Preview Newsletter
ACC am 13
-
(ACC Mentioned) Inhofe Aims To Quickly Merge, Move TSCA Overhaul Bills
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Pat Rizzuto
The House and Senate want to move legislation overhauling the nation's primary chemical law quickly, perhaps as soon as this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters Jan. 12. Inhofe said he plans to meet with Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)... -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Overhaul Chemical Makers' Top Priority
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical trade associations will work in 2016 to support the House and Senate as those chambers reconcile their bills that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act and pass a final bill the president would sign. “It's at the top of our priorities,” Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry... -
(ACC Mentioned) Data, Computational Tools for Risk Analysts Key in 2016
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will generate chemical bioactivity and exposure data in 2016 and design computational tools to save risk assessors throughout the agency time while improving their analyses. “We have unprecedented amounts of information that we can combine to help solve problems,” Thomas Burke, deputy... -
Prop. 65 Rules Changing, Consumer Product Rules Loom
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Regulatory proposals launched last year by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment could mean major changes in 2016 for the state's landmark right-to-know law, Proposition 65. OEHHA has proposed a rulemaking to overhaul the law's consumer warning requirements and introduced pre-regulatory... -
EPA Denies Industry Petition for Chemical Naming Rule
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A trade association's petition that asked the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a chemical-naming regulation aimed at removing some obstacles new types of biobased chemicals face getting to market has been denied by the EPA. The denial decision, published Jan. 12, suggested, however, that there may be a non-regulatory ... -
US EPA Receives 54 PMNs In November
Jan 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 54 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) for new chemicals last November. Several have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information. During the same period, the agency received 32 notices of commencement to manufacture new chemicals... -
ASTM Releases Alternatives Analysis Standard
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A new ASTM standard has been developed that will assist manufacturers in evaluating chemical alternatives for consumer products. The guidance outlines social, economic and ecological considerations to be evaluated when comparing chemical alternatives. Its lifecycle perspective includes considerations... -
OECD Targets Chemical Regulations, Risk Management
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development plans to work on test guidelines related to nanomaterials and endocrine disruptors in 2016, and it expects to release reports related to perfluorinated chemicals, officials told Bloomberg BNA. The Paris-based organization has a “direct mandate” for that work from the recent... -
Obama Team Drawing Up Plan For Response To Cyberattack
Jan 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Joseph Marks
The White House is devising a plan specifying federal agencies’ responsibilities in the event of a crippling cyberattack on essential services such as banks or the electric grid, POLITICO has learned. Without such advance guidance, administration officials fear that a devastating attack could devolve into a “cyber Katrina,” with federal agencies... -
Crude-by-Rail Leads Hazmat Agenda
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The nation's hazardous materials transportation regulator will begin 2016 by addressing a full plate of litigation and policy mandates focused on improving the safety of crude oil movement by rail. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also will continue working through leftover policy mandates from its 2012 pipeline safety... -
Litigation Tracker: Crude-by-Rail Rule Lawsuit on Agenda
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Crude-by-rail transportation issues will be at the top of the litigation agenda for hazmat transport going into 2016. Oil, rail and environmental groups have challenged the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's crude-by-rail rule that was finalized in May (see related story). -
Obama Speech Touts Climate Action, Eschews Oil And Gas
Jan 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
President Barack Obama used his final State of the Union address to take a shot at critics of his climate change agenda, while largely shedding the nods to oil and natural gas development that have been fixtures of his previous speeches. "Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change... -
Oklahoma Residents Sue Well Operators for Negligence
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Fourteen residents of Edmond, Okla., filed a lawsuit against a group of oil companies, alleging they should have known their use of disposal wells would increase the likelihood of seismic activity (Felts v. Devon Energy LP LLC, Okla. Dist. Ct., No. CJ-2016-137, 1/11/16). -
Critics of Obama Trade Pact Seize On Keystone Dispute
Jan 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Vicki Needham
Opponents of President Obama’s Pacific Rim trade pact are seizing on a new lawsuit over the Keystone XL oil pipeline in an attempt to galvanize opposition in Congress. Environmental groups, trade groups and labor unions say TransCanada’s attempt to secure $15 billion in compensation for the rejection of Keystone under the North American... -
Energy Investors' Bids for Action on Methane Increasing
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
At least 21 U.S. oil and gas companies face shareholder resolutions on environmental and social policies already this year as investors raise concerns about how businesses are tackling climate change and pollution (see related story). Investors increasingly are pushing for action on methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas that contributes to climate ... -
New Report: Why Investors Should Pay Attention To Methane Risks
Jan 12, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sean Wright
No one likes uncertainty, least of all investors. Good, actionable information is their most important tool for risk management and key to successful investing – because without proper data, investors are flying blind. And yet, none of the 65 oil and gas companies reviewed in a just-released study by Environmental Defense... -
States Queried on Burdens of EPA Regulatory Actions
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has asked a group of states for information about whether they have adequate resources to comply with multiple deadlines set out in a series of Environmental Protection Agency regulatory actions. Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, described his Jan. 12 letters to states... -
Inhofe Asks States For Feedback On Agency Regs
Jan 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today sent letters to 20 states asking for their "perspective" on U.S. EPA regulations. Inhofe, one of the Senate's harshest critics of EPA, wrote in the letters that he wants to "better understand" the impacts of agency rules on states, including how states manage regulatory... -
EPW Queries States' Burdens Complying With EPA Rules
Jan 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) is asking state environmental regulators to describe their resource burdens in implementing EPA rules such as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), suggesting GOP leaders on the panel might cite the burdens to step up their attacks on agency policies. -
Energy Bill Expected to Be Brought to Floor, Murkowski Says
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A broad energy bill that includes language that would expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports is expected to be brought to the floor this year, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 12. -
Groups Ask EPA to Strip Texas of Permitting Power
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Environmental Protection Agency should strip Texas of some of its air and water permitting authority delegated to it by the federal government because state environmental regulators can no longer adequately do their jobs, the Environmental Defense Fund and Caddo Lake Institute told the EPA in a Jan. 11 petition. -
Obama Touts Climate Action in Final State of Union Speech
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Barack Obama in his final State of the Union address touted the just-completed Paris climate change deal as proof of renewed U.S. leadership on the climate issue and claimed credit for what he said has been a dramatic expansion of clean energy sources during his two-term presidency. -
Source: Climate Change To Be One Of Four 'Pillars' In State Of The Union
Jan 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
President Barack Obama will outline the need to act on climate change as one of four “pillars” of tonight’s State of the Union address, according to an industry source who attended a briefing given by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez today. Perez told attendees that the speech — which the White House has said will focus on broad themes... -
Climate Science Deniers 'Will Be Pretty Lonely,' President Says
Jan 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama is using his State of the Union speech Tuesday night to chastise lawmakers who deny the science of climate change, saying they will “be pretty lonely” as the world moves toward cleaner energy in the future. “Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it,” Obama wrote... -
President Pushes Transition From 'Dirty Energy'
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Reilly
President Obama used his last State of the Union address to make an economic case for action against climate change and call for accelerating the nation away from "dirty energy" like coal. In last night's speech, the president broadly touted job growth in renewable energy industries and said making "technology work for us" to solve urgent... -
EPA Inspector General to Review Air Monitoring Data
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general will review the ambient air monitoring program to determine whether collected air quality data meets the agency's own criteria. The Office of Inspector General, in a letter released Jan. 12, notified EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe that preliminary research...
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) Inhofe Aims To Quickly Merge, Move TSCA Overhaul Bills
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Pat Rizzuto
The House and Senate want to move legislation overhauling the nation's primary chemical law quickly, perhaps as soon as this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters Jan. 12.
Inhofe said he plans to meet with Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, at a Jan. 13 Republican retreat in Baltimore. Issues they will discuss include reconciling a broad Senate bill overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act (S. 697) with a narrower House version (H.R. 2576), he said.
“It's one of the early things we're going to be doing, so [it'll move] this month, next month,” Inhofe said, describing when both chambers might consider final legislation.
“We have a little more detail in terms of making sure the EPA does what they're supposed to be doing in pre-classifying chemicals and some other things they [House members] don't have in their bill. I think it's a matter of saying, ‘We agree with everything you have, but in addition we need to do this,’” Inhofe said.
Upton told Bloomberg BNA: “We're going to sit down over the retreat to talk about it, yes, definitely. It's high on both of our agendas. We feel very encouraged about where we're going to end up.”
Broad Scope of Supporters
Supporters of the Senate or House bill, or both, include the American Apparel & Footwear Association, the American Chemistry Council, the American Cleaning Institute, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 3M, BASF Corp., the Consumer Electronics Association, Dupont, the Dow Chemical Co., the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation.
“No environmental law since the 1990 overhaul of the Clean Air Act has had the potential to affect as many industries as a modernized TSCA,” Ernie Rosenberg, president of the American Cleaning Institute, told Bloomberg BNA (see related story).
The Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act by voice vote Dec. 17 (243 DEN A-1, 12/18/15).
The House passed its TSCA Modernization Act on June 23, 2015 by a 398-1 vote (121 DEN A-1, 6/24/15).
Analyses of Bills by States, Law Firms, Others
There is a growing number of resources to use for quick insights into the legislation.
States described pros and cons of both bills in a chart the Environmental Council of the States released Jan. 7 (06 DEN A-2, 1/11/16).
Bloomberg BNA summarized recent changes in the Senate bill and next steps in an article following the Senate vote (244 DEN A-7, 12/21/15).
At least two law firms and two environmental organizations also have released analyses of the Senate and House bills. They are:
• Beveridge & Diamond P.C. described the Senate action and next steps in a bulletin published Jan. 7 and discussed the House bill in June 2015.
• Bergeson & Campbell P.C. provided its overview of the Senate bill in December 2015 and discussed the House bill in July 2015.
• The Environmental Defense Fund blogs regularly about TSCA modernization and the Senate bill in particular.
• Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families provided a different environmental perspective on the bills in a December 2015 blog.
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Overhaul Chemical Makers' Top Priority
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical trade associations will work in 2016 to support the House and Senate as those chambers reconcile their bills that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act and pass a final bill the president would sign.
“It's at the top of our priorities,” Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
Working with the Environmental Protection Agency to implement an updated TSCA is trade association's next highest priority, according to interviews with Bloomberg BNA.
In a unanimous voice vote Dec. 17, the Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), which would overhaul TSCA for the first time since it became law in 1976 (244 DEN A-7, 12/21/15).
The House passed its TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576) June 23, 2015, by a 398–1 vote (121 DEN A-1, 6/24/15).
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the energy committee's Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, met the week of Jan. 11 to discuss the subcommittee's 2016 priorities, including reconciling the House and Senate bills. The goal of both chambers is to pass a final bill early in 2016, key legislators have previously said (244 DEN A-7, 12/21/15).
“We're working really hard with the American Chemistry Council and other associations to move TSCA [modernization] further,” Ernie Rosenberg, president and chief executive officer for the American Cleaning Institute told Bloomberg BNA.
He described the effort to update the law as “the best opportunity since 1976 to establish the credibility of the U.S. chemical program.”
Andy Igrejas, founder of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of some 450 environmental, health, consumer and other groups, posted a blog Dec. 18 that also underscored the importance of continued work on TSCA modernization in 2016.
“The most important part of the process comes next and the stakes are still very high for public health and the environment,” Igrejas wrote.
Positions on House, Senate Bills
Walls and Rosenberg said neither the American Chemistry Council nor the American Cleaning Institute has a preference for the House or Senate bill.
“The fact that they have different approaches is just a reflection of robust debate on this subject. Both bills are immanently reconcilable. Hopefully, the House and Senate can work together and get a bill to the president for signature,” Walls said.
Either bill would update TSCA, but they use much different approaches.
The House bill would alter a few provisions of TSCA that the statute's critics say have prevented it from effectively addressing chemicals in commerce. The rest of the statute would remain largely unaltered.
The Senate bill would overhaul TSCA's approach to regulating chemicals in commerce and make some modifications to a section of the law that addresses new chemicals companies would like to sell.
SOCMA's Conference Priorities
Like officials from other chemical trade associations, Bill Allmond, vice president of government and public relations for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), told Bloomberg BNA that TSCA modernization is that group's highest priority.
SOCMA's members will push for three accomplishments as the two chambers work through their differences. They are:
• When needed for trade secret protection, manufacturers should have the ability—as they would under the House bill—to keep confidential the specific molecular identify of a chemical they make or would like to manufacture.
• The EPA's new chemicals program, which reviews chemicals before they can enter the market, should operate essentially as it does under existing TSCA.
• The fees chemical manufacturers would pay for the agency to review new chemicals should solely fund that program.
“The House bill does a better job making sure the fees for new chemicals go to the new chemicals program,” Allmond said.
Many of SOCMA's members are specialty chemical manufacturers, so they often design new chemicals to serve diverse customers' specific needs. That makes the EPA's new chemicals program particularly important to SOCMA.
Environmental Groups; Implementation of New Law
Environmental and health groups have voiced several positions on the two bills.
The Environmental Defense Fund, among other organizations, has supported the Senate approach as illustrated by a side-by-side comparison it prepared prior to the Senate's passage of the bill.
The Senate-approved version of S. 697 included some changes made after EDF prepared its side-by-side, but the changes largely added additional public health protections.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families has favored the House bill, but the organizations position softened in recent months as more health protections were added to S. 697.
Igrejas's blog highlighted positive aspects of the Senate bill and the concerns Safer Chemicals has about the Senate and House bills.
If TSCA is amended, each trade association said it will be working with the EPA to prepare to implement the new law.
“The chemical industry and EPA are going to have a lot of work to do,” Walls said.
Both bills would require the agency to issue a number of policy and guidance documents along with implementing regulations within one to three years.
Rosenberg, with the American Cleaning Institute, said many industries will want to be involved in the implementation process.
“No environmental law since the 1990 overhaul of the Clean Air Act has had the potential to affect as many industries as a modernized TSCA,” he said. “This hits industries and products.”
The chemical industry's sales totaled $805.8 billion in 2014, according to figures from the American Chemistry Council.
Manufacturers in the computers and electronics, construction, health care, paper and printing, transportation equipment and other consumer sectors purchased $393.8 billion of that total, the council said.
EPA Work Plan as TSCA-Overhaul Preparation
For the EPA's part, a “work plan” chemical assessment program it continues to implement is the most practical preparation for a modernized TSCA, Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, told Bloomberg BNA. EPA announced the program in 2012 (41 DEN A-14, 3/2/12).
The work plan program consists of core tasks—chemical prioritization, risk assessment and risk management—that the agency would need to carry out in whatever bill Congress may pass, he said.
Mark Duvall, a principal at Beveridge & Diamond PC, wrote a guest article for Bloomberg BNA describing how the agency's work plan program offered insights into how it would implement an amended TSCA (187 DEN B-1, 9/28/15).
“A draft assessment of 1-bromoprane will be the first one out the door in the new calendar year,” Jones said.
1-bromopropane (CAS No. 106–94–5) is used as an aerosol solvent in asphalt, aircraft and synthetic fiber manufacturing and for other purposes, the EPA said in a Nov. 23 regulation that added the solvent to the Toxics Release Inventory list of reportable chemicals (225 DEN A-14, 11/23/15).
Draft assessments of three groups of flame retardants—chlorinated phosphate esters, cyclic aliphatic bromides and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and related chemicals—will be released later in the year, Jones said.
Risk Management; Proposing Rules
The agency expects to issue risk management plans—in the form of proposed rules—in 2016 for three chemicals already assessed under the work plan program, Jones said. Those three chemicals are:
• n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP; CAS No. 872-50-4), a solvent used in paint and coating removers;
• methylene chloride (CAS No. 75-09-2), another solvent used in paint and coating removers; and
• trichloroethylene (TCE; CAS No. 79-01-6), a degreaser, spot-cleaner in dry cleaning and spray-on protective coating.
Rules for each chemical will be proposed under the authorities given the EPA in Section 6 of TSCA, Jones said.
That rarely used section of the law authorizes the agency to take a wide variety of actions such as requiring labeling or warning instructions, restricting particular uses of a chemical, regulating its disposal and banning it.
The EPA has not initiated a Section 6 rulemaking in 24 years, since a court invalidated its 1991 rule banning most uses of asbestos (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 33 ERC 1961 (5th Cir. 1991)).
The EPA also is scheduled to issue in 2016 a final significant new use rule, authorized by Section 5 of TSCA, addressing consumer product applications of TCE.
Final Rules
The EPA expects to issue several final rules as well in 2016, Jones said. These final rules include:
• a data-collection rule for intentionally engineered nanoscale chemicals,
• a new use rule for long-chain perfluorinated chemicals,
• a rule designating the use of the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in textiles other than those used in motor vehicles to be a new use and
• a rule setting national formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products.
Chemical Data Reporting Rule
The EPA and chemical manufacturers will be implementing a key final rule in 2016—the Chemical Data Reporting rule.
The rule, last revised in 2011, requires chemical manufacturers to submit production volume information to the agency between June 1 and Sept. 30.
For the first time, chemical manufacturers will have to report production volumes for each year since their last CDR reports were due in 2012. That means production volume must be reported for 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Chemical manufacturers also will have to provide the EPA processing and use information if their calendar year 2015 production volume meets certain triggers—generally either 2,500 or 25,000 pounds.
Early in 2016, the agency will offer webinars, issue guidance and otherwise assist chemical manufacturers preparing to comply with the CDR's requirements, Jones said.
The EPA has not decided how it will roll out the results of CDR submissions, Jones said.
Nor does it have a set deadline by which it intends to release results, he said.
Jones predicted, however, the agency will release the data less than six months after receiving it. It took six months for the agency to process and report the 2012 CDR reports.
Biotech, Safer Choice
The agency will issue a next steps document during 2016 outlining how it will proceed developing guidance for new types of genetically engineered algae, Jones said. The agency held a workshop Sept. 30, 2015, discussing data needs and other aspects of such guidance (190 DEN A-17, 10/1/15).
On the non-regulatory front, the EPA will build on the Safer Choice labeling program it unveiled in 2015, Jones said.
Consumer and institutional manufacturers of chemical-intensive products can put the Safer Choice label on their products if they are proven to contain ingredients that meet strict criteria (43 DEN A-15, 3/5/15).
“A lot of energy is going into raising awareness,” Jones said.
The agency also is working on ways to make it easier, and cheaper, to participate in the program, he said.
For example, the agency is examining whether more categories of products could be included in the Safer Choice program, Jones said.
The EPA also is considering whether it could make the Safer Chemical Ingredients List easier suppliers to use, he said.
The Safer Chemical Ingredients List is a registry of chemical ingredients, arranged by functional-use class, that the Safer Choice Program has evaluated and determined to be among the safest for particular functions.
The list, which has steadily increased since being established, in 2012, is designed to help manufacturers find safer chemical alternatives.
At present, the ingredients are listed by chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number.
Manufacturers searching for chemicals, however, look for trade names, Jones said.
The EPA is exploring whether there would be a way to list trade names without unfairly boosting any particular company, he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Data, Computational Tools for Risk Analysts Key in 2016
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will generate chemical bioactivity and exposure data in 2016 and design computational tools to save risk assessors throughout the agency time while improving their analyses.
“We have unprecedented amounts of information that we can combine to help solve problems,” Thomas Burke, deputy assistant administrator for research and development at EPA, told Bloomberg BNA.
“We're finding quicker, more-efficient ways to do that,” said Burke, who also serves as science adviser for the agency.
The National Toxicology Program will deepen the amount of gene-activity information it obtains through robotic tests while also establishing methods scientists can use to evaluate the quality of gene-activity, cellular and other mechanistic data.
Both agencies will work together and with institutions such as the World Health Organization to keep adapting systematic review procedures for environmental health analyses.
“We're expecting a lot of strides in that area,” John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program, told Bloomberg BNA.
Many Diverse Projects
Bucher, Burke, and Tina Bahadori, national program director for chemical safety and sustainability in EPA's Office of Research and Development, discussed many efforts their offices are undertaking to generate information for various types of risk assessments, to ensure data quality and to cut analytic time. A few examples include:
• providing better chemical structure and physical chemical property information on an easier-to-use version of the interactive Chemical Safety for Sustainability (iCSS) Dashboard, a web-based portal to access chemical data derived from high throughput screens;
• reworking high throughput screens—equipment that simultaneously tests hundreds or thousands of experimental samples—so they account for chemical metabolism, which largely is omitted with present techniques;
• designing quicker ways to validate high throughput screens for potential uses;
• redesigning ultra high throughput screens so they generate even more gene activity data;
• expanding and improving the information in the EPA's Chemical Product Category Database, which lists chemicals and the types of products in which they are used; and
• developing computerized methods to predict chemical exposures incurred by many different demographic groups.
Embracing Complexity
Bahadori described a different type of research effort that is in its early stages.
Traditionally, chemical safety research involves carefully controlled experiments that don't reflect the complexity in which human and ecological populations live, she told Bloomberg BNA.
A researcher will analyze blood and urine samples, for example, to determine whether they contain specific chemicals.
“You look for what you think is a problem,” Bahadori said.
The researcher is “looking under the lamppost” and doesn't identify other chemicals that also are in the blood or urine sample, she said.
ORD and its academic grant recipients are working to develop “non-targeted” analytical chemistry approaches.
Instead of looking for specific chemicals in the blood or urine samples, the researchers identify every chemical they can, Bahadori said.
The labs are working with samples spiked by EPA to ensure the labs find the chemicals the agency knows are in the sample, she said.
The researchers also are working to standardize the analytic methods to be sure that when two different labs say they have found a particular chemical, it really is the same chemical, Bahadori said.
In a separate approach to the same idea, researchers receive samples of Great Lakes water.
First, they identify as many chemicals as they can in the samples, then they run the samples through high throughput screens.
The goal is to understand whether the mixture has a toxic effect different than what would be expected based on its individual components, she said.
The water office suggested ORD undertake the project because it is interested in understanding the effects of mixtures and exploring whether it is feasible to set water standards for more than one chemical at a time, Bahadori said.
Bridging Emerging Data, Regulatory Decisions
The EPA and toxicology program are building bridges to bring the wealth of new data that technologies are making possible to regulators who are unaccustomed to using such data to make decisions.
ORD and the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention will continue to use high-throughput screening data and high-throughput exposure predictions to prioritize chemicals that companies would have to test for potential endocrine disruption.
In 2015, the agency began to accept data from high-throughput screens on a chemical's potential to mimic, block or alter estrogen, the female reproductive hormone (118 DEN A-20, 6/19/15).
In 2016, the agency anticipates being able to accept high-throughput data about chemicals' potential to mimic, block or alter androgen, the male reproductive hormone (224 DEN A-6, 11/20/15).
RapidTox Program
EPA researchers are working with the agency's regional offices and its Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Pesticides Programs to develop decision-support tools called RapidTox.
For the waste office, the EPA's goal is to help officials dealing with Superfund sites that are contaminated with hundreds of chemicals, Rusty Thomas, director of the agency's National Center for Computational Toxicology, said at a Society for Risk Analysis meeting in December.
Of those hundreds of contaminants, only a few have toxicity values the officials can use to make cleanup decisions, he said.
The RapidTox program would combine a wide variety of data including a chemical's properties and how it moves through the environment. The software would then develop numerical toxicity values while letting the risk manager know how uncertain the estimates were, he said.
A similar computer decision-support tool will be developed for the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs so it can decide which inert ingredients in non-food use pesticides warrant additional study, Thomas said.
The RapidTox computer program would “enable screening-level assessments to be performed for hundreds to thousands of data-poor chemicals,” he said.
Initial prototypes will be available by the end of fiscal year 2016, Thomas said.
ExpoFIRST Database
Also coming in 2016 will be a database and software program called the Exposure Factors Interactive Resource for Scenarios Tool or ExpoFIRST, said Michelle Cawley, a technical specialist for ICF International Inc., a contractor working with the EPA to design the system.
The many different numerical values from EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook are plugged into the database from which ExpoFIRST draws its information, Cawley said. These factors include details such as drinking water, soil ingestion and inhalation rates for different ages; the amounts of time different age groups spend crawling on floors and touching their mouths; skin area for different parts of the body; and vapor intrusion rates.
The database also taps into details such as a chemical's molecular weight and the time the chemical takes be absorbed through the skin, she said.
Instead of manually entering such information for each analysis project, the ExpoFIRST user can spend his or her time altering the assumptions and possible scenarios, she said.
Data Presentation, Data Quality
Meanwhile, the National Toxicology Program is working to define ways researchers can evaluate the quality of mechanistic—detailed cellular, genetic and other studies—data, Bucher said.
To help people understand that mechanistic and other data, the NTP is working on ways to present information, he said. “We're creating visualization tools.”
Mary Wolfe, deputy division director for policy at NTP's Office of Liaison, Policy, and Review, said in an e-mail that the toxicology program also is updating what it calls its “Levels of Concern” framework.
The program uses six phrases, ranging from “serious concern” to “negligible concern” or “insufficient data,” to provide a science-informed opinion as to whether an environmental substance may cause adverse effects on human health given what is known about its toxicity and current human exposure.
Over the years, there has been confusion about some of the terms and questions about the number of categories.
The program is working with epidemiologists, risk communicators and other experts to determine the optimal number of categories, words and other means to better communicate what different concern levels mean, she said.
Systematic Review
In partnership with the EPA and the World Health Organization, NTP also is working to adapt systematic review to the chemical evaluations it conducts, Bucher said.
Systematic review techniques were designed for physicians examining clinical studies about specific therapeutic approaches. The goal is to adapt them to environmental health assessments.
“We're expecting a lot of strides in that area,” Bucher said.
Systematic reviews attempt to bring rigor and transparency to reviews of scientific evidence.
Elements of Systematic Review
•
defining the questions to be analyzed;
•
developing criteria to include or exclude scientific studies;
•
identifying studies through literature searches and other means;
•
assessing study quality and risk of bias;
•
synthesizing findings from individual studies; and
•
interpreting those findings.
IRIS Program
The Integrated Risk Information System program, which evaluates the health effects of chemicals and the doses at which those effects may manifest, will be wrestling with many questions relating to systematic review following a two-day workshop the EPA held in mid-December.
The program also will be analyzing chemicals identified in the IRIS Agenda it released Dec. 15 (241 DEN A-1, 12/16/15)(241 DEN, 12/16/15)(242 DEN A-15, 12/17/15)(242 DEN 1, 12/17/15)(242 DEN, 12/17/15).
Nancy Beck, a toxicologist with the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA that such silence has been frustrating in 2015, a year in which the IRIS program also canceled several public meetings.
“I think they are struggling internally. I don't know what's happening in that program. It would be nice if they could communicate along the way what they are trying to do,” Beck said.
When IRIS program staff members speak at public meetings, they sound as if the program is making improvements, she said.
But with few materials having been released in 2015, it is hard to know, she said.
ORD's Burke said “IRIS is source of frustration. I would like to see it move much quicker, and we're working in that direction.”
But the IRIS program is going through a time of transition as it responds to changes recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Burke said.
Kenneth Olden, director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees IRIS, launched a series of initiatives in 2012 to revamp it (134 DEN A-10, 7/13/12).
Olden told a House subcommittee in 2014 that it could take three to five more years to overhaul the program (137 DEN A-6, 7/17/14).
Burke said improving a product sometimes slows production. “We're in a transition stage, where we're looking to push that process.”
“Every new bar we set takes time to adapt to,” he said.
Connecting the Dots
Although IRIS is going through a transition, ORD is providing as many tools and as much assistance as it can so state, EPA and public health officials can connect the dots that lead from one or more exposures through many different environmental and biological systems to, ultimately, affect public health, Burke said.
“Risk assessment is a really important public health tool that synthesizes public health information from so many different sources to guide decisions,” Burke said.
-
Prop. 65 Rules Changing, Consumer Product Rules Loom
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Regulatory proposals launched last year by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment could mean major changes in 2016 for the state's landmark right-to-know law, Proposition 65.
OEHHA has proposed a rulemaking to overhaul the law's consumer warning requirements and introduced pre-regulatory proposals to set new maximum allowable dose levels for lead and clarify how to calculate exposure levels for chemicals and measure concentrations of chemicals in products. The agency also is weighing a potential new regulation to address naturally occurring background levels of certain chemicals, like lead, found in processed foods, an issue that has triggered several private enforcement actions.
Meanwhile, the Department of Toxic Substances Control is inching closer to formally identifying its first three “priority products” to be regulated under the Safer Consumer Product Regulations.
Businesses Urged to Track Rules
Consumer product manufacturers and retailers should carefully follow the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed rulemakings and pre-regulatory proposals, Peter Hsiao, an attorney at Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“Businesses should be on the lookout for the agency's new rule to update the requirements for Proposition 65 warnings,” he said.
OEHHA's proposed changes to the Proposition 65 warning requirements are a move to implement reforms Gov. Jerry Brown has sought to curb private enforcement actions, some often characterized as “bounty hunter” claims.
Formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warning notices or labels when exposing the public to unsafe levels of chemicals the state has linked to cancer or birth defects and other reproductive harm. Businesses failing to provide adequate warnings may be targeted for enforcement by public prosecutors and/or citizens.OEHHA's proposal to update the “clear and reasonable” warning regulations replaces a rulemaking launched a year ago but scrapped in late November following an extended comment period (11 DEN A-16, 1/16/15).
Industry and business said the first effort would be likely to result in increased litigation.
Like the initial proposal, the new rulemaking aims to provide businesses with more specific guidance for the warnings and to arm consumers with more information about potential exposure to harmful chemicals.
The proposal includes detailed language required for the warnings and addresses the responsibility of product manufacturers and others involved in the distribution chain, not just the duty of retailers as in the current regulations.
Absent in the current proposal is a provision in the initial rulemaking that singled out 12 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list that would have to be clearly identified on warning notices and labels—acrylamide, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, carbon monoxide, chlorinated tris, formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, methylene chloride and phthalates.
The new proposal, however, would require warnings to include safe harbor exposure levels for Proposition 65 chemicals.
Legal Actions Spur Some Proposals
OEHHA's pre-regulatory proposals to clarify how to calculate exposure levels and measure chemicals in foods stem from recent litigation seeking to require warnings on certain food products, such as a lawsuit against 32 food manufacturers, distributors and retailers over the presence of lead in food for babies and toddlers. In March, a state appeals court affirmed a trial court decision that found no warning labels were required (Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 2015 BL 72035 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015; 53 DEN A-16, 3/19/15).
Attorney General's Proposal to Curb Abuses
The California Attorney General's Office is still reviewing comments submitted on its proposed changes to Proposition 65 regulations, also designed to limit abusive private civil actions, Deputy Press Secretary Rachele Hunnekens told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Hunnekens said the office will respond to the comments, but that “there is no set deadline” for responding.
Released in September, the proposed revisions would cap the “in lieu of penalties” payments to ensure OEHHA receives some civil penalties to help fund the Proposition 65 program, limit the ability of private parties to divert some of the statutorily required penalty to themselves or third parties in the form of additional settlement payments, improve the transparency of private party settlements, and reduce the financial incentives for private parties to bring actions that provide no substantial public benefit (188 DEN A-22, 9/29/15).
New Additions to List of Chemicals
OEHHA also is considering several new chemicals for the list of carcinogens and reproductive toxicants it maintains under Proposition 65. The agency's review of comments for plans to identify styrene as a carcinogen is due April 29. A comment period for a proposal to list four widely used pesticides, including Monsanto's glyphosate and malathion, ended Nov. 11, 2015.
Consumer Product Rules Advancing
In the first quarter of 2016, the Department of Toxic Substances Control will launch a rulemaking to officially identify children's foam sleeping mats and pillows containing the flame retardants 1,3-dichloroisoproply phosphate (TDCPP) and 2-chloroethyl phosphate (TCEP) as a priority product under the state's groundbreaking Safer Consumer Product Regulations it adopted in 2013.
The Safer Consumer Product program is the first step in implementing the state's green chemistry initiative and mandated under legislation enacted in 2008 to eliminate harmful chemicals from consumer products.
Priority products are product-chemical combinations identified under the program as posing a substantial harmful threat to public health or the environment. Once named a priority product, manufacturers and other regulated entities must conduct a life cycle, alternative analysis to determine how the products can be made safer.
So far, the DTSC has proposed only three potential priority products. Along with the children's foam mats and pillows, the department has identified paint strippers containing methylene chloride and two-part, stray polyurethane foam insulation systems with unreacted diisocyanates as potential priority products.
Other Rulemakings to Follow
DTSC Deputy Director Meredith Williams told Bloomberg BNA the rulemakings for the paint strippers and spray foam insulation systems will come later in the year.
A three-year work plan released last year identified seven categories of consumer products from which the DTSC will select the next round of priority products. Beauty, personal care and hygiene products; building products; cleaning products; clothing, household and office furnishings and furniture; consumable office machinery products like inks and toners; and fishing equipment are the categories named in the plan.
“Staff is researching those product categories, the chemicals in those categories and comparing them to priorities in the program,” Williams said. “We're looking at the indoor impacts, impacts to children and workers, and impacts to aquatic resources.”
The teams have “done a pretty good job of initial screening” to understand how the chemicals are used, she said.
The DTSC plans to name more potential priority products in 2016, Williams said.
The DTSC in 2016 also plans to complete the draft guidance document released last year to help regulated entities navigate the alternative analysis process once their products are deemed priority products (188 DEN A-18, 9/29/15).
The DTSC is reviewing and responding to the comments on the Draft Stage 1 Alternatives Analysis Guide, Williams said.
Initially, the plan was to have two documents, Williams said. Now the plan is to have one integrated document, she said.
Hsiao of Morrison & Foerster said the guidance on how to perform the structured alternatives analysis of safer substitute chemicals “is at the heart of the Green Chemistry Initiative.”
-
EPA Denies Industry Petition for Chemical Naming Rule
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A trade association's petition that asked the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a chemical-naming regulation aimed at removing some obstacles new types of biobased chemicals face getting to market has been denied by the EPA.
The denial decision, published Jan. 12, suggested, however, that there may be a non-regulatory approach biobased chemical manufacturers could use to achieve their goal (81 Fed. Reg. 1365).
Kathleen Roberts, executive director of the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG), that filed the petition told Bloomberg BNA the group is reviewing EPA's decision and exploring use of the non-regulatory approach the agency mentioned.
The global renewable chemicals market was estimated at $49 billion in 2015 and is projected to reach $84.3 billion by 2020, according to a projection markets research firm MarketsandMarkets released in October 2015. The firm included biobased fuels, such as ethanol, in its projections.
‘Disproportionate Regulatory Burden.'
The EPA's approach to naming chemicals gives a “disproportionate regulatory burden” to biobased chemicals that use new types of feedstocks compared to existing chemicals named under a nomenclature system the agency traditionally has used, BRAG's petition said (227 DEN A-7, 11/25/15).
The chemical-naming approach that BRAG's petition sought to amend by rulemaking is called the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) nomenclature system.
Under the SDA system, chemical manufacturers can switch between 35 sources of oil with similar characteristics—such as corn oil and soybean oil—without changing the name of the chemical derived from those oils. Sources of oil that can be used under the SDA system include avocado, corn, safflower, whale, sardine, poultry and 29 other natural sources of oil listed in 1979, along with the synthetic petroleum equivalents of those oils.
The SDA system does not allow use of feedstocks such as algae, plants such as camelina and jatropha, and other nonfood oil sources, BRAG's petition said.
That means a new oil that is essentially equivalent, i.e. has the same properties and characteristics as corn oil, but which was derived from algae, could not use the SDA name and status as an existing chemical, but would receive a new name and be subject to the EPA's review as a new chemical, the petition said.
Distinction Between New, Existing Chemicals Key
The Toxic Substances Control Act does not require the agency to review the safety or manage risks from existing chemicals.
New chemicals, however, are required to be reviewed by the EPA before they are manufactured. Manufacturers of new chemicals must submit a premanufacture notice, or PMN, to the EPA before they can make or import the chemical. The agency can then request additional data before allowing a new chemical to be made or it can negotiate manufacturing conditions with the company that wants to manufacture the new chemical.
Roberts previously told Bloomberg BNA the burden and cost of filing a PMN for each chemical derived from the new biobased feedstocks discourages companies from using these new sources of chemicals even when they want to support a renewable source of chemicals.
Officials from other trade associations have increasingly voiced that same concern to Bloomberg BNA.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of the law firm Bergeson & Campbell PC which manages BRAG, and Charles Auer, a former senior EPA chemicals official who now provides consulting services through Charles Auer & Associates LLC, first provided Bloomberg BNA details on problems new biobased chemicals can face in 2012 (217 DEN B-1, 11/9/12).
BRAG's petition said the limited list of feedstock categories in the SDA system “results in inequitable regulatory treatment for chemical substances that are functionally the same and chemically nearly identical.”
The petition asked the EPA to issue a rule authorized under Section 8 of TSCA. Under BRAG's proposed rule, the EPA would establish a procedure by which the agency could add new sources of fats and oils to the SDA-eligible list.
As a result of such a rule, BRAG said, original and novel sources would be treated equally.
EPA: Harm, Benefits Not Shown
The EPA's arguments for denying BRAG's petition included that the industry group failed to demonstrate that its requested rule would:
• alleviate a specific harm the agency's current policy causes; or
• be necessary to protect public or environmental health.
The petition also failed to explain how a rule issued under Section 8 of TSCA could be crafted to accomplish BRAG's goal of allowing new sources of fats and oils to be used to name existing chemicals, the agency said.
Issue ‘Correctly Recognized.'
BRAG's petition however, “correctly recognizes” the limitations of naming chemicals—as the SDA system does—based on specific sources of fats or oils from which they are derived, the agency said.
Section 5 of TSCA may offer another approach biobased chemical manufacturers could use when they argue their new chemical is the equivalent of an existing one, Jim Jones, assistant administrator of chemical safety and pollution prevention, said in a letter to BRAG.
Under Section 5(h)(4) of TSCA, the agency can exempt a manufacturer from new chemical requirements, such as the requirement for a PMN, “if the administrator determines that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such chemical substance, or that any combination of such activities, will not present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,” Jones said.
“As such, this section of TSCA may be more relevant to the subject of your petition,” he wrote.
-
US EPA Receives 54 PMNs In November
Jan 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 54 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) for new chemicals last November. Several have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information.
During the same period, the agency received 32 notices of commencement to manufacture new chemicals and six applications for test market exemption.
-
ASTM Releases Alternatives Analysis Standard
Jan 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A new ASTM standard has been developed that will assist manufacturers in evaluating chemical alternatives for consumer products.
The guidance outlines social, economic and ecological considerations to be evaluated when comparing chemical alternatives. Its lifecycle perspective includes considerations, from raw material acquisition and transport through to a product's use and end of life.
According to Michael Schmeida, chairman of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee on Sustainability (E60), which developed the rule, “the analysis in the new standard helps set the overall context of how green chemistry tools, such as assessment of alternatives and risks, can fit into the overall product development scheme within an organisation.”
Mr Schmeida notes that while other alternatives assessment tools focus on hazards or risks associated with specific ingredients, these do not examine a product's lifecycle or “holistically look at all three attributes of sustainability”.
This ASTM standard (E 3027), on the other hand, is an analysis tool designed “to offer a framework that assists the user in developing a means to accomplish that holistic look”, he says.
The standard was developed, in part, as a response to the California Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. The rule will require manufacturers of regulated product and chemical pairs to develop alternatives analyses (CW 19 November 2015).
“We certainly hope that it is used by industry groups in shaping their responses to SCP rule inquiries,” says Mr Schmeida.
Regarding the future evolution of the standard, the chairman speculates that it could be adapted to better address the needs of individual sectors.
“It is actually my own personal hope that some day this standard no longer needs to exist; ideally, because every ASTM committee has developed their own, more specific document to their specific industry sectors,” he says.
The standard, Guide for making sustainability-related chemical selection decisions in the lifecycle of products, was developed by a broad stakeholder group, which included NGOs, industry representatives and governmental organisations.
-
OECD Targets Chemical Regulations, Risk Management
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development plans to work on test guidelines related to nanomaterials and endocrine disruptors in 2016, and it expects to release reports related to perfluorinated chemicals, officials told Bloomberg BNA.
The Paris-based organization has a “direct mandate” for that work from the recent International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) for the United Nations Environment Program's Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), said Bob Diderich, head of the OECD Environment Directorate's Environment, Health and Safety Division. The conference was held in Geneva last October (188 DEN A-10, 9/29/15).
Most of the organization's wide-ranging work on chemicals aims to add or adapt test guidelines to the OECD multilateral Mutual Acceptance of Data system (MAD), under which participating countries exchange results of toxicity testing conducted using OECD-approved methods and principles. The organization says MAD testing allows hazard identification, which with exposure information allows making risk assessments for chemicals.
The OECD's 34 member countries, which include the world's advanced economies, have signed the legally binding MAD multilateral agreement, as have non-OECD members Argentina, Brazil, India, Malaysia, South Africa and Singapore as full adherents.
Diderich said the OECD hopes to soon add Thailand, currently a provisional adherent, as a full adherent.
Endocrine Disruptors
In 2016, the main focus of test guidelines work will be on endocrine disrupting substances and nanomaterials, Diderich said.
The World Health Organization's definition of an endocrine-disrupting chemical requires proving both that the chemical acts via a mechanism of action that disrupts the hormone balance and that adverse effects are visible in the whole organism.
For any given mechanism, a full set of at least eight test guidelines are needed—to screen for the mechanism and confirm it, and then to establish adverse effects in organisms and confirm them, taking both environment and human health into account.
“We have almost everything we need for chemicals acting by the estrogen receptor mechanism and are close to having developed what we need for chemicals acting by the androgen receptor pathway,” Diderich said. “So we will now focus on the thyroid receptor pathway,” although this work will not be completed in 2016. “The work will never finish because you will always discover new mechanisms of action.”
Guidance on Data
OECD “hopes” to publish guidance to help its member countries develop tools for better using data from pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTRs), which are publicly available databases on types and quantities of chemicals released by particular installations, he said.
Addressing the difficulty of standardizing pesticide field trials, OECD is looking for ways to improve interusability of data from one country to another. It has two guidance documents underway on crop field trials and another on measuring how pesticides dissipate from soil. For biopesticides—“a big new topic”—it is working on methodologies for evaluating risks linked to secondary metabolites, that is, substances produced by microorganisms and that have plant-protecting properties. It also plans to release a best practices guide for fighting illegal trade of pesticides.
Most OECD countries require that, to obtain authorization to put biocides on the market, companies must prove the substances work as claimed. Thus, the OECD is working on guidance for evaluating biocides' efficacy, starting with biocides used on so-called treated articles like textiles or plastics.
Integrated Approaches
In 2014, the OECD replaced its 21-year-old Cooperative Chemicals Assessment Program (CoCAP) for assessing high-production volume chemicals with a new program focused on novel methods for hazard assessment, in particular, integrated approaches to hazard testing and assessment.
Integrated approaches encourage regulatory acceptance of non-test data, allow reduction of animal testing, and enable assessment of larger numbers of chemicals based on factors such as similarity in structure, mode of action and metabolic pathways. But since a given problem could have hundreds of possible solutions, the OECD plans to release guidance in 2016 on how to document that a particular solution and available information provides the right answer to a problem.
It is currently assessing four case studies on practical application of integrated approaches to testing and assessment:
• in vitro mutagenicity and how to use so-called adverse outcome pathways to reduce uncertainty in the assessment of mutagenicity;
• toxicity forecasting data (ToxCast) to reduce uncertainty in the assessment of repeat dose toxicity of a chemical;
• mechanistic considerations to improve assessment of liver toxicity of a category of substances; and
• analogs to assess the bioconcentration potential of degradation products.
The organization plans work on many more case studies in the coming years to help countries get more comfortable with these approaches, Diderich said.
Adverse Outcome Pathways
A key part of the work on integrated approaches will be a framework document for developing and using adverse outcome pathways (AOPs). In addition, an online knowledge base the OECD launched in 2014 for gathering AOP data on toxicity pathways through which chemicals cause adverse outcomes in humans and wildlife will be further developed.
Diderich said the organization hopes to have more advanced versions of eight AOPs by the end of 2016, based on outcomes of peer reviews going on now. Those include alkylation of DNA related to mutation; several related to endocrine disruption, including two on reproductive dysfunction; and “a few” related to impaired fertility.
Countries today only have very expensive confirmatory test methods, which use many animals, for the many chemicals suspected of causing developmental neurotoxicity, or learning and memory impairment. “So we are trying to better understand the mechanisms by developing AOPs, which we hope will help us to develop screening tools,” Diderich said.
Toolbox, Chemicals Portal
The OECD has said it plans to eventually incorporate adopted AOPs into work to bring new in vitro test methods into test guidelines in its MAD system. In vitro tests in particular allow avoiding the use of animals for chemical safety tests. The organization also plans to use AOPs in its Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) project for developing new methods and profilers for grouping chemicals.
Evolving through many versions, the QSAR toolbox, a joint project with the European Chemicals Agency, has grown enormously both in functionality and content, but also has become increasingly difficult for nonexperts to use. In late 2016 or early 2017, the OECD hopes to publish the fourth version of the toolbox that makes it easier for “entry-level users,” Diderich said.
The OECD also plans to add new databases to its eChemPortal, which now allows searching for classification and labeling of chemicals.
Perfluorinated Chemicals Risks
In 2016, the OECD plans to disseminate findings from two reports on perfluorinated chemicals it published for the ICCM4. One looks at countries' work to date to reduce risks from perfluorinated chemicals, and another tries to establish a global inventory of releases of them.
It also plans work on documenting alternatives to perfluorinated chemicals, expanding on the Stockholm Convention secretariat's substantial work on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS), to include other perfluorinated chemicals.
One new area of work will probably be a report based on a Helsinki workshop being hosted by ECHA in July on finding or developing methodologies for estimating benefits of managing chemicals, versus the costs, to help countries with the difficult task of demonstrating societal benefits of setting up or revising their chemicals management systems.
During the year, the organization also will be completing its 2017–2020 work plan, said Diderich.
Nanomaterials Testing Program
In June 2015, the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) launched a website to post results from the WPMN Sponsorship Program for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials.
Under the program, OECD members, some nonmember countries and other stakeholders have since 2007 pooled expertise and funded safety testing for a priority list of manufactured nanomaterials (currently, 13 entities) in commerce or close to commercial release.
So far, the program has posted full results for nine materials, is gradually posting results for a 10th, and plans to release results for the others later.
Work is underway to analyze results from that program, said Peter Kearns, principal administrator of OECD's Environment Directorate.
Council Recommendation
In 2013, the OECD council, the organization's top governing body, adopted a recommendation that member countries apply existing international and national chemical regulatory frameworks to manage risks for manufactured nanomaterials (184 DEN A-10, 9/23/13).
Kearns said the recommendation is an important organizing principle in work to include nanomaterials in the MAD system. But the recommendation cautioned that these frameworks might need changes to account for “specific” properties of manufactured nanomaterials. For example, nanoforms of chemicals can have distinct surface properties and reactivity compared with bulk forms of the same substances.
At its 15th meeting in November 2015, the WPMN considered results of work to evaluate applicability of the test methods used to determine physical-chemical properties of nanomaterials in the sponsorship testing program, and that work will continue in 2016.
Work also will continue on a series of eight WPMN projects since 2011 aimed at considering how groupings of existing test guidelines and protocols could be adapted for nanomaterials, or whether new guidance or guidelines is needed (10 DEN A-7, 1/15/15).
The WPMN's national test guideline program coordinators group has approved several proposals from those projects, most recently on adapting existing test guidelines for genotoxicity for use with nanomaterials. In 2016, the coordinators group will meet again in April to consider, among other things, work to update inhalation test guidelines to accommodate nanomaterials and to develop a new guidance document, Kearns said.
OECD plans a separate meeting in mid-April on use of grouping, categorization and read-across in hazard assessment of nanomaterials, a technique that could save time and costs in testing.
Exposure Assessments
In 2015, the WPMN gathered information on how the council recommendation has been implemented by OECD countries, as well as non-OECD countries adhering to it—so far, only Argentina—and it plans a report in 2016.
OECD also is considering updates to the council recommendation annex, which includes various tools for using test guidelines with nanomaterials.
“We know pretty much the work we need to do on testing and assessment of nanomaterials. Now, the idea is to gradually build up tools that can help with that,” Kearns said.
Work in 2016 will have a heavy focus on exposure assessments and mitigation for nanomaterials and developing exposure data.
Another activity will be on risk assessment and regulatory programs related to nanomaterials. The OECD will continue work on environmentally sustainable use of manufactured nanomaterials, which looks at life-cycle assessments, including end of life, recycling and waste, and linkages with risk assessments.
So far, that program has looked at nanomaterials in tires and will likely expand to other things that include nanomaterials.
The WPMN last November drafted its 2017–2020 program of work and terms of reference, for approval by the OECD Chemicals Committee in February 2016. The WPMN will hold its 16th meeting in September.
Chemical Accidents
As part of its work on chemical accidents, the OECD is beginning work on a guidance document on ownership change of hazard facilities that will come out in 2017.
“In mergers and acquisitions, there is the possibility that somebody could end up owning a hazardous facility or facilities who doesn't really have the background or experience to manage those types of facilities,” Kearns said.
Another project is to develop guidance on ways to deal with the aging of hazardous installations, such as through corrosion, as well as other ways an installation can degrade with age.
In 2016, the OECD also will be looking at ways to update its handbook of guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response, last updated about 10 years ago.
The organization has decided that nanomaterials don't add any new issues to the big picture when thinking about dealing with major chemical accidents (10 DEN B-8, 1/15/15).
Finally, the OECD has been working to strengthen cooperation with other intergovernmental organizations active in the area of chemical accidents, in particular various United Nations groups, and will participate in a meeting, probably around April in Geneva, where several of those organizations are located.
The 26th meeting of the OECD Working Group on Chemical Accidents will be held in October.
-
Obama Team Drawing Up Plan For Response To Cyberattack
Jan 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Joseph Marks
The White House is devising a plan specifying federal agencies’ responsibilities in the event of a crippling cyberattack on essential services such as banks or the electric grid, POLITICO has learned.
Without such advance guidance, administration officials fear that a devastating attack could devolve into a “cyber Katrina,” with federal agencies working at cross purposes rather than quickly restoring damaged computer networks.
The new guidance will address the federal response to an attack on any of 16 industries defined as critical infrastructure, according to executives briefed on the conversations. Nuclear reactors, power plants, dams, chemical facilities, banks and telecommunications providers are among the potential targets covered.
“This is outlining specific roles and responsibilities and tasks for agencies, saying, ‘DHS, you do this’ and, ‘FBI, you go do this’ … a high-level, whole-of-government approach,” one industry official said.
The White House statement is expected to be released within the next 90 days as an executive order or presidential policy directive, the industry officials said. The two documents have the same legal force, according to a Jan. 29, 2000, Justice Department opinion.
The Homeland Security Department, meanwhile, is updating its cyber incident response plan, which has languished for more than five years in interim form, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The 39-page interim plan lays out the department’s responsibilities beginning before an attack is detected until its aftermath. An additional 59 pages of appendices describe the roles of Defense, State, Intelligence and Justice officials along with those of state, local and tribal governments.
The DHS document, however, does not reflect lessons learned from major hacking incidents since then, including the 2014 attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment and the breach disclosed in 2015 of more than 21 million records at the government’s central personnel office.
Congress for more than a year has been seeking an updated version of the DHS plan. House Homeland Security Committee staffers plan to press for a firm commitment on a date for delivery of the revised plan during a scheduled meeting this week with department officials.
A DHS official declined to comment on the plan. A White House official also declined to comment on internal deliberations, saying only that “improving cyber incident response is a critical administration priority.”
The administration has already laid out the broad strokes for how government should respond to a major private sector cyberattack, both in DHS’ interim plan and in a previous presidential directive and executive order in 2013.
This year’s actions will get “more into operational-level issues … into the nitty gritty,” according to the industry official in an affected industry. Another executive described the goal as “writing out the phone tree.”
Those operational details could be critical in the midst of a major computer disruption that cuts off electricity, causes a major chemical leak or shuts down air travel.
DHS is officially in charge when the government responds to cyberattacks on private industry, but may borrow computer specialists from the NSA to drive attackers out of compromised computer networks. FBI agents often are on site conducting a criminal investigation while the Treasury, Transportation or Energy departments will be involved depending upon the industry affected. That can lead to confusion with each agency following its own procedures, insiders say.
Governmental coordination could get even more complicated in the event of an attack by a foreign government or terrorist group warranting a possible military response.
The White House goal is to agree upon a clear division of responsibilities before any attack so that emergency responders don’t waste time debating whom to call or talking to lawyers, according to people knowledgeable about the conversations.
Until recently, White House officials had been debating whether to first issue guidance governing a breach only of government networks or to include private sector targets as well, one industry official said.
Recent reports that Iran may have been scouting a destructive attack against a New York dam and that Russia may have caused a blackout in Ukraine by hacking the nation’s energy grid may have settled the debate, the official said.
“If I was in the administration, those [attacks] would expedite my thought process,” the official said.
While nations frequently hack into each other’s systems for surveillance purposes, destructive cyberattacks against energy grids and financial firms are much rarer, with only a handful ever documented. Those include the Stuxnet attack against Iranian nuclear reactors, typically attributed to the U.S. and Israel, and the Iran-linked attack against the Saudi state oil company Saudi Aramco.
Laying out a more detailed response plan for these hacks would be consistent with previous Obama administration policy.
In 2013, for example, the White House published its first policy directive on cyber protections for critical infrastructure and in 2014 the government published a voluntary cybersecurity framework for industry. Last year, another executive order gave Treasury officials authority to seize the assets of foreign individuals and firms that benefit from cyber theft.
“The administration has made clear that cyber is a core priority,” one industry official said, “… [T]his is a legacy issue.”
-
Crude-by-Rail Leads Hazmat Agenda
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The nation's hazardous materials transportation regulator will begin 2016 by addressing a full plate of litigation and policy mandates focused on improving the safety of crude oil movement by rail.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also will continue working through leftover policy mandates from its 2012 pipeline safety reauthorization and begin addressing new mandates for hazmat safety programs from the recently signed highway law. Meanwhile, hazmat and pipeline industries will be closely watching the drafting and passage of reauthorizations for pipeline safety and aviation programs.
“[Congress] got a lot done on hazmat in the FAST Act,” Mike Friedberg, former Republican staff director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials and now senior policy adviser for Holland & Knight LLP, told Bloomberg BNA. “I'm looking to see if they have the same momentum to finish out PIPES [pipeline safety reauthorization].”
This will be PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez's first full year leading PHMSA, which is housed in the Transportation Department. Dominguez has previously cited improving enforcement, use of data and use of safety management systems as priorities for the agency (224 DEN A-13, 11/20/15).
PHMSA didn't respond to messages from Bloomberg BNA requesting comment.
Crude-by-Rail
PHMSA will continue to address concerns regarding the movement of crude oil by rail in 2016 on all fronts. The issue garnered increased public scrutiny following an increase in this type of transportation, an increase in these types of derailments and most notably, a number of high-profile derailments that caused significant environmental damage and even deaths.
The regulator will first have to deal with changes made to its crude-by-rail rule by Congress through the five-year highway bill that was signed in December. PHMSA's rule (RIN 2137-AE91) initially required only large shipments of crude oil and other flammable liquids to have retrofitted or new tank cars, established costly brake requirements with a speed restriction option and addressed a number of other areas.
Legislation known as the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) changed much of those requirements, including stipulating that any car carrying a flammable liquid needs to be a retrofitted or new car and mandating a second look at brake needs. These changes will affect implementation of the rule and may cause a 60-day delay in litigation over the issue (Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States, D.C.Cir., 15-1131, motion filed, 12/15/15242 DEN A-9, 12/17/15).
Patti Goldman, a managing attorney for Earthjustice who is involved in litigation over the rule, told Bloomberg BNA the case is likely to be fully briefed and “hopefully” fully argued in 2016.
The FAST Act also required PHMSA to finalize a rule that would expand requirements for comprehensive oil spill response planning related to crude-by-rail and required a notification rule intended to help first responders know what materials are moved through their communities. Earthjustice, Holland and Knight's Friedberg and others will be tracking both issues, which PHMSA appears to want to address under one rule (RIN 2137-AF08) (234 DEN A-21, 12/7/15).
Lithium Batteries in FAA Bill
Lithium battery manufacturers will “closely monitor” an upcoming Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, George Kerchner, executive director of PRBA—the Rechargeable Battery Association, told Bloomberg BNA.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has said he wants to “correct” a provision from the 2012 law that largely blocked the U.S. from establishing more stringent regulations for movement by air of lithium batteries, which are known to catch fire (203 DEN A-15, 10/21/15).
The PRBA will also be paying attention to new international requirements that are expected to take effect April 1 to limit the state of charge for these lithium ion batteries to 30 percent, aimed at reducing risks of the products overheating and catching fire—a stipulation Kerchner said would be problematic for military and medical applications.
His group will also be watching work by SAE International to develop a performance-based standard for lithium batteries shipped by air, a standard that would set safety goals for the battery itself and its packaging instead of prescribing how to meet them, and on international enforcement issues for lithium battery-by-air movement (196 DEN A-13, 10/9/15).
Pipeline Safety Reauthorization
Meanwhile, the pipeline industry and some hazmat transport industry members will be tracking the reauthorization for PHMSA's pipeline safety programs, a reauthorization that lapsed in 2015. The SAFE PIPES Act (S. 2276) is a generally clean four-year bill that would allow PHMSA to complete pipeline safety mandates assigned to it under its 2012 law (237 DEN A-9, 12/10/15).
The pipeline industry has largely gotten behind the reauthorization of pipeline safety programs that were introduced in the Senate, while no bill has been introduced in the House. Cynthia Hilton, co-facilitator for Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation, told Bloomberg BNA the bill is pipeline-focused but “is also arguably about PHMSA doing a better job” and therefore is worth being aware of for the hazmat transport industry.
Friedberg said industry would want action early in 2016 on the bill because if there were a pipeline spill, it could prompt a more aggressive, “very reactionary” bill.
Cathy Landry, spokeswoman for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail her group hoped that a reauthorization that includes gas storage rules would be completed by the middle of the year.
The pipeline industry, watchdogs and Congress will be waiting for action on a number of rules prompted by the 2012 law, including the gas transmission rule (RIN 2137-AE72) that has sat at the Office of Management and Budget since April (82 DEN A-6, 4/29/15).
Leftover Mandates
Representatives of INGAA, the American Gas Association and the Pipeline Safety Trust told Bloomberg BNA the rule, which hasn't been proposed yet, is a top priority. The proposed rule may alter requirements on a range of integrity management issues, such as repair criteria and gathering line regulation.
Representatives of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines and the Pipeline Safety Trust also cited to Bloomberg BNA an October proposed hazardous liquids rule as a top priority. The rule that would affect nearly 200,000 miles of pipelines and would add or update inspection, repair and leak detection requirements for pipelines carrying hazardous liquids has come under fire by the trust, a safety watchdog, for not including leak detection system standards among other areas, while the pipeline industry has said it is going to look closely at the cost-benefit analysis for the rule (242 DEN A-5, 12/17/15).
Action on a number of other rules will garner attention, including a not-yet-proposed rule on automatic shutoff and remote control valves for hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines (RIN 2137-AF06) and a proposed rule that would expand the type of gas pipelines that are subject to excess flow valve requirements (RIN 2137-AE71). The oil pipeline industry will also be working to implement its own safety efforts on safety management systems and looking to learn from high performers regarding water-crossing issues for those lines, John Stoody, spokesman for the oil pipeline group, told Bloomberg BNA (135 DEN A-20, 7/15/15).
Sabrina Fang, spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, highlighted that the group would be working with the rail industry “to see where these activities on [safety management systems] can be transferred.” The Association of American Railroads declined to comment for this article.
Hazmat Mandates
For the hazmat side, a slew of new policy mandates arose out of the FAST Act, such as requiring improvements to the transparency of the special permits and approvals process, and even some uncompleted mandates from the previous surface transportation reauthorization, MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141). Industry will be watching to make sure those are carried out (224 DEN A-8, 11/20/15).
“We're very happy with the FAST Act,” Hilton, who is also the executive vice president for the Institute of Makers of Explosives, said. “And so we'll be paying attention to how the administration implements [those policies.]”
Among rules that PHMSA has already begun, multiple industry representatives, including Julie Heckman, executive director for the American Pyrotechnics Association, said they would be watching for the final “reverse logistics” rule (RIN 2137-AE81).
This rule is intended to simplify hazmat transport requirements for the returning of certain hazardous materials (231 DEN A-11, 12/2/14).
Additionally, Boyd Stephenson, vice president for international supply chain operations for the American Trucking Associations, told Bloomberg BNA his group would be urging the administration and Congress to tier the hazmat carrier background check processes run by PHMSA and the Transportation Security Administration, among a number of other priorities.
-
Litigation Tracker: Crude-by-Rail Rule Lawsuit on Agenda
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Crude-by-rail transportation issues will be at the top of the litigation agenda for hazmat transport going into 2016. Oil, rail and environmental groups have challenged the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's crude-by-rail rule that was finalized in May (see related story).
Meanwhile, PHMSA is also being challenged by an environmental group for not adequately overseeing certain pipelines, a gas industry group is challenging the agency over its “miscellaneous” pipeline rule and the U.S. is seeking criminal charges against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for the rupture and subsequent fire in September 2010 of its natural gas pipe in San Bruno, Calif.
Hazmat TransportAm. Petroleum Inst. v. United States., D.C. Cir., No. 15-1131, 6/29/15
Several oil and rail industry groups, local municipalities and environmental groups have challenged PHMSA's rule that aimed to make crude oil transport by rail safer.
The federal government requested a stay through Feb. 12, a move some environmental groups have opposed in court.
Environmentalists Oppose Halting Crude-by-Rail Case (246 DEN A-9, 12/23/15)
Pipeline Safety
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Transp., E.D. Mich., No. 2:15-cv-13535, 10/8/15
National Wildlife Federation sued the Transportation Department for allegedly not adequately overseeing response planning for oil and other hazardous liquid pipelines located in, around or under navigable waters.
A government response to the amended complaint was due Jan. 11.
Court Doesn't Dismiss Suit Against DOT Pipeline Program (247 DEN A-4, 12/28/15)
Interstate Nat. Gas Ass'n of Am. v. Dep't of Transp., D.C. Cir., No. 15-01343, 9/30/15
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America is challenging a “miscellaneous” pipeline safety rule related to requirements such as test factors for “pressure vessels.”
The court ordered Dec. 1 the case to be held in abeyance as both sides seek to resolve their issues over the rule administratively.
Court Halts Pipeline Suit With Enforcement Stay (232 DEN A-13, 12/3/15)
United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., N.D. Cal., No. 3:14-cr-00175, 4/1/14
The federal government's lawsuit alleges “knowing and willful” criminal violations of minimum federal safety requirements for moving natural gas by pipeline by PG&E related to the San Bruno, Calif., incident.
The court declined PG&E's motion to dismiss 27 pipeline safety claims in the lawsuit.
Criminal Pipeline Claims OK in PG&E Suit: Court (01 DEN A-7, 1/4/16)
-
Obama Speech Touts Climate Action, Eschews Oil And Gas
Jan 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Elana Schor
President Barack Obama used his final State of the Union address to take a shot at critics of his climate change agenda, while largely shedding the nods to oil and natural gas development that have been fixtures of his previous speeches.
"Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it," Obama said. "You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it."
The speech provided the latest evidence that Obama views climate change — one of four key themes of the address — as a core part of his post-presidential legacy. And if his remarks on Tuesday night are any indication, the president doesn't view oil and gas drilling as a key part of that equation.
Obama barely mentioned fossil fuels, and he completely omitted natural gas. He used the word "oil" only four times, and even then only in passing references, including a mention of reduced oil imports. But that didn't stop him from touting low gas prices. "Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either," he said, after citing several energy achievements.
The speech showed a shift from previous States of the Union addresses, when Obama touted record natural gas production and framed the fuel as a cleaner alternative to coal. "We produce more natural gas than ever before — and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it," he said in his 2013 speech.
The address capped a frenetic three years of environmental policy making that began during Obama's 2013 State of the Union address with an ultimatum to Congress: Pass legislation to fight climate change or prepare for executive branch regulations. When Republicans in Congress refused to act, he used a June 2013 speech at Georgetown University to direct his EPA to pursue the nation's first-ever carbon emission rules for power plants, which the agency finalized last year.
Since then, Obama has also rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline and helped clinch a landmark international global warming deal that for the first time in history pressures every country to take steps to reduce their emissions.
During Tuesday's speech, Obama announced an upcoming effort to "change the way we manage our oil and coal resources." A source closely following the issue said the Interior Department is preparing to launch a wide-ranging revamp of coal leasing on public lands as early as next week. That effort will include conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement on the Bureau of Land Management's coal leasing program, the source said.
An administration official declined to give details on how it would rework the management of its oil and coal resources, but said in a statement that the administration "will provide additional details in the coming weeks."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of Congress' most vocal advocates for action on climate change, praised the speech and said he was "thrilled" to hear Obama suggest he'd change the way oil and coal leasing is conducted on public lands, arguing it has been the "slowest moving part of he administration in terms of addressing climate change."
Another major fossil fuel regulatory push in the works for Obama's final year in office would constrain the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions by upward of 40 percent from 2012 levels over the next decade through rules EPA aims to finalize by June.
The administration is also preparing another post-State of the Union climate announcement, according to three sources familiar with its plans who told POLITICO they expect Interior to propose rules for venting and flaring of methane on public lands as soon as Friday. Other sources tracking the rule warn that its release could slip until later this month, but industry groups are already bracing for another year of combat with the administration over regulatory efforts that Congress has been largely powerless to stop.
“He has no intention of working with elected leaders to implement his goals for energy and the environment,” Tim Wigley, president of the industry group Western Energy Alliance, said of Obama in a statement. “He’ll close out his term by continuing to issue new rules through the federal agencies that kill jobs and economic growth in order to promote his climate change agenda, which he couldn’t even pass when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.”
American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard, who has tangled with the administration for years over its expressions of support for domestic oil and gas while wielding its regulatory hammer, urged the president to consider the industry an ally in its climate change efforts.
“The goals of environmental progress and energy production are not mutually exclusive," Gerard said in a statement. "Industry innovation is driving technological advances and producing clean-burning natural gas that has led carbon emissions to near 20-year lows."
Environmentalists largely cheered Obama's promise of a new focus on constraining drilling and mining on public lands. May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, hailed the presidential attention to an issue her green group has spotlighted on the 2016 campaign trail.
“The issue of fossil fuel extraction on public lands is going to be a key fight over the coming months,” Boeve said in a statement. “Our government needs to get out of the business of climate destruction.”
But another environmentalist offered a portend of greens’ rising resistance to Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with 12 Pacific Rim nations.
Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica tweeted that given the trade challenge to Keystone XL’s rejection by pipeline backer TransCanada, “there is an inherent conflict in #SOTU in calling for the #TPP passage and” action on climate.
-
Oklahoma Residents Sue Well Operators for Negligence
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Fourteen residents of Edmond, Okla., filed a lawsuit against a group of oil companies, alleging they should have known their use of disposal wells would increase the likelihood of seismic activity (Felts v. Devon Energy LP LLC, Okla. Dist. Ct., No. CJ-2016-137, 1/11/16).
The petition, filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County, claims the defendants “knew or should have known” that the injection of large volumes of drilling waste in disposal wells “would result in an increased likelihood that earthquakes or other adverse environmental impacts would occur, thereby unreasonably endangering the health, safety and welfare of persons and property, including Plaintiffs and others.”
Suit Follows Pair of Earthquakes
The suit refers to seismic events on Dec. 29 and Jan. 1. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, residents in Edmond, a city with a population of 87,000, experienced earthquakes registering magnitude 4.3 and 4.2.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent damage to their persons and property,” according to the Jan. 11 lawsuit.
The lawsuit lists multiple oil companies as defendants, including New Dominion, Pedestal Oil and Devon Energy.
An Oklahoma resident injured during earthquakes in central Oklahoma in 2011 sued energy companies for punitive damages, alleging her personal injuries were the “direct result of man-made earthquakes” stemming from the use of wastewater injection wells.
That suit was dismissed in October 2014 by the district court but later brought back to life following a June 2015 decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court overturning the district court decision (210 DEN A-12, 10/30/14).
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Critics of Obama Trade Pact Seize On Keystone Dispute
Jan 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Vicki Needham
Opponents of President Obama’s Pacific Rim trade pact are seizing on a new lawsuit over the Keystone XL oil pipeline in an attempt to galvanize opposition in Congress.
Environmental groups, trade groups and labor unions say TransCanada’s attempt to secure $15 billion in compensation for the rejection of Keystone under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is emblematic of how trade agreements favor corporate interests, harm workers and undermine U.S. law.
They warn the case is just a preview of what’s to come if lawmakers approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation deal that contains new investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) rules.
Shane Larson, legislative director for the Communications Workers of America, said that “whether it’s TransCanada’s new NAFTA challenge or the recent [country-of-origin meat labels] ruling, we have an unfortunate volume of recent reminders of how trade pacts can be used by corporations to undercut U.S. domestic policy decisions, laws and regulations.”
“And make no mistake, passing the TPP would allow dramatically more companies in more countries to challenge U.S. laws and regulations,” Larson added.
TransCanada Corp. on Wednesday filed a NAFTA case against the United States that says the administration violated the 20-year-old trade pact by preventing the construction of the Keystone oil sands pipeline across the Canadian border.
Separately, the company sued the administration directly over the Keystone decision, arguing the president does not have the authority to reject cross-border pipelines. Legal experts doubt that challenge will succeed.
But observers say TransCanada could have a shot at winning the NAFTA case, which is likely to hinge on whether the company received “fair and equitable” treatment from the United States — a vague term that will be up to a NAFTA tribunal to decide.
Critics of the TPP say the Keystone battle vindicates their long-standing opposition to investor-state dispute rules.
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said that the “destructive provisions that wrongly empower corporations to attack our safeguards show exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership is worse and must be stopped in its tracks.”
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said that the TransCanada case is an example of the “attack on U.S. environmental policy that the president insisted could never happen under the controversial investor-state corporate tribunal regime that his Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal under which U.S. investor-state liability would be doubled.”
The future of the TPP in Congress is uncertain. Most Democrats have come out against the pact, and the reaction from Republicans and the business community has been lukewarm.
That’s starting to change, however. Three powerful business groups — the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce — endorsed the deal last week, and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has talked of his desire to see it come up for a vote.
“Ultimately, the TPP is a significant improvement over the status quo — for manufacturers and for the broader economy,” the manufacturers said in a statement.
Whenever the trade pact does hit the House floor — which might not be until after the November elections — the margin is expected to be razor-thin. That has both sides girding for a long battle over every possible swing vote.
House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), who has said he wants to reach a point where he can back the TPP, said that the NAFTA challenge “further highlights why we must be certain that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement addresses serious concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement procedures.”
“A full and vigorous public debate is needed to identify problems like this one before the TPP agreement is signed,” he said.
Supporters of the TPP downplay the impact of the Keystone case, with one Senate aide saying the case is unlikely to change many minds about the TPP.
But even then, TPP supporters say it makes huge improvements to the investor-state dispute process by providing greater protections for governments and making is easier to throw out frivolous cases.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, last week said that “ISDS is this dispute resolution process that’s been in place for 50 years, and the United States has never lost a case.”
“But because we’ve never lost a case, it is an indication that we’ve been quite effective in taking other countries and raising concerns about other countries’ practices at the ISDS in a way that has benefited the ability of American businesses to do business overseas,” he said.
“So our strong record in that venue actually, I think, is a strong argument for precisely why Congress should approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
-
Energy Investors' Bids for Action on Methane Increasing
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
At least 21 U.S. oil and gas companies face shareholder resolutions on environmental and social policies already this year as investors raise concerns about how businesses are tackling climate change and pollution (see related story).
Investors increasingly are pushing for action on methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas that contributes to climate change, after prodding more companies to produce sustainability reports and disclose their carbon dioxide emissions.
Some resolutions would press executives to detail plans for limiting methane leakage from wells, pipelines and other energy equipment. Investors need more information about those emissions, including details on the extent of the problem and what companies are doing about it, according to a report being released Monday by the Environmental Defense Fund.
“Methane presents short-term risks to investments in the oil and gas industry in the form of economic losses and existing and future regulations,” the New York-based environmental group said in its report. “There are practical and cost-effective solutions to minimize methane emissions, many of which will increase the bottom line for companies.”
No companies have disclosed plans for reducing methane emissions, and few report any data about it, according to the EDF analysis. When they do, the information tends to be vague and qualitative, making it ill-suited for judging how well a company is doing in managing the issue.
Importance in Climate Change Issue
Methane has taken on new importance in President Barack Obama's fight against climate change as his administration moves on multiple fronts to clamp down on the oil and gas industry's emissions of the potent greenhouse gas. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 84 more times powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere over a 20-year period.
Investors in late 2015 and early 2016 have filed 10 shareholder resolutions to press U.S. energy companies on the issue before annual meetings this year.
The international climate agreement reached in Paris in December, the potential for stranded assets and low oil prices are “really coming together to drive more of these resolutions,” Gregory Elders, an environmental, social and governance analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, said in an interview. Low oil and coal prices also are underscoring the need for energy companies to consider the risk of stranded assets, including fossil fuel reserves, that could become harder to produce in a world with more stringent carbon dioxide limits.
Provoking Discussion
Companies faced 167 shareholder resolutions in 2015 related to climate change, up from six in 2001, according to Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors that tracks them.
Investors view the resolutions as a way of provoking negotiations with executives, said Rob Berridge, director of shareholder engagement at Ceres. Initially, the focus was on forcing companies to disclose their carbon dioxide emissions.
“So many companies started doing that that investors have shifted from ‘disclose your emissions’ to ‘set goals to reduce your emissions,’” Berridge said in an interview. “The work has been getting more specific, and you've seen these sub-topics crop up, like methane.”
-
New Report: Why Investors Should Pay Attention To Methane Risks
Jan 12, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sean Wright
No one likes uncertainty, least of all investors. Good, actionable information is their most important tool for risk management and key to successful investing – because without proper data, investors are flying blind.
And yet, none of the 65 oil and gas companies reviewed in a just-released study by Environmental Defense Fund disclose targets to reduce methane emissions, the main ingredient in natural gas.
What’s more, less than one-third of these companies voluntarily disclose emissions, and what disclosures exist are vague and overly qualitative – making it difficult for investors in these companies to hedge risk.
As the ongoing and massive leak at Aliso Canyon has so clearly demonstrated, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector do, in fact, pose a multitude of expanding risks, with both short and long-term consequences. What investors deserve to know
Aside from potential liabilities from accidents such as the one in California, investors need to know how much money companies are losing when their facilities leak natural gas.
They should also know if the companies they invest in have a plan to reduce emissions to limit impacts from such leaks, and how prepared they are to comply with forthcoming regulations.
It’s difficult to find out any of this, and that’s a problem.
At 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short-term, methane emissions represent a potent and fast-emerging form of carbon risk.
Preparedness to comply with forthcoming rules to address methane pollution is inconsistent across the industry, however. What’s more, methane emissions undercut the natural gas industry’s ability to play a role in a carbon-constrained world. $30 billion in lost product annually
Last but not least, leaking natural gas systems amount to an estimated $30 billion in lost product annually worldwide, losses detrimental to sound investments.
Without reduction targets, how can investors know that management attention is focused, and that the emissions, and thus risk, will be reduced? And if less than one-third third of companies voluntarily disclosure emissions, how can investors hedge methane risk by investing in companies with comparatively lower emissions?
As a former equity analyst on Wall Street, I can’t help but worry for these investors. I used to spend my days pouring over data, trying to spot opportunities and risks.
The numbers were trustworthy and actionable because figures in financial filings must be audited and reported according to strict accounting rules.
Not so in the methane world.
Our Rising Risk report offers practical solutions, including a set of methane metrics that can help turn much of the raw data companies already have into meaningful information.
Investors should urge companies to report these emissions, which will send a signal that it is an issue that needs oversight.
Because if an investor asks a company how much natural gas it’s losing through leaks at their facilities, and if the company is unwilling or unable to answer that question, shouldn’t that give the investor pause?
-
States Queried on Burdens of EPA Regulatory Actions
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has asked a group of states for information about whether they have adequate resources to comply with multiple deadlines set out in a series of Environmental Protection Agency regulatory actions.
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, described his Jan. 12 letters to states represented by senators on his committee as an effort to better understand the “scope of ongoing work and resources dedicated to EPA regulatory actions.”
“The committee seeks to better understand the impacts of recent EPA regulatory actions on states such as yours and identify ways to ensure the unique interests of states are adequately considered by EPA,” Inhofe wrote. “It is unclear the extent to which states are able to manage competing deadlines and resources to meet multiple EPA actions.”
States receiving letters include Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wyoming, West Virginia, Idaho, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, Alaska, California, Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland. Inhofe requested replies by Feb. 9.
Multiple Deadlines Approaching
There is little doubt a number of regulatory deadlines are all approaching at once.
Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA that in 2016 states will face “major, resource-intensive activities” related to the Clean Power Plan, multiple ozone standards, attempts to address emissions during times of startup, shutdown and malfunction, as well as rules related to fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and lead.
“State environmental agencies are being asked to take on some monumental tasks in 2016 and beyond under the Clean Air Act,” Woods said in an e-mail, noting states would also have to comment on a host of forthcoming regulations from the EPA as well.
96 Percent State-Run
According the Environmental Council of the States, the EPA delegates more than 96 percent of federal environmental programs to the states to operate, including 46 of 50 Clean Water Act programs and all 50 Clean Air Act programs.
In an October 2015 interview, the new ECOS President Martha Rudolph said budgetary challenges coupled with new regulatory initiatives had made it more difficult for states to protect human health and the environment. But Rudolph, who is also director of environmental programs with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, also blamed Congress for failing to pass the federal budget on time (199 DEN A-5, 10/15/15).
Alexandra Dunn, executive director of ECOS, told Bloomberg BNA that Inhofe's letter seeking information was “valuable” for highlighting the role states play in implementing federal environmental regulations and laws.
“It is valuable any time Congress can take steps to help highlight the significant role states play in the administration, enforcement, and implementation of our nation's system of environmental and public health protection,” Dunn said.
-
Inhofe Asks States For Feedback On Agency Regs
Jan 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today sent letters to 20 states asking for their "perspective" on U.S. EPA regulations.
Inhofe, one of the Senate's harshest critics of EPA, wrote in the letters that he wants to "better understand" the impacts of agency rules on states, including how states manage regulatory deadlines. The chairman specifically asked for information on rules issued under the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.
Inhofe cited a December report by the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies that found states must comply with nine Clean Air Act deadlines in 2016.
"It is unclear the extent to which states are able to manage competing deadlines and resources to meet multiple EPA actions," Inhofe wrote in the letter to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. "Recent news reports have mentioned resource and timing constraints by some environmental regulators, and the committee seeks to better understand the scope of ongoing work and resources dedicated to EPA regulatory actions."
The chairman sent the letter to the 20 states from which members of the Environment and Public Works Committee hail, with a request that states respond by Feb. 9.
Inhofe said that the letter was part of the committee's broader oversight activity on EPA and that his goal was to figure out whether the cooperative federalism system of environmental regulation in the nation -- in which both the federal government and states have obligations -- is working.
"EPA programs may require substantial time and resources from your department to comply, including myriad regulatory, permitting and enforcement obligations," Inhofe wrote. "Your input on these actions is invaluable."
-
EPW Queries States' Burdens Complying With EPA Rules
Jan 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) is asking state environmental regulators to describe their resource burdens in implementing EPA rules such as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), suggesting GOP leaders on the panel might cite the burdens to step up their attacks on agency policies.
“Given [EPW's] jurisdiction over these environmental statutes and responsibility for overseeing EPA, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your state's perspective on the current EPA regulatory framework. EPA programs may require substantial time and resources from your department to comply, including myriad regulatory, permitting, and enforcement obligations,” writes EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in letters sent Jan. 12 to environment departments of the 20 states represented by the environment panel's senators.
The letters follow a Jan. 11 EPW press release where Inhofe said regulatory reform legislation, a new water resources bill, and measures to spur “Good Samaritan” mine cleanups would be among EPW's top priorities for 2016, along with a bill overhauling EPA's first-time rule governing disposal of coal ash.
Inhofe says in the letters to states -- which ask for a response by Feb. 9 -- that he hopes to examine the amount of time and other resources dedicated to complying with EPA rules, and “whether the current regulatory framework between EPA and the states upholds the principle of cooperative federalism.”
He points specifically to impending deadlines for state compliance with EPA air rules, such as the newly tightened NAAQS for ozone, as well as existing standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, as justifying an intensive examination of state compliance burdens.
Inhofe also refers to statements by the Environmental Council of the States, representing many state environment departments, that state officials are responsible for 96.5 percent of environmental program implementation.
“As such, the Committee seeks to better understand the impacts of recent EPA regulatory actions on states such as yours and identify ways to ensure the unique interests of states are adequately considered by EPA in its regulatory process,” the letters say.
Inhofe continues that states face nine Clean Air Act deadlines in 2016, with others farther on the horizon, and refers to testimony by a Mississippi state regulator during a 2015 EPW hearing who said states “are being asked to do more with less” by EPA.
The letters also cite testimony from a Texas official who told the committee that crafting a state implementation plan for the new ozone NAAQS would take 45,000 -- 55,000 hours of staff time. The letters argue that “it is unclear the extent to which states are able to manage competing deadlines and resources to meet multiple EPA actions” in light of those burdens.
-
Energy Bill Expected to Be Brought to Floor, Murkowski Says
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A broad energy bill that includes language that would expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports is expected to be brought to the floor this year, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 12.
“It's in the queue,” Murkowski said following talks about the issue with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “We have asked him to bring it to the floor [and] what I have been assured is ‘yes, it's in the queue.' ”
The 423-page bill (S. 2012), which was approved by the committee on an 18-4 vote in July, includes provisions that would strengthen building codes, among other energy-efficiency measures, as well as provisions that would increase cybersecurity protections for the electricity grid and expedite the licensing process for hydropower projects. It is supported by groups representing companies such as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Noble Energy Inc.
A McConnell spokesman declined to say if the bill would be brought to the floor.
‘Near Future' Vote Possible
The bill, the Energy Policy Modernization Act, did not receive floor time in 2015 amidst a crowded floor schedule, a delay that analysts have said complicates its prospects by pushing it into an election year (187 DEN A-3, 9/28/15).
The wide-ranging legislation also includes measures that would repeal a section of law that requires federal buildings to phase out fossil fuels by 2030, would extend the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program to boats, and authorizes new funding for the nascent marine and hydrokinetic power industry, according to a bill summary.
“There is some discussion that maybe we would go to that sometime in the near future,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the committee's top Democrat, told Bloomberg BNA. Cantwell is a supporter of the legislation, which was crafted by Murkowski following months of bipartisan committee negotiations.
The House version of the bill (H.R. 8) was passed by a vote of 249-174, amidst a veto threat and nearly unanimous opposition by Democrats. The bill would expedite the Energy Department's consideration of licenses to export liquefied natural gas, increase security of the nation's electric grid and speed up the review time for federal permitting of natural gas pipelines(233 DEN A-4, 12/4/15).
-
Groups Ask EPA to Strip Texas of Permitting Power
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Environmental Protection Agency should strip Texas of some of its air and water permitting authority delegated to it by the federal government because state environmental regulators can no longer adequately do their jobs, the Environmental Defense Fund and Caddo Lake Institute told the EPA in a Jan. 11 petition.
The groups are asking the EPA to “review and withdraw its delegations of permitting authority to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).” The groups cite “ongoing noncompliance with federal standards,” as well as new state laws passed in 2015 that limit the public's ability to protest TCEQ permits.
The environmental groups asked the EPA to withdraw Texas's authority under the Clean Water Act and to require revisions to the state's new source review program under the Clean Air Act as well. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can approve state implementation plans that delegate authority to states to issue clean air permits. The Clean Water Act allows the agency to delegate authority to qualified states to issue discharge permits.
Specifically, the groups want the federal agency to examine Clean Water Act delegation for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting, pretreatment permitting for publicly owned treatment works and sludge management permitting.
The groups also believe the state's new source review permitting program under the Clean Air Act is substantially inadequate to comply with the law. The groups would like the EPA to require the TCEQ to “correct such inadequacies” or put the state under a federal plan.
New Laws Limit Permit Challenges
In 2015, the Texas legislature passed a law that limits the scope of challenges to permits issued by the TCEQ. The law amends Texas Government Code Section 2003.47, which outlines administrative hearings for the natural resource conservation division, and the Texas Water Code sections 5.556 and 5.557, which outline procedures for contests or reconsiderations at the TCEQ (75 DEN A-13, 4/20/15).
The new law streamlines the process to contest a permit and limits the definition of “an affected person.”
These amendments “violate the federal requirements for judicial review, public participation and resource adequacy for enforcement under the CWA and CAA,” the groups said in their filing. The narrower definition of affected persons under the new law will restrict the public's ability to obtain judicial review of a permitting decision in state court.
Furthermore, the groups contend that continued state budget cuts on environmental protection have left TCEQ and other local government agencies unable to adequately implement and enforce federal programs.
TCEQ Responds
“Texas law has and continues to meet federal requirements—to suggest otherwise is misleading to the public,” Andrea Morrow, TCEQ spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA. “We expect EPA to reject this frivolous petition by EDF and CLI.”
-
Obama Touts Climate Action in Final State of Union Speech
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Barack Obama in his final State of the Union address touted the just-completed Paris climate change deal as proof of renewed U.S. leadership on the climate issue and claimed credit for what he said has been a dramatic expansion of clean energy sources during his two-term presidency.
But the president—whose seven-year effort to jumpstart U.S. leadership in international climate talks paid dividends with a December global accord—largely stayed clear of new domestic energy and climate policies during the speech.
Obama instead said it will be up to the next president to decide how to build on U.S. advances in solar and wind technologies and listed climate change among four key questions “that we as a country have to answer” in the years ahead.
His successor will have to decide how to “make technology work for us, and not against us—especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change,” Obama said.
‘Lonely’ Voices Challenging Climate Science.
He also challenged many congressional Republicans who question if humans are causing climate change or if global temperatures are increasing, or both.
“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You'll be pretty lonely,” given the spectrum of voices warning of impending dangers of a warming planet, from business leaders to the U.S. military, Obama said.
“But even if the planet wasn't at stake; even if 2014 wasn't the warmest year on record—until 2015 turned out even hotter—why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?” the president asked.
Obama's speech Jan. 12 in many respects was a far cry from his first State of the Union address in 2010 when he called on a then-Democratic-controlled Congress to pass cap-and-trade climate legislation. The bill's collapse in the Senate that summer, and the 2011 Republican takeover in the House, led Obama to wield his executive authority and pursue regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, including Environmental Protection Agency carbon pollution limits for power plants.
Little New on Clean Energy.
On clean energy, Obama's speech offered no new initiatives and mostly looked back to his first year in office, when U.S. stimulus funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 soared for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.
“Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history,” the president said. “Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal,” he said.
Still, it was a far cry from February 2009, when the president first appeared before Congress amid the economic turmoil of a deep recession and months before a bruising battle over health care reform would leave many Democrats wary of tackling the 1,000-plus-page climate bill.
In his 2009 address to a joint session of Congress—his first State of the Union address would come a year later—Obama called for passage of climate change legislation to include a “market-based cap” on greenhouse gas emissions.
Falling Short on a Climate Bill.
Obama's appeal stood in marked contrast to President George W. Bush's long opposition to mandatory emissions caps and Bush's decision to essentially withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. While Obama's two-term presidency will end almost certainly short of his goal of getting U.S. climate legislation enacted, he was in the end able to point to success on the international stage in getting nearly 200 nations to sign on to the first truly global climate deal in Paris a little more than four weeks ago.
“American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world—except when we kill terrorists; or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling,” the president said in his State of the Union speech. Leadership extends beyond military power, Obama said, for example, when “we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change—that helps vulnerable countries,” he said, but “also protects our children.”
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Source: Climate Change To Be One Of Four 'Pillars' In State Of The Union
Jan 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
President Barack Obama will outline the need to act on climate change as one of four “pillars” of tonight’s State of the Union address, according to an industry source who attended a briefing given by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez today.
Perez told attendees that the speech — which the White House has said will focus on broad themes rather than specific policy proposals, — will identify four broad topics, including climate change.
The president will tout the recent Paris deal and urge the U.S. to consider “how to get to the next level” and be "forward-looking,” the source said.
The other pillars are the economy and jobs; foreign policy; and citizenship issues, including immigration.
Obama is looking to recapture the “hope and change” optimism for America of his first campaign, Perez said at the briefing.
-
Climate Science Deniers 'Will Be Pretty Lonely,' President Says
Jan 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama is using his State of the Union speech Tuesday night to chastise lawmakers who deny the science of climate change, saying they will “be pretty lonely” as the world moves toward cleaner energy in the future.
“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it,” Obama wrote, according to prepared remarks released by the White House. “You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”
Obama has often admonished members of Congress who doubt climate science, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who last year took a snowball onto the Senate floor to decry what he considers alarmist conclusions about man-made global warming.
Obama is highlighting his work on clean energy in the speech, framing the international climate deal reached in Paris one month ago as a statement by the world’s nations that more needs to be done to cut carbon emissions and keep the earth from warming in the future.
He said the U.S. has come a long way on green energy in his term, noting American investments in wind and solar power, both of which have boomed during his tenure in the Oval Office.
“In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power,” he wrote.
“On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal — in jobs that pay better than average.”
Obama's remarks also note low gasoline prices, something attributed in part to high American oil production.
“We’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly 60 percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth,” he said. “Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.”
Obama’s comments are likely to please environmentalists and greens, who have lauded the work the president and his administration did on climate change during 2015.
But fossil fuel organizations, including major oil and coal interest groups, knocked Obama’s energy plans earlier on Tuesday, calling on him to institute policies to help develop more oil and gas and support the coal industry in his last year in office.
“We believe it’s time for the administration to re-examine its assumptions about energy,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard told reporters. “We know the U.S. can lead the world in both emissions reductions and in oil and gas production.”
-
President Pushes Transition From 'Dirty Energy'
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Reilly
President Obama used his last State of the Union address to make an economic case for action against climate change and call for accelerating the nation away from "dirty energy" like coal.
In last night's speech, the president broadly touted job growth in renewable energy industries and said making "technology work for us" to solve urgent issues like climate change is among the top four questions facing the country.
Obama asked, to some applause in the House chamber: "Why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?"
Keeping fossil fuels in the ground has become a key priority for mainstream environmental groups, and activists immediately jumped on the president's words as a signal that the administration will use its final year promoting policies to account for the climate change impacts of fossil fuel production.
Not surprisingly, the president's remarks spawned criticism from lawmakers in fossil fuel-heavy states who say President Obama has long waged a war against mining and drilling.
"Why wouldn’t we want to sell the energy of today?" Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said in response to President Obama's speech. Photo by Andrew Holmes.
The speech represents the president's strongest words on climate during a State of the Union address and comes exactly one month after more than 190 nations agreed in Paris to a historic deal for limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and to "pursue efforts" to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.
The Obama administration played a key role by brokering an agreement with China ahead of the talks and taking domestic action to limit carbon emissions from power plants, even as Republicans used every legislative means to thwart the president's agenda.
Obama gave a brief shoutout to U.S. negotiators for helping to secure the Paris climate deal, characterizing the agreement as a national security issue.
"When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change -- that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our children," the president said.
Obama characterized climate change as an economic issue, as environmentalists wanted, touting the fruits of the administration's investment in renewable energy and giving himself credit for increases in wind power in Iowa and Texas and in rooftop solar power.
Mark Davis, founder of WDC Solar Inc., a company that trains low-income people for solar industry jobs, sat among the special guests invited to the speech by first lady Michelle Obama.
"Solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills and employs more Americans than coal -- in jobs that pay better than average," Obama said.
The president also gave himself a pat on the back for helping cut oil imports and reducing the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. According to a recent report by the Sierra Club, carbon emissions from the electricity sector are at their lowest point in 20 years.
"Gas under two bucks a gallon ain't bad, either," Obama said.
Oil and gas industry advocates, on the other hand, said Obama deserves no credit for the boom in domestic production and that natural gas is responsible for the decrease in carbon emissions over the past decades.
"When it comes to the energy side and energy commerce, he didn't talk about how we got where we are today. Lower gas prices are not because of what's happening here in Washington, but what's happening with hydraulic fracturing," said Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio). "The U.S. isn't importing as much oil because the private industry has done a good job drilling."
Obama also took a jab at critics who question the science of climate change, a group that includes front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination.
"When Russians beat us into space, we didn't deny Sputnik was up there. We didn't argue about the science or shrink our research and development budget," Obama said, later adding, "Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You'll be pretty lonely." Greens, Dems thrilled
But it was his remarks against the fossil fuel industry that are likely to draw the most debate in the coming days. They come as the Department of the Interior is considering changes to coal, oil and gas lease rules.
While not mentioning leasing specifically, Obama channeled messaging used by environmentalists who argue that oil, coal and gas companies should have to account for the full range of climate change impacts of extracting and using fossil fuels.
"I'm going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources," the president said, "so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet."
After Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists have elevated their focus on halting all fossil fuel extraction from federally owned lands through the "Keep It in the Ground" movement.
Environmental groups that are part of the movement immediately latched onto the president's comments as a signal that the administration was paying attention.
"We welcome President Obama's full-throated endorsement of clean energy and his pledge to take a close look at how we can get off fossil fuels," said May Boeve, executive director of the group 350.org. "The president's top priority during his last year in office needs to be keeping that coal, oil and gas in the ground."
The president's statement also appeared to give a nod to proposals from the administration to help out workers hurt by the downturn in the coal industry.
"Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future -- especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels," Obama said, adding that politicians didn't help American workers by not recognizing energy industry trends.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said, "My hope is this means that we'll be able to somehow take revenues from fossil fuel production and plow them back into retraining and job shifting in places where we need to grow additional renewable and clean energy jobs, as well."
Heinrich said, "I think a lot of people would support looking at those communities that historically have served this nation with producing traditional energy sources and making sure they have a leg up for the jobs of the future."
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was critical of the speech, saying he hasn't seen anything yet from the administration that would help displaced coal workers. Instead, Manchin said, Obama has "destroyed us."
"The energy he's talked about made us the greatest nation on Earth," Manchin said. "That being said, we're willing to change, we're willing to transition, we want to find the new technology. We'd like to help the government help us develop it. So let's see what he has in store."
Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she was pleased with Obama's remarks. Cantwell was among Democratic senators who urged the Department of the Interior last year to charge mining companies for the climate impacts of extracting and burning coal from federal lands.
"We had sent a letter to the secretary previously saying she should recalculate that. Apparently, he's supporting that effort and directing his administration to do so," Cantwell said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of the Senate's biggest supporters of action to address climate change, also applauded the president's statement.
"It sounded a lot to me like in order to support the transition that's happening in the coal and oil sector and to move them in new directions, there needed to be a price on carbon," Whitehouse said. "He didn't use the word 'carbon fee,' he didn't use the word 'carbon tax' ... but it sounded an awful lot like he was calling for just what we want."
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who said there were no real surprises for him in the speech, said Obama has not done enough to foster innovation in new technologies and that regulations have stymied companies from creating technologies at home.
"The way that we're going to get better environmental stewardship is we deploy those technologies here by empowering that investment rather than preventing it with regulatory burden," Hoeven said.
In fact, Obama received heavy applause during the speech when he said he knew that there were "outdated regulations" that need to be changed and "red tape" that needs to be cut in order for the country to have a thriving private sector.
-
EPA Inspector General to Review Air Monitoring Data
Jan 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general will review the ambient air monitoring program to determine whether collected air quality data meets the agency's own criteria.
The Office of Inspector General, in a letter released Jan. 12, notified EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe that preliminary research will soon begin to determine whether the data in the agency's Air Quality System meets established data quality criteria. The investigation will specifically focus on whether data revisions and any data exclusions or gaps comply with the agency's criteria, according to the letter.
The Air Quality System includes ambient air pollution data collected from thousands of monitors operated by federal, state, local and tribal agencies. The data available in the system is used by federal and state regulators to assess air quality, perform modeling for the review of permits and aid in the designation of areas under national ambient air quality standards for ozone and other pollutants.
As a part of the preliminary investigation, the Office of Inspector General said it plans to review agency regulations, policies and procedures. Investigators also plan to discuss the ambient air monitoring program with staff at EPA headquarters, EPA regional offices and state and local monitoring agencies.
Initial Meeting Planned
The Office of Inspector General said it will soon schedule a kickoff meeting with staff in the Office of Air and Radiation to discuss the planned investigation and answer any questions about the process.
The letter includes a request for the Office of Air and Radiation to provide investigators with reporting requirements and guidance on ambient ozone data, policies and procedures for the entry, review and maintenance of data in the EPA's AirNow system and the results of any audits of the EPA's air quality databases.
The review of EPA's ambient air monitoring data was included in the Office of Inspector General's annual plan for fiscal year 2016.
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