerns about the use of biomass to generate electricity at a Nov. 18 hearing on the federal plan in Washington (223 DEN A-1, 11/19/15).
Georgia Chamber Favors Crediting
A Georgia Chamber of Commerce representative argued that nuclear power and biomass generation should be credited under the EPA's rule.
The proposed model rules wouldn't give biomass energy full credit as compared to other options such as wind and solar, which would disadvantage Georgia as a state with a large amount of forest resources, said Doug Miell, a representative for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. Biomass and nuclear are considered more reliable for baseload power supply, as opposed to intermittent wind and solar power, he added.
“Our members share one important requirement—the need for reliable, affordable energy,” Miell said.
The Biomass Power Association urged the EPA to consider biomass a clean energy source under its carbon dioxide standards during a second day of public hearings on the proposed federal plan in Washington Nov. 19.
“Not only do properly and actively managed forests serve as a mitigation for climate change, but the fiber from these forests, when used for energy, displaces fossil fuel,” the groups said in its comments to the agency.
Seydel was among those at the Atlanta hearing who argued biomass shouldn't be considered a clean option, given the particulate matter and other emissions that result from burning it.
-
Senate Panel Approves Obama Energy Department Nominees
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted Nov. 19 to approve the nomination of John Kotek to be assistant secretary of nuclear energy and two other of the Obama administration's Energy Department nominees, clearing the way for full Senate consideration.
Kotek, who currently serves as the DOE's principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, was nominated by President Barack Obama in October. He previously was the staff director of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
The committee voted to approve Kotek's nomination by voice vote, though Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) requested he be recorded as a “no” vote.
Barrasso previously questioned Kotek's consulting work with Fluor Corp., which he said has received $1 billion worth of publicly owned uranium in exchange for providing decommissioning work at the Energy Department's gaseous diffusion plant in Ohio (203 DEN A-12, 10/21/15).
The committee also approved by voice vote the nominations of Victoria Marie Baecher Wassmer to be under secretary of energy, Cherry Ann Murray to be the Energy Department's director of the office of science and Suzette M. Kimball, to be director of the U.S. Geological Survey.
The committee also passed broad conservation legislation— the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015 (S. 556)—that includes a provision that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating lead-shot ammunition and lead fishing tackle.
The bill was amended to include a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a separate environmental program that has held up an unrelated bill (S. 697) to overhaul the nation's primary chemical law (218 DEN A-1, 11/12/15).
-
Senators Float Resolution To Pressure Obama To Submit Climate Deal
Nov 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Sens. Jim Inhofe, Joe Manchin and Roy Blunt introduced a resolution today aimed at undercutting the international climate agreement that President Barack Obama hopes to clinch in Paris next month.
The nonbinding resolution says any agreement finalized at the Paris summit next month should have no force in the United States until it is submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. It also says that no funds would be authorized in support of the agreement, including through the Green Climate Fund, until the document is submitted to the Senate.
The Obama administration is hoping to structure the climate agreement in such a way that it won't be considered a treaty and will not have to be submitted to the GOP-controlled Senate, which would kill the deal.
It's the latest attempt by Republican lawmakers to undermine the pending climate deal. The resolution is similar to the one that the Senate approved in 1997 ahead of climate talks in Kyoto. That resolution has been credited with undercutting the Kyoto protocol.
“The international community needs to be aware that the U.S. Congress and the American people do not support President Obama’s international climate agenda,” Inhofe said in a statement.
Sen. Mike Lee and Reps. Mike Kelly and Bill Flores are introducing similar resolutions, Lee's office announced today.
-
House GOP Bills Aim To Block EPA Energy Sector Air Rules
Nov 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) is pushing three bills that aim to block EPA air and climate rules for the oil and gas sector, including legislation that would prohibit the agency regulating the industry's emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane and a measure to bar any energy-related rules with costs of more than $100 million.
The energy bills, which have been referred to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, would generally target EPA rules except for one of Fleming's bill, H.R. 4036, which would prohibit any regulation of carbon dioxide or any other GHGs in the United States until Russia, China and India implement similar reductions.
EPA has proposed to impose first-time limits on methane from new oil and gas drilling, part of a package of industry emission rules that the agency is taking comment on through an extended Dec. 4 deadline.
However, H.R. 4037 -- one of Fleming's three bills introduced Nov. 17 -- would prohibit EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a limit on methane from oil and natural gas air pollution sources.
The lawmaker also introduced H.R. 4035, which would block EPA from issuing any final energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more than $100 million and would cause significant adverse effects to the economy.
The third Fleming bill, H.R. 4036, would prohibit any regulation of carbon dioxide or any other GHGs in the United States until Russia, China, and India implement similar reductions.
-
Democrats Oppose EPA Policy Riders In House FY16 Bill
Nov 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
A group of more than 160 House Democrats are crafting a letter to the chamber's GOP and Democratic leadership urging them to strike all policy riders -- including measures aiming to block major EPA rules -- from the fiscal year 2016 spending omnibus bill, warning that such provisions could lead to a budget impasse and a government shutdown.
Speaking at a Nov. 19 press conference, Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowsky (IL), G.K. Butterfield (NC) and Ruben Gallego (AZ) said Republicans should abandon policy provisions that were part of proposed spending bills floated earlier this year, including restrictions on EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule and its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for power plants, or else face the threat of another government shutdown.
“Unfortunately, attaching contentious policy riders to the legislation to fund the government in FY2016 would likely provide another needless standoff on government spending, instead reviving the threat of a disastrous shutdown like the one the American people endured in 2013,” Schakowsky quoted from the pending letter.
The letter has not yet been published because some legislators “are still scrambling to get on board,” she said. When all interested members have signed, Schakowsky continued, the letter will go out to House Speaker Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-WI), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and appropriations panel ranking member Nita Lowey (D-CA).
The now-scuttled FY16 funding bills proposed in the House and Senate earlier this year both contained major policy riders targeting EPA rules.
The House bill would have barred the agency from finalizing its power plant GHG rules or implementing the rule defining the scope of the CWA, as well as blocking implementation of a revised ozone air standard until at least 85 percent of counties nationwide are in compliance with the current limit.
Meanwhile the Senate budget legislation would have placed similar bars on the CWA and ozone rules while allowing states that disagree with the GHG rules to opt out of the policy, with no ability for EPA to impose federal compliance plans.
Speaking at the press conference, League of Conservation Voters deputy legislative director Alex Taurel said, “If Republican leaders continue trying to push anti-environmental and other policy riders, they are risking another government shutdown. . . . It's crystal-clear that the polluters don't have the votes to gut the Clean Water Rule, but that's not stopping some members of Congress from trying to sneak in a rider that would end” the rule.
Taurel added that “the American people don't support” riders targeting the ozone or GHG rules.
The Senate advanced Congressional Review Act (CRA) measures to formally disapprove the power plant GHG standards on Nov. 17 in 52-46 votes, but the resolutions are subject to a veto that EPA opponents lack the two-thirds majority to overcome. Meanwhile a stand-alone bill targeting the water rule, S. 1140, failed to reach the 60 votes needed to advance, falling 57-41 in a Nov. 3 vote.
Democrats' stance against funding riders could play a major role in the upcoming budget battle because the GOP has been divided on FY16 spending. H.R. 1314, which enacted the budget deal negotiated by President Obama and former Speaker John Boehner, passed 266-167 but with just 79 Republican votes, while all 187 voting Democrats backed the bill.
“The final federal spending bill, as we know, will need Democratic votes and President Obama's signature, and today, with this letter, you have the vast majority of House Democrats saying” they oppose riders in the legislation, Taurel said.
Under H.R. 1314, Congress has until Dec. 11 to pass a new spending bill before funding for the federal government expires.
-
Boiler MACT Reconsideration Effective Nov. 20
Nov 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Revised national air toxics standards for major source industrial boilers, including alternative work practice standards for startup procedures, will go into effect Nov. 20. The final rule, which is effective upon publication in the Federal Register, was promulgated to address various industry concerns with the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for boilers in advance of a Jan. 31, 2016, compliance deadline. The revisions allow for the use of clean fuels, including dry biomass, during startup, a change that the American Wood Council said would allow wood product mills to avoid costly retrofits that would have been required under the original rule (216 DEN A-2, 11/9/15). The final reconsideration rule (RIN 2060-AS09), which was signed Nov. 5, is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-29186.pdf.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested