Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Jan 14
-
(ACC Mentioned) Resurgence Of Us Methanol Production To Be Highlighted On Energy Construction Forum 2016
Jan 14, 2016 | CCFGroup
Within the next three years, US imports of methanol are not only expected to cease, but the US is also expected to become a net exporter of this sought-after chemical. Keywords: The US is in the midst of one of the largest industry expansions to ever occur in North America. Cheap, readily available shale oil and gas is sparking a surge in the... -
FDA's Ban of Three Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Comes Too Late, Say Critics
Jan 13, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Sharon Kelly
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will ban three grease-resistant chemicals from food packaging materials like pizza box liners, microwavable popcorn bags, and sandwich wrappers. The newly banned substances all come from a family of chemicals, known as perflourinated chemicals... -
TSCA Revamp, Nuclear Waste Atop Shimkus's 2016 Agenda
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Completing bicameral efforts to revamp the nation's primary chemicals law and continuing to evaluate ways to manage nuclear waste are the top 2016 legislative priorities for Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), an influential subcommittee chairman on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. -
EPA Seeks More Data On Chlorinated Paraffins After Efforts To Assess Risks
Jan 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is requesting more information on certain chlorinated paraffins, a group of chemicals EPA had been reviewing as both new and existing chemicals under the agency's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorities, but which the agency now says it is addressing solely as new chemicals. -
Green Chemical Market Said to Exceed Inventive Capacity
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Meeting the market's demand for sustainable chemicals will require educators, government programs and companies to routinely consider the impacts chemicals have throughout their life cycle, according to a panel of chemists, public policy analysts and a corporate technology officer. -
Adidas Announces 2016 Dyes And Process Chemicals Targets
Jan 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Global apparel and footwear company, Adidas, has announced its 2016 chemical management targets for the dyes used in its apparel and for chemicals used in its production processes. The company told Chemical Watch that by the end of 2016: 75% of all dyes used in apparel will be approved by... -
Companies That Are Taking The Toxics Out Of Electronics
Jan 13, 2016 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Rachel Cernansky
On a Wednesday in late February 2010, Hewlett-Packard hosted an unusual training session at its offices in Fort Collins, Colorado. The technology company had decided to eliminate polyvinyl chloride, or PVC — a type of plastic that releases harmful chemicals during production and when burned after disposal — from its power cords. -
Exxon Refinery Blast Nearly Missed Rupturing Acid Tank -- CSB
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
An explosion at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Torrance, Calif., oil refinery last year that injured two workers nearly sent a cloud of hydrofluoric gas into the surrounding neighborhood, a federal watchdog agency said today. Releasing the results of a preliminary investigation into the oil refinery blast, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said... -
NTSB Spotlights Hazmat Issues in ‘Most Wanted' List
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The National Transportation Safety Board threw the spotlight on hazardous material rail safety through its 2016 “Most Wanted” list of transportation-related improvements released Jan. 13. The board urged federal regulators and others to quickly complete initiatives on improving tank car safety for flammable liquids transportation and installing... -
NTSB Wish List Includes Lower Alcohol Limit, Rail And Transit Improvements
Jan 13, 2016 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
The National Transportation Safety Board's annual wish list for safety includes changes to federal regulations of U.S. railways and transit systems and lowering the legal alcohol limit for drivers. The agency released its annual "Most Wanted" list on Wednesday, featuring a host of measures it recommends that Congress and federal regulators take... -
Freight Lobby To Make STB Regulation Chief Focus In 2016
Jan 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Transportation Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
The freight rail industry will prioritize Surface Transportation Board regulation in 2016 as the agency undergoes a congressionally mandated overhaul, the head of the Association of American Railroads said today. AAR will focus on "maintaining balanced economic regulation" at STB this year, the group's President... -
California Senators Seek Details on Response to Gas Leak
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The federal government can play an important role in aiding California in responding to the ongoing natural gas leak in the Los Angeles area, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a Jan. 13 letter to three federal agencies. In the letter, the senators asked the heads of the U.S. Department of Transportation... -
Dems Seek Feds' Help In California Methane Leak
Jan 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
California’s two Democratic senators are asking federal officials to investigate a methane leak at a Los Angeles-area natural gas storage facility. In a Wednesday letter to the heads of the Justice and Transportation departments and the Environmental Protection Agency, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer asked officials to begin... -
Green Groups Seek To Block Extension Of Shell's Leases
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
Several environmental groups today sought to block Royal Dutch Shell PLC's bid to extend its drilling leases in the Arctic Ocean. The eight groups, represented by Earthjustice, asked to intervene before the Interior Board of Land Appeals in defense of the government's decision last October to reject Shell's lease extension requests in the... -
Clean Power Plan Targets Achievable, Analysis Says
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Clean Power Plan's carbon dioxide emissions targets for states are “very achievable,” largely due to an option for emissions trading that provides flexibility while driving down costs, M.J. Bradley and Associates LLC said in an analysis. However, the analysis also found that carbon dioxide emissions... -
Analysis Calls Rule 'Very Achievable'
Jan 14, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A new study analyzing different compliance scenarios for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan calls the new rule "very achievable." The analysis by M.J. Bradley & Associates, an environmental consulting firm, also found the United States could sustain a diverse energy mix under the program, which compels states to lower carbon dioxide emissions... -
Court Urged to Reject Groups' Letter on Boiler MACT
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals court should reject a recent letter filed by environmental groups in litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's emissions standards for major source boilers because it did not raise any new information, industry groups said (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, letter filed 1/13/16). -
States Want Say in EPA Multipurpose Grant Allocation
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
State environmental agencies are applauding Congress for creating a new $21 million multipurpose grant program for the Environmental Protection Agency and are asking the EPA to work with them in determining where this money should go. In a Jan. 12 letter to the EPA, Martha Rudolph, president of the Environmental Council of the States... -
Obama Touts Climate Legacy But Opposition Lingers
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Barack Obama in his final State of the Union address touted his efforts to combat climate change, including a landmark international agreement reached by more than 190 countries in Paris, but congressional Republicans said his efforts will still face strenuous opposition domestically. -
Cuomo Proposes Aggressive Climate Agenda for 2016
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) proposed closing New York's two coal-fired power plants and increasing state funds for projects to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as part of an aggressive climate change agenda for the state in 2016. Cuomo, in a joint budget and State of the State proposal Jan. 13, said he would direct the Public Service... -
House Passes Resolution to Overturn Water Jurisdiction Rule
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The House approved a joint resolution Jan. 13 to overturn an Obama administration rule to clarify the regulatory scope of the Clean Water Act but was unable to muster a two-thirds, veto-proof majority. The resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res. 22), passed on a vote of 253-166... -
Moderate House Dems Shift Away From Bid To Kill WOTUS
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Tiffany Stecker
Opponents of the Obama administration's hot-button regulation to define federally protected waters have lost the support of moderate Democrats in the House, compared with votes on a similar measure last year to block the rule. The House easily passed S.J. Res. 22 this morning 262-152, with a lone Republican -- Rep. Chris Smith of New... -
House Votes to Overturn Expanded Waterway Regulations
Jan 13, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The House on Wednesday voted to overturn regulations aimed at bringing more waterways under federal protection, the latest in a series of clashes between Congress and the White House over President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda. The White House has threatened to veto the measure...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Jan 14, 2016 | CCFGroup
Within the next three years, US imports of methanol are not only expected to cease, but the US is also expected to become a net exporter of this sought-after chemical.
Keywords:
The US is in the midst of one of the largest industry expansions to ever occur in North America. Cheap, readily available shale oil and gas is sparking a surge in the construction of new gas processing, LNG export terminals, petrochemical and refining capacity.
Total announced capital investments in capacity expansions, upgrades, plant restarts and greenfield facilities have eclipsed $135 B. Over 60% of this investment is being made by foreign firms. New capacity includes a sharp increase in the construction of ethane cracking and derivatives capacity, fertilizer (ammonia/urea) plants, PDH units, etc. According to the American Chemistry Council, gross exports of US chemical products will more than double from $60 B in 2014 to $123 B by 2030. Billions of dollars will be invested in the construction of pipelines, storage, terminals and export capacity through the end of the decade. The majority of these products will head to Asia, Europe and Latin America.
The shale gas boom has also propelled methanol production to the forefront of the US petrochemical sector. Cheap natural gas feedstock has spurred a boom in methanol plant construction, expansions, restarts and even relocations from other regions around the globe. However, the US methanol outlook was reversed in the early years of the new millennium, when spiking domestic natural gas prices shrunk the US methanol industry substantially. By the early 2000s, the number of operating US methanol plants had shrunk from 18 to 10. Domestic methanol processing capacity dwindled from over 7 MMtpy to well under 3 MMtpy. This made the US more dependent on imports from countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, Chile, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea and Canada. By the end of 2013, US methanol imports had climbed to 5.5 MMtpy.
Within the next three years, however, US imports of methanol are not only expected to cease, but the US is also expected to become a net exporter of this sought-after chemical. From 2015-2019, the US plans to add nearly 17 MMtpy of new methanol capacity. Total new methanol capacity could reach over 25 MMtpy by 2020 should all projects be completed. If these projects are built, total capital expenditures could reach over $15 B by 2021. -
FDA's Ban of Three Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Comes Too Late, Say Critics
Jan 13, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Sharon Kelly
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will ban three grease-resistant chemicals from food packaging materials like pizza box liners, microwavable popcorn bags, and sandwich wrappers. The newly banned substances all come from a family of chemicals, known as perflourinated chemicals, known to be associated with cancer, digestive ailments, and reproductive harms.
The catch? The ban only applies to perflourinated chemicals that have already largely been taken off the market, while leaving dozens of other similar chemicals on the FDA's approved list for use materials (like packaging) that come in contact with food, according to Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental organization.
"Industrial chemicals that pollute people's blood clearly have no place in food packaging," EWG President Ken Cook said in a statement. "This is another egregious example of how, all too often, regulatory actions under the nation's broken chemical laws are too little and too late to protect Americans' health."
The FDA's move comes at a time when there is growing public awareness of the hazards of PFOA or C8, a perflourinated chemical that DuPont used for decades to manufacture Teflon-coated pots and pans and other goods. As I reported in Earth Island Journal's latest issue, in October 2015 an Ohio jury awarded $1.6 million to cancer survivor Carla Bartlett, the first of over 3,000 plaintiffs who have sued DuPont over C8 contamination of drinking water supplies near DuPont's Parkersburg, West Virginia plant. DuPont had been using the chemical in its products for more than 50 years even though it knew C8 was making people sick. Legal battles against DuPont over C8 have already spanned nearly two decades, and are still continuing.
Perflourinated chemicals are remarkable for several reasons. First off, they spread easily through the environment - so much so that they've already entered the bloodstream of an astonishing number of Americans. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, more than 98 percent of Americans have at least one of a dozen perflourinated chemicals, including C8, in their blood. They're also extraordinarily long lasting. Unlike many chemicals, perflourinated chemicals generally don't biodegrade or break down. They stay in the environment for decades, even centuries, and they also can build up in a person's system over time. They can be passed from one generation to the next through umbilical cords. And they've already been found in wildlife around the globe, including dolphins, polar bears, and eagles living in the remotest regions of the world.
"These chemicals as a class have the ability to essentially irreversibly pollute the globe, in that they've got extremely high persistence," said EWG senior scientist David Andrews. "The carbon-fluorine bond is extremely strong and stable and doesn't break down under normal environmental conditions. So we're synthetically producing all of these chemicals that have extremely long environmental lifetimes."
There are enough reasons to be concerned that these chemicals may pose health hazards. C8, the chemical used for decades by DuPont to manufacture Teflon (which has now been phased out, though EWG says it's been replaced with other perflourinated chemicals), has been linked to various diseases including, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
In its announcement last week, made in response to a petition filed by nine environmental groups last year, the FDA also focused on the potential risks to human health from long-chain perflourinated chemicals.
"We have made a determination that the information provided in the petition and other publicly available relevant data demonstrates that there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm for the food contact use of the three [food contact substances," the agency wrote.
Questions about the use of these chemicals in food wrappers first arose back in 2005, when a former DuPont engineer revealed that the company had been using perflourinated chemicals in coatings for paper-based food wrappers. In the wake of that scandal, Burger King and other companies announced that they would no longer buy food wrappers made using those chemicals. By 2011, pressure from environmental advocates, the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, had led US manufacturers to voluntarily cease using the three newly-banned chemicals — but concerns remained about the possibility that imported packaging was left out of the voluntary agreements.
The Plastics Industry Trade Association, SPI, focused on this voluntary agreement in its response to the FDA's move. “It is the understanding of SPI's member companies that the materials listed in FDA's final rule are no longer manufactured for food-contact applications and represent an old technology," Kyra Mumbauer, senior director of global regulatory affairs at SPI, said in a statement. "FDA's action thus does not impact SPI's members.”
And that is a problem. Here's why. With this new rule, the FDA distinguishes between so-called, “long-chain” perflourinated chemicals, which have eight or more carbon molecules, and “short-chain” ones, which some studies show break down faster than the long-chain version. The newly banned chemicals all fall into the long-chain category, and as SPI indicated, most of them are no longer being used food packaging. In many instances, they have been replaced by short-chain perflourinated compounds.
Also, while long-chain perflourinated chemicals like C8 have been used for decades and have been the subject of far more scientific scrutiny, the short-chain chemicals are relatively under-studied.
"There's very little public information on the safety of a lot of these chemicals, if not all of them," Andrews said. "We know the most about the ones that were used for 40 and 50 years. The evidence of how detrimental and how harmful they are to health took decades to accumulate and we want to raise some red flags about these very similar molecules - especially that are being added to food contact materials. This is a place that there is high potential for direct exposure."
While both the FDA and EPA are required by federal law to take a chemical-by-chemical approach to assessing and regulating potentially hazardous chemical, environmental advocates say that it may be time to change the ways that chemical risks are considered, and to take into account any known risks posed by other chemicals in the same family.
An effort to re-write the main federal law governing chemicals used by consumers, the Toxic Substances Control Act, is currently underway in Washington, DC. In December, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, passed the Senate. The bill is now headed to the conference committee to resolve any differences between that bill and a similar bill passed last year by the House of Representatives. The Lautenberg Act, which initially had drawn strong support from environmental groups, has been through many revisions and now enjoys strong support from chemical industry trade groups.
"A big danger is that this is the first attempt to reform this law since it was passed in 1976, and after all these years of fighting over it, if it gets passed we'll have a lot of people saying 'ok we've done that, we've taken care of chemical reform'," Bill Walker, an EWG investigator told the Journal, "and it may take a generation before the political will to act comes together again."
-
TSCA Revamp, Nuclear Waste Atop Shimkus's 2016 Agenda
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Completing bicameral efforts to revamp the nation's primary chemicals law and continuing to evaluate ways to manage nuclear waste are the top 2016 legislative priorities for Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), an influential subcommittee chairman on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Shimkus, who leads the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 13 discussions have begun with top committee Democrats Reps. Frank Pallone (N.J.) and Paul Tonko (N.Y.) about how to reconcile a narrower House bill (H.R. 2576) overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act with a broader Senate version (S. 697).
Senior lawmakers are beginning initial discussions between the two chambers. Top Republican House and Senate committee leaders were expected to meet during a Baltimore retreat that began Jan. 13 on a path forward to work on a path forward on the bill with the goal of resolving differences quickly, perhaps setting up floor consideration as soon as this month, according to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) (08 DEN A-1, 1/13/16).
Quick Consideration Likely ‘Doable.'
“I'm not wedded to a schedule, but I don't see why that's not doable,” Shimkus said of floor consideration within months. The Illinois Republican added a formal conference between both chambers would likely occur on the chemicals legislation because Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) had indicated support for one.
“He [Ryan] wants to have a formal conference, so the question is how in-depth is it, how many people is it?” Shimkus said.
Shimkus will not attend the Republican retreat in Baltimore, an aide told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 12. Ryan's office did not respond to request for comment on whether a formal conference would be necessary for TSCA reform.
More Work on Nuclear Waste
Another priority for the subcommittee will be teeing up ways to address the long-term storage of nuclear waste for 2017 when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Barack Obama have left office.
“You're not going to get a bill signed into law by the president, but this is not work that will not pay benefits in the future,” Shimkus said.
The Illinois Republican has pushed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada to begin storing nuclear waste, though the Obama administration declared the project unworkable in 2009, and Reid has steadfastly opposed authorizing any funding for it.
Shimkus has held a series of hearings related to the proposed Nevada repository over the last several years and has indicated there will be a “better opportunity” to revive the project after Reid and Obama leave office (238 DEN A-2, 12/11/15).
-
EPA Seeks More Data On Chlorinated Paraffins After Efforts To Assess Risks
Jan 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is requesting more information on certain chlorinated paraffins, a group of chemicals EPA had been reviewing as both new and existing chemicals under the agency's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorities, but which the agency now says it is addressing solely as new chemicals.
Medium- and long- chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs and LCCPs) were among the first handful of chemicals and chemical groups that EPA announced in 2012 would be assessed in its new TSCA work plan risk assessment program. The program was intended to more strictly apply EPA's existing TSCA authorities to chemicals that are largely grandfathered because they were in the marketplace before TSCA was passed in 1976.
But several years ago, EPA determined that the unique, chemical abstract service (CAS) numbers on the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals "were insufficient to adequately describe the substances being manufactured" by Dover Chemical and a second, importing company, Ineos, according to an industry source.
As part of a settlement agreement with EPA, Dover and Ineos, now known as INOVYN Americas, Inc., agreed to treat certain MCCPs and LCCPs as "new" chemicals and submit premanufacture notices (PMNs), which both companies did in 2012, the source adds.
Now EPA is seeking additional information on seven MCCPs and LCCPs, five of which are based on the PMN information submitted by Dover and INOVYN and two are based on PMNs that the company Qualice, LLC submitted in 2014.
EPA says in a Dec. 23 Federal Register notice that its preliminary assessments of the chemicals, drafted in January 2015, indicate they "may present an unreasonable risk to the environment" because the substances are expected to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals, and separately, releases of the substances may exceed concentrations of concern (COCs) to aquatic and sediment-dwelling organisms.
EPA explains in its notice that because of the findings of its preliminary risk analyses, it has informed the companies "that it does not believe that manufacture of these PMN substances should commence (Qualice, LLC,) or continue (Dover Chemical and INOVYN Americas, Inc.) absent the development of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation of the environmental effects of the substances, as described in a testing strategy shared with the PMN submitters."
While the agency had been assessing MCCPs and LCCPs under both the PMN and TSCA work plan process, EPA now says on its website that these chemicals "are being assessed as Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under section 5 of TSCA, rather than as Work Plan chemicals," and links to the Register notice.
"Chlorinated paraffins are used primarily in metal working fluids. They are also used in sealants, resins, and coatings," according to EPA's website.
EPA's Request
In the Register notice, EPA says that it is requesting more information about the seven MCCPs and LCCPs because its preliminary assessment of some of the chemicals' uses "may be improved by more specific information on the chlorinated paraffins identified above. With this notice, EPA is requesting new, available information on chlorinated paraffins in different industries and for different uses to reduce the uncertainties in the risk assessments for the three groups of PMNs, submitted under TSCA by three companies. Such information may include whether there are uses for the PMN chlorinated paraffin substances that do not present the potential for direct or indirect release to water."
The agency adds that it has received some information from the companies as well as from the trade group Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) "and would like to augment this information with specific data from other user sectors, particularly those sectors that formulate and use chlorinated paraffins as plasticizers and flame retardants in adhesives, sealants and coatings."
ILMA in news to its members posted after a late September international lubricators' conference reported that EPA's Maria Doa, director of the chemical control division, told the assembled members that the agency intends to set the ban date for domestic production and importation of MCCPs and LCCPs "to sometime mid-year 2017. . . . Users will be allowed to use up any inventories they may have beyond the mid-2017 ban date."
As of late September, ILMA informed its members that "[t]he 'window' to provide information to EPA on 'critical uses' of MCCPs and LCCPs is narrowing for the agency to consider 'carve outs' for specific 'critical uses.' When pressed for what EPA considers a critical use, Doa wanted chain length, percentage of chlorination and test data that indicates the inadequacy of substitutes."
The trade group added that "[evidently] the Department of Defense (DOD) told EPA to proceed despite the lingering concerns with defense-specific critical uses. Members with military-supplier customers conveyed to Doa that Boeing and other suppliers are still trying to gather information." EPA is requesting additional information on the chemicals' uses through Feb. 22.
-
Green Chemical Market Said to Exceed Inventive Capacity
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Meeting the market's demand for sustainable chemicals will require educators, government programs and companies to routinely consider the impacts chemicals have throughout their life cycle, according to a panel of chemists, public policy analysts and a corporate technology officer.
“The commercial world is begging for environmentally benign, nontoxic materials,” John Warner, president and chief technology officer of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, said Jan. 13.
“A company like Nike wants to have sustainable products; a company like Levi's wants to have sustainable products. The brands that we recognize want sustainable products,” Warner said. “We don't have the capacity to meet that demand.”
Warner and Jim Millis, chief technology officer for BioAmber Inc., which uses sugars from renewable resources instead of fossil fuels to make chemicals, were among the panelists who spoke during a Capitol Hill briefing hosted by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the American Chemical Society and the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3).
GC3 Director Joel Tickner said the event was the launch of an initiative to make green chemistry an ordinary part of education, business and public policy.
The chemical society and GC3 released a report, “An Agenda to Mainstream Green Chemistry,” at the meeting.
Green Chemistry Market
The global market for green chemistry, defined to include biobased chemicals, renewable feedstocks, biobased polymers and less-toxic chemical formulations, is projected to grow from $11 billion in 2015 to nearly $100 billion by 2020, Trucost, a data analysis firm, said in a 2015 report (87 DEN A-5, 5/6/15).
The North American market for green chemistry is projected to grow from $3 billion to over $20 billion during the same period, Trucost's report said.
The agenda defined green chemistry as “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances throughout their lifecycles: design, manufacture, use and end of life.” Green chemistry is part of sustainability, because it promotes the use of renewable feedstocks, prevents pollution and waste and designs safer molecules, it said.
Malevolent industry isn't the obstacle preventing society from getting the sustainably designed products it wants, Warner said.
‘Weird Aberration,’ Not ‘Evil Industry.’
“This isn't evil industry trying to make profits from bad molecules,” he said. “This is a weird aberration of how the science of chemistry has evolved.”
The chemists who are taught to design new molecules that can become drugs, plastics, asphalt and other parts of daily life aren't taught about the environmental or health effects those molecules can cause, Warner said.
Nor are they taught about the environmental and social implications of sourcing raw materials, said David Constable, director of the American Chemical Society's Green Chemistry Institute.
Millis, from BioAmber, said well-intentioned federal programs that inadvertently place obstacles in front of companies focused on designing and producing biobased chemicals are another impediment.
Based on interviews with companies and other research, the agenda lists 20 key barriers to implementing green chemistry.
It also lists short-term actions the GC3 will take within the next two years to address those barriers.
These include supporting the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act (S. 1447), which Coons introduced in May 2015, or similar legislation.
Tickner said many provisions of that bill have been incorporated into the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), which the Senate approved unanimously Dec. 17 (243 DEN A-1, 12/18/15).
Group to Convene National Summit
GC3 also will work with legislators, federal agencies, companies, academic leaders and other interested parties to convene a National Summit on Green Chemistry Research and Education, the agenda report said.
Tickner told Bloomberg BNA the goal is to host that summit within the first 100 days of the new administration.
Adelina Voutchkova, an assistant chemistry professor at George Washington University, said changes being implemented for predicting chemical toxicities using computer-based models and automated cellular tests will make it easier for chemists and toxicologists to understand each others' fields.
Chemical engineers understand molecular interactions, and toxicologists increasingly are focusing on such interactions to predict health and environmental effects of chemicals, she said.
-
Adidas Announces 2016 Dyes And Process Chemicals Targets
Jan 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Global apparel and footwear company, Adidas, has announced its 2016 chemical management targets for the dyes used in its apparel and for chemicals used in its production processes.
The company told Chemical Watch that by the end of 2016: 75% of all dyes used in apparel will be approved by Bluesign, a Switzerland-based certification company that applies standards for textile product manufacture and use of hazardous substances (GBB May 2009); andit aims to have 30% of all auxiliary chemicals used in apparel approved by Bluesign. Auxiliaries are substances used to support the production process, but which do not add a function to the product.
The company surpassed its 2015 goals. These were set at 50% of all dyes and 10% of auxiliary chemicals approved by Bluesign (CW 23 March 2015). It said that by the end of the year 65% of dyes and 30% auxiliary chemicals had been approved.
To help achieve its target of eliminating all PFCs by 2017, it has been working with chemical companies to explore formulations which are still in an R&D phase (CW 11 June 2015). In total, more than 8,400 lab tests were conducted and 43 “wear tests” were performed in a sporting environment.
In addition, the company confirmed this week that it has met its target of phasing out plastic microbeads from its body care products by 1 January 2016.
In a blog last November, Adidas’s vice president for strategic partnerships, Jochen Denninger, referred to a Greenpeace report that criticised products – including some of the company's – for containing microbeads.
The report, he said, prompted him to work with the company’s supplier of body care formulations, Coty, to initiate a phase-out. The alternative formulas being used, Adidas said, are owned by Coty and are therefore confidential information.
-
Companies That Are Taking The Toxics Out Of Electronics
Jan 13, 2016 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Rachel Cernansky
On a Wednesday in late February 2010, Hewlett-Packard hosted an unusual training session at its offices in Fort Collins, Colorado. The technology company had decided to eliminate polyvinyl chloride, or PVC — a type of plastic that releases harmful chemicals during production and when burned after disposal — from its power cords. But it realized that to get PVC out of its products, it was going to have to get its suppliers to do so, too. This training was an opportunity for those supplying power cables to the company (now known as HP) to learn about a tool that could help identify alternatives to PVC: GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals. Developed by the nonprofit Clean Production Action, GreenScreen provides a means of comparing hazard assessments of chemicals in order to choose safer alternatives.
“At HP, we buy a lot of power cables. We knew that because of our buying power, we could have some influence on what the industry was doing,” says Paul Mazurkiewicz, a technologist for materials at HP. “We went really far back in the supply chain, to the people that fundamentally make these materials, and we trained them on how to use the GreenScreen and let them know that HP would be making choices based on the GreenScreen in the future.”
HP is not alone: Around the world, electronics companies are working to reduce their use of chemicals that are known to be hazardous to human health, the environment or both.
What’s the Problem?
From cellphones to computers to televisions, electronics are manufactured with a long list of substances that are known to be toxic, including metals such as lead and hexavalent chromium, and other contaminants such as phthalates and brominated flame retardants. They all serve specific roles: Lead is extremely effective as a solder, for example, and flame retardants keep our computers from bursting into flames while we type. But with many of these chemicals, there’s a health trade-off: Hexavalent chromium is linked with cancer, for example, and lead causes irreversible damage to developing fetuses and children and can contaminate water supplies and harm plants and animals.
The use of such chemicals has given the electronics industry a reputation for jeopardizing the health of workers and the environment on both the manufacturing and disposal end of things. Some studies have suggested that electronics manufacturing workers, who are often exposed to chemicals such as benzene and lead that are known to have detrimental health impacts, experience elevated rates of certain cancers and other diseases. And globally, most electronic waste sent overseas is moved illegally to poor areas where people look to the waste as a source of income: They burn cables to get to the copper inside, for example, releasing extremely toxic substances such as cadmium, chromium and brominated flame retardants.
Incentive to Change
Growing awareness of these issues has led consumers to pressure companies to become more sustainable. They’re aided in the process by ratings systems such as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, or EPEAT, which gives consumers information they need to choose products that reduce the threat of e-waste.
Facing this increase in public pressure — including demand for highly rated products — as well as emerging regulations around hazardous chemicals, such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment and REACH in Europe, the industry is finding incentive to change how it operates. That incentive is buoyed by initiatives such as the Sustainable Purchasing Leadership Council in the U.S. and Electronics Watch in Europe, which encourage large-scale purchasers, such as governments, to prioritize sustainability in their product choices.
As a result, a growing number of companies as well as nonprofits and industry associations such as the International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative are working to reduce or eliminate the use of toxic chemicals in electronics products and replace them with safer alternatives. At the United Nations Environment Programme–hosted International Conference on Chemicals Management in Geneva last fall, participants, including more than 100 governments, non-governmental organizations and some industry representatives, signed a resolution detailing initiatives for reducing hazardous chemicals in electronics. Those initiatives include promoting public and private partnerships focused on product stewardship and extended producer responsibility; encouraging electronics designs that reduce the need for hazardous chemicals and allow materials to be recovered; working with retailers to expand sustainable options for consumers; and adopting policies that work toward hazardous chemical reduction.
Upstream Solutions
Delegates to the conference from several African countries that have become a growing outlet for electronic waste were prominent in the call for reducing the use of toxics in the first place.
“If you solve a problem at the upstream stage — if it’s designed in a proper way, if the hazardous components are replaced by less or non-hazardous ones — the problem downstream will be less,” says Tadesse Amera, a steering committee member of IPEN, a global network focused on safer use of chemicals, who participated in the Geneva discussions. “We are not talking about waste. We are talking about the whole process. That was our argument, and we were accepted for that.”
To eliminate certain chemicals, electronics companies need to know if and where they’re using them in the first place. But modern supply chains have become so long and complex that many electronics companies don’t actually know which substances are in all the parts they use in their products.
Ted Smith, coordinator of the International Campaign for Responsible Technology, has been talking with major companies such as Apple and Seagate to increase their access to such information. Seagate, he says, has come a long way.
“They’ve been able to get all their suppliers to disclose all of their chemicals, and they’ve got thousands of suppliers around the world. It’s not an insignificant task,” he says.
Not Easy
Eliminating a chemical from a product is not easy. A replacement substance — ideally, one that’s safer — has to be found that can perform the same function as well or better. Reformulation may be necessary because the replacement may interact differently with the rest of the product.
Fortunately, the number of tools to help companies do this is also growing. GreenScreen gives companies like HP a way to identify hazardous chemicals and safer alternatives. Similar databases in Europe, such as the Substitution Support Portal, also help companies search for and evaluate alternatives to hazardous chemicals, as well as provide guidance on the process of chemical substitution.
“What’s new is global collaboration, stronger focus on purchasing, collaboration among electronics companies really starting to dig into their supply chains.” – Joel Tickner While HP is working to get PVC out of its power cables, it has taken on a number of other challenges as well, including eliminating halogenated substances. Apple, meanwhile, has eliminated its use of lead, reduced its use of brominated flame retardants and eliminated PVC from its power cords — although it won’t say what it uses instead, according to Smith, so independent observers cannot say whether the substitute is safer. It also has stopped using some solvents that are dangerous to workers during manufacturing, according to Joel Tickner, director of the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council, a project based at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
“There’s been a lot of writing about toxicity in the electronics supply chain. I think what’s new is global collaboration, stronger focus on purchasing, collaboration among electronics companies really starting to dig into their supply chains,” Tickner says. “That’s what Apple and HP are doing.”
Less to Throw Away
Despite efforts targeting specific chemicals, an enormous stream of electronic waste continues to enter communities in developing countries. And that waste stream only grows bigger and faster as electronics become cheaper (allowing more people to buy them) and as the industry plans obsolescence into its consumer products — encouraging people to buy a new phone every year, for example, and offering replacement products at prices equal to or cheaper than a repair when a computer or tablet is damaged.
“Until we have better global systems for electronics take-back, we have to assume that these are going to be put back into the environment somewhere at the end of their life,” says Tickner.
While there is little sign of take-back systems becoming commonplace, Sarah O’Brien, director of stakeholder engagement at EPEAT, sees some hope in the area of reducing — or at least slowing the growth of — the overall waste stream. She points to the nascent modular phone as an example of innovative thinking that can mitigate this aspect of the electronics life cycle: If one piece breaks, you can repair or replace that part, rather than the whole phone, reducing discards and thus their adverse environmental and health impacts.
There are also efforts to turn things that would otherwise become e-trash into the raw materials for new products. Dell launched a closed-loop recycling program in 2014 that turns old plastics into new Dell products, for example. The program is focused on plastics, but the company is looking to expand the model.
As for HP, Mazurkiewicz says, “Ultimately, we want to make a fully edible computer. It sounds funny, but we want to get to the point where electronics fit very neatly into the circular economy — where maybe you mulch your computer at the end of the day, and grow materials that can be put into an HP 3-D printer.”
Even though that might sound like science fiction, he says, “it’s something we can achieve. But it’s going to take time.”
Global Approach
Much remains to be done, of course. The electronics industry innovates and grows at a pace that dwarfs efforts to phase out individual chemicals.
“It is an industry that’s constantly churning, and where consumers are looking for more bells and whistles all the time,” says O’Brien.
Still, the consensus seems to be that the industry is doing more than ever before, and momentum is growing. Georg Steinberger, vice president of environmental affairs and compliance at Avnet — one of the world’s biggest distributors of electronic parts — supports further efforts still, including some sort of global standard regulating toxic chemicals in electronics.
“We would love to see global understanding on things like which hazardous substances should not be used,” Steinberger says. “If a substance is dangerous, it’s dangerous in any country. The electronics industry is not a clean industry. We are using lots of chemicals, and I think it’s about time that we take some responsibility for the products we produce.”
-
Exxon Refinery Blast Nearly Missed Rupturing Acid Tank -- CSB
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
An explosion at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Torrance, Calif., oil refinery last year that injured two workers nearly sent a cloud of hydrofluoric gas into the surrounding neighborhood, a federal watchdog agency said today.
Releasing the results of a preliminary investigation into the oil refinery blast, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Exxon's management practices at the Torrance refinery were consistent with past findings suggesting troubling maintenance and safety procedures in the refinery industry -- including Chevron Corp.'s 2012 explosion at its Richmond, Calif., refinery.
CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Sutherland said Exxon had refused to cooperate with CSB and had not responded to nearly half of its subpoena requests because it did not believe CSB had the legal authority to investigate the near-release of hydrofluoric acid, which can irritate and damage the eyes, nose and respiratory tract and is fatal at high enough levels.
At least 333,000 residents, 71 schools and eight hospitals are within a 3-mile radius of the Exxon Mobil refinery, CSB said.
The board is set to present the findings at a public meeting in Torrance later today.
According to investigators, preliminary findings indicate the explosion began at a piece of equipment used to control air pollution called an electrostatic precipitator, or ESP. Because of facility maintenance practices, hydrocarbons accumulated at the ESP, leading to the explosion at about 8:50 a.m. on Feb. 18, 2015, CSB said.
The agency said large pieces of debris from the blast were thrown into other units of the refinery, including the alkylation unit, where it narrowly missed a tank containing tens of thousands of pounds of modified hydrofluoric acid. If debris had hit the tank, it could have ruptured, resulting in an unplanned and "potentially catastrophic" release of hydrofluoric acid into the surrounding neighborhood that could have injured or killed residents of Torrance, the agency said.
CSB investigator Mark Wingard said the agency had found multiple systemic problems with Exxon's safety and maintenance practices at the 85-year-old refinery. Exxon failed to adequately consider the risks of changing operating procedures -- including identifying the hazard that CSB believes caused the explosion but not doing anything to prevent it, Wingard said.
Exxon spokesman Todd Spitler said the company's own investigation found there had been no risk of a release of hydrofluoric acid.
Spitler said the company "stands on its record of good faith compliance with all agencies, including the Chemical Safety Board, and we look forward to hearing their perspectives on the incident and reviewing the preliminary report."
Exxon had already provided more than 136,000 pages of documents and 67 interviews to CSB, Spitler said.
The explosion last year sent ash into surrounding neighborhoods and even registered as a magnitude-1.7 earthquake, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (Greenwire, Feb. 24, 2015).
Exxon sold the Torrance refinery, which produces about 20 percent of all gasoline sold in Southern California, to New Jersey-based PBF Energy Inc. last year, but the deal won't close until it is fully repaired (EnergyWire, Oct. 2, 2015).
-
NTSB Spotlights Hazmat Issues in ‘Most Wanted' List
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The National Transportation Safety Board threw the spotlight on hazardous material rail safety through its 2016 “Most Wanted” list of transportation-related improvements released Jan. 13.
The board urged federal regulators and others to quickly complete initiatives on improving tank car safety for flammable liquids transportation and installing positive train control (PTC) systems that would prevent certain rail derailments related to human error. Executing these initiatives, which were also in the board's 2015 list, could prevent accidents and limit environmental and other damages from those incidents, NTSB Chairman Chris Hart said.
“Sooner is better,” Hart said, referring to the urgency behind tank car safety issues at the press conference announcing the list.
The NTSB uses its annual “Most Wanted” list to “help spur action” on safety issues where the limited resources of government and industry can be used most effectively, Hart said. Some issues the NTSB raises in its list, like these hazmat issues, are repeatedly included because they are complex but must be resolved.
NTSB officials expressed frustration that unnecessary hazards exist because railroads missed—and Congress delayed to 2018—a deadline related to PTC, which will be required for toxic-by-inhalation material shipments. NTSB has been advocating for PTC for 45 years, Hart said.
Hart also noted the need to quickly phase out the use of older tank cars to move flammable liquids such as crude oil by rail, citing the 2013 derailment in Lac Megantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people as an example of what could happen in the U.S. (143 DEN A-12, 7/25/13).
The older tank cars aren't safe enough to move these substances, Hart said.
Timeline for Phaseout Called ‘Too Long.'
“10 years is much too long,” Hart said, referring to the Transportation Department's timeline for phasing out older tank cars from flammable liquids rail movement. “We have been lucky thus far that derailments involving flammable liquids in America have not occurred in a populated area, but an American version of Lac Megantic could happen at any time.”
Hart later praised Congress for incorporating thermal tank car requirements into its multiyear highway bill that was recently signed into law (08 DEN B-24, 1/13/16).
-
NTSB Wish List Includes Lower Alcohol Limit, Rail And Transit Improvements
Jan 13, 2016 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing
The National Transportation Safety Board's annual wish list for safety includes changes to federal regulations of U.S. railways and transit systems and lowering the legal alcohol limit for drivers.
The agency released its annual "Most Wanted" list on Wednesday, featuring a host of measures it recommends that Congress and federal regulators take up immediately.
Among the pressing items on the list is completing the installation of automated train technology that would prevent passenger and freight rail crashes, which was delayed by Congress this year until 2018. NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart said Congress should have forced railroad companies to meet the original 2015 deadline for installing the automated train system, known as Positive Train Control. The mandate was set after a commuter rail crash in California in 2008, but railroads successfully lobbied lawmakers last year to give them more time.
Hart said Wednesday as he was unveiling the NTSB's 2016 "Most Wanted" list that the PTC delay is regrettable.
“Every PTC-preventable accident, death, and injury on tracks and trains affected by the law will be a direct result of the missed 2015 deadline and the delayed implementation of this life-saving technology,” he said in a statement.
Other items on the NTSB's list of recommendations include lowering the legal alcohol limit for U.S. drivers from .08 percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to .05 percent.
The agency said lowering the alcohol limit would "reduce deaths and injuries on highways," although it acknowledged that "drugs other than alcohol can also impair drivers and operators of other types of vehicles – whether these drugs are recreational, over-the-counter, or prescription."
The NTSB list also includes a recommendation that regulators force freight rail companies to remove thousands of older tank car models that carry crude oil shipments that have been blamed for high-profile crashes in recent years in North Dakota and Canada from the nation's railways.
The agency said the older tank cars, which are known as DOT-111s, are too dangerous to continue transporting flammable liquids on railroad tracks that run near U.S. cities.
"The deadline for implementing such tank rules is 2025," the NTSB said. "Until these tank cars are removed from service, people, their towns, and the environment surrounding the rail system remain at risk."
The NTSB recommendation list also includes improvements to federal oversight of U.S. public transportation systems following the Federal Transit Administration's take over of Washington, D.C. Metrorail oversight following a spate of issues on the transit system in the nation's capital.
"The NTSB’s push to improve rail transit safety oversight was in part a result of the agency’s investigation of a deadly smoke event last January near Washington’s L’Enfant Plaza Metro station," the agency said.
"The accident exposed many safety issues, some of which resulted from shortcomings in the safety oversight of WMATA," the NTSB continued. "This year, the NTSB will continue to examine the way that the Federal Transit Administration is implementing such oversight – not only in Washington, but nationwide."
The NTSB's full 2016 Most Wanted list can be viewed here.
-
Freight Lobby To Make STB Regulation Chief Focus In 2016
Jan 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Transportation Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
The freight rail industry will prioritize Surface Transportation Board regulation in 2016 as the agency undergoes a congressionally mandated overhaul, the head of the Association of American Railroads said today.
AAR will focus on "maintaining balanced economic regulation" at STB this year, the group's President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger said at the Midwest Association of Rail Shippers. Congress passed legislation last month expanding the board's membership from three to five people and which attempts to make it easier for regulators to resolve pricing disputes with freight and shippers.
"We take very seriously our mission to deliver our customers' goods efficiently, reliably and safely and look forward to our continued partnerships," Hamberger said, according to a statement.
The group also emphasized its position that positive train control will be "fully installed" where mandated by 2018, while all testing for national traffic will be completed by 2020. Congress extended the deadline for the technology in October by three years until 2018, though the law also provides wiggle room up until the end of 2020 for railroads meeting certain criteria.
Railroads have until Jan. 27 to submit revised PTC implementation plans to FRA.
-
California Senators Seek Details on Response to Gas Leak
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The federal government can play an important role in aiding California in responding to the ongoing natural gas leak in the Los Angeles area, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a Jan. 13 letter to three federal agencies.
In the letter, the senators asked the heads of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice to describe actions taken so far in assisting California agencies to stop the leak at the Southern California Gas Co. underground storage facility in Aliso Canyon. The letter also seeks clarification on what federal authorities can be used to oversee the response efforts.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) issued an order Jan. 6 declaring the leak an emergency and directed state agencies to take additional measures to address the leak, mitigate its impacts and reduce the risks of additional leaks. State lawmakers Jan. 11 introduced legislation to halt new injections of gas into the reservoir and close down older production wells (04 DEN A-14, 1/7/16).
Since being discovered Oct. 23, the damaged well has discharged an estimated 1.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere, according to data the California Air Resources Board released Jan. 8 (07 DEN A-2, 1/12/16).
Critical Role Seen for U.S
“We believe that it is critical that the federal government also play an active role, in cooperation with its partner agencies in the State of California, to stop this ongoing leak and address the impacts to local residents,” the senators said in the letter.
To understand how the federal government “can be of further assistance,” Boxer and Feinstein asked the agencies to provide by Jan. 15 an update on actions taken so far, including any advice provided to the state; a description of the delegated federal authorities state agencies have exercised and federal oversight of the use of those authorities; and a legal analysis of federal authorities that could apply to this leak and natural gas storage fields in general along with a description of how the federal agencies have exercised those authorities to date.
Finally, the letter asked the three agencies for a technical analysis to determine how quickly SoCalGas could reduce the gas stored in the facility to mitigate the leak.
SoCalGas, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, is drilling a relief well to stop the leak. The company has said the project, which involves drilling down 8,500 feet to intersect the leaking well, may be completed in late February.
Utility Withdrawing Gas to Reduce Pressure
The utility also is withdrawing gas to reduce pressure at the storage facility and reduce the flow of methane from the broken well. Also, SoCalGas is working with local air quality regulators on a plan to install equipment to capture and destroy the leaking gas.
Meanwhile, SoCalGas has paid to relocate about 2,500 residents from Porter Ranch, a nearby community. Students in a public school in the area have been transferred to alternative campuses.
-
Dems Seek Feds' Help In California Methane Leak
Jan 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
California’s two Democratic senators are asking federal officials to investigate a methane leak at a Los Angeles-area natural gas storage facility.
In a Wednesday letter to the heads of the Justice and Transportation departments and the Environmental Protection Agency, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer asked officials to begin looking into potential federal responses to the leak. Their requests include a “legal analysis of any federal authorities that could apply to this incident and storage fields in general,” and a “technical analysis of whether Southern California Gas Company could more quickly reduce the gas stored in the facility to mitigate the uncontrolled” methane leak.
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) last week declared a state of emergency because of the methane leak, caused by a fissure at a Southern California Gas Co. storage facility, which is sending 110,000 pounds of methane into the air each hour. Officials say the leak likely won’t be sealed until late February or March.
Those efforts aren’t happening fast enough for affected California residents, the senators wrote in their letter.
“We have great concern for the thousands of residents of the nearby community of Porter Ranch who have been impacted by this ongoing disaster,” they wrote.
“After consultation with federal and state agencies in California, it is clear that the federal government can play an important role.”
Three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote a similar letter to federal agencies last week, asking what more could be done at the leak site.
“We believe that it is critical that the federal government also play an active role, in cooperation with its partner agencies in the State of California, to stop this ongoing leak and address the impacts to local residents,” Feinstein and Boxer wrote.
-
Green Groups Seek To Block Extension Of Shell's Leases
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor
Several environmental groups today sought to block Royal Dutch Shell PLC's bid to extend its drilling leases in the Arctic Ocean.
The eight groups, represented by Earthjustice, asked to intervene before the Interior Board of Land Appeals in defense of the government's decision last October to reject Shell's lease extension requests in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
Shell had asked the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to extend by five years leases worth billions of dollars that are scheduled to expire in 2017 in the Beaufort and 2020 in the Chukchi. The company cited uncertainties and delays caused by a string of environmental legal challenges filed against the Interior Department, and it accused regulators of imposing "unexpected and unprecedented" limits on the time Shell could drill each summer.
BSEE rejected the request, saying Shell had not demonstrated a reasonable timetable to explore. The company is challenging that decision before IBLA, an administrative court based near Interior headquarters (E&ENews PM, Dec. 15, 2015).
The environmental groups seeking to intervene are the Alaska Wilderness League, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the National Audubon Society, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society.
While Shell has put an indefinite hold on its Arctic exploration program, the lease extension request shows it still wants to keep drilling on the table, said Earthjustice attorney Erik Grafe.
"The agency was right to reject Shell's extension request, and we look forward to helping it defend that decision," he said in a statement. "To help stave off the worst effects of climate change, the Arctic Ocean must be off limits to future drilling."
Grafe said he's unsure when IBLA will decide on the groups' request. If allowed to intervene, the groups would be able to receive filings from other parties and file its own briefs in support of the government, he said.
Shell said in October it was considering ways to "protect the remaining value of our assets and leases" in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska, according to Bloomberg Politics.
Shell and Statoil ASA have pulled back from drilling in the U.S. Arctic after a Shell exploration well this summer turned up poor results and amid slumping global crude prices. The Obama administration has ratcheted back its Arctic development ambitions as well by canceling a pair of leases in the ocean.
-
Clean Power Plan Targets Achievable, Analysis Says
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Clean Power Plan's carbon dioxide emissions targets for states are “very achievable,” largely due to an option for emissions trading that provides flexibility while driving down costs, M.J. Bradley and Associates LLC said in an analysis.
However, the analysis also found that carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector could actually increase under the rule if states adopt mass-based trading programs but fail to address the issue of emissions “leakage” where power companies shift generation to new natural gas-fired power plants that aren't subject to the Clean Power Plan's requirements.
Leakage could be most easily addressed by including new natural gas-fired units in any mass-based trading program, an option allowed under the rule, the analysis said.
Mass-based plans set a total cap on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, but states also have the option of establishing rate-based targets that would limit carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions targets for the power sector in each state, with state regulators left to craft their own plans to implement the rule.
M.J. Bradley and Associates modeled 14 Clean Power Plan compliance scenarios as well as two business-as-usual scenarios as part of its analysis. It found that the Clean Power Plan is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by between 16 percent and 22 percent from 2012 levels by 2030.
States Evaluating Compliance Options
States are already in the process of evaluating their compliance options to implement the rule in advance of the Sept. 6 deadline to submit their initial plans to the EPA (06 DEN B-4, 1/11/16).
However, the rule faces legal challenges from 27 states and some, like Alabama, have said they plan to postpone their compliance planning until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issues its decision on whether to stay implementation of the Clean Power Plan during litigation, a decision that could come shortly (06 DEN A-4, 1/11/16).
-
Analysis Calls Rule 'Very Achievable'
Jan 14, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A new study analyzing different compliance scenarios for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan calls the new rule "very achievable."
The analysis by M.J. Bradley & Associates, an environmental consulting firm, also found the United States could sustain a diverse energy mix under the program, which compels states to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The analysis also found that having states or companies trade emissions credits or allowances can "significantly" help them reduce the costs associated with the Clean Power Plan.
"This comprehensive analysis shows that, by various pathways, the Clean Power Plan's carbon pollution reduction goals are very achievable," Christopher Van Atten, a senior vice president at the firm, said in a statement.
The Clean Power Plan aims to lower carbon emissions from power plants 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. States are currently developing compliance plans even as the courts weigh the new standards.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will soon decide whether to halt the Clean Power Plan while legal challenges play out.
Nearly 150 opponents, including 27 states, have sued to overturn the rule. Those critics say the program is illegal and will impose burdensome compliance costs.
M.J. Bradley said it developed 14 scenarios for complying with the rule, including some with different amounts of energy efficiency baked into the equation.
The firm also analyzed both mass- and rate-based compliance approaches; EPA is allowing states to choose between the two. Utilities, trade associations and nonprofit organizations provided input for the analysis.
M.J. Bradley predicted wind and solar would grow under all scenarios and supply between 11 and 15 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.
But the analysis also showed that nuclear power, natural gas and coal can remain part of the energy mix under the Clean Power Plan. Natural gas, for example, is projected in all scenarios to make up between 25 and 32 percent of electricity in 2030.
"The nation's electricity sector can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions," Van Atten said, "and employing a mix of clean energy resources will both help clean up the air and cut costs of doing so."
Energy efficiency programs can lower compliance costs because they lead to fewer new power plants being built and less energy being used at existing facilities, the report also concluded.
The firm found that customers' electricity bills would drop, on average between 5 and 20 percent, under the Clean Power Plan.
The analysis does not take into account recent congressional action to extend wind and solar energy tax credits, but M.J. Bradley said it would add the extensions in future studies.
In states choosing a mass-based approach -- in which regulators cap carbon emissions from the power sector and allocate allowances based on that cap -- M.J. Bradley warned of "leakage." In other words, carbon emissions could shift to new power plants that aren't part of the program.
Wrapping those new plants into the allowance program would be the "most straightforward approach" to address the issue, the firm said.
-
Court Urged to Reject Groups' Letter on Boiler MACT
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals court should reject a recent letter filed by environmental groups in litigation over the Environmental Protection Agency's emissions standards for major source boilers because it did not raise any new information, industry groups said (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, letter filed 1/13/16).
The Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, in a Jan. 12 letter, argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should not consider arguments from the Sierra Club and other environmental groups that an EPA policy is supported by circuit precedent and Clean Air Act language. The environmental groups inappropriately attempted to use their letter, which advised the court of supplemental authorities in the litigation, to make a new argument that could have been raised at the briefing stage, the industry groups said.
At issue is the EPA's policy to rely on enforcement discretion rather than promulgating separate emissions standards to address exceedances of the boiler standards that directly resulted from unavoidable equipment malfunctions. The major source boiler standards apply to more than 14,000 existing boilers and are estimated to cost industry $1.6 billion annually.
The environmental groups, in a Jan. 7 letter, argued that a 2015 D.C. Circuit decision in litigation against the Transportation Security Administration supports the EPA's interpretation that the Clean Air Act allowed it to rely on case-by-case discretion to address malfunctions (Airlines For Am. & Int'l Air Transp. Ass'n v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 780 F.3d 409, 2015 BL 63152 (D.C. Cir. 2015; 06 DEN A-1, 1/11/16).
The industry petitioners said that decision, which the environmental groups described as recent, was actually decided nine months before the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments over the maximum achievable control technology standards for boilers. In addition, the industry groups argued, that opinion “merely reiterates” a longstanding legal doctrine on judicial deference towards agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language established in a 1984 Supreme Court decision (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 21 ERC 1049 (1984)).
Argument on the Boiler MACT standards (RIN 2060-AQ25, RIN 2060-AR13), as well as standards covering area source boilers (RIN 2060-AM44; RIN 2060-AR14) and commercial and solid waste incinerators (RIN 2060-AO12; RIN 2060-AR15), was held Dec. 3. The court has not yet issued its opinion.
Ronald A. Shipley, a Maryland-based attorney representing the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, filed the letter on behalf of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the American Petroleum Institute and other industry petitioners.
-
States Want Say in EPA Multipurpose Grant Allocation
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
State environmental agencies are applauding Congress for creating a new $21 million multipurpose grant program for the Environmental Protection Agency and are asking the EPA to work with them in determining where this money should go. In a Jan. 12 letter to the EPA, Martha Rudolph, president of the Environmental Council of the States, described the new grant program as a rare opportunity for the EPA and states to direct money “to priorities they identify … as opposed to specifically directed activities.” Rudolph asked the EPA to work with the states to develop a formula for allocating this program's grants. The multipurpose grant program was established as a part of the omnibus federal spending bill (H.R. 2029), which was signed by the President on Dec. 18 (246 DEN A-4, 12/23/15). Rudolph also sent a separate letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees thanking them for the flexibility the program affords to the states and asking them to renew it in this year's federal spending bills.
-
Obama Touts Climate Legacy But Opposition Lingers
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Barack Obama in his final State of the Union address touted his efforts to combat climate change, including a landmark international agreement reached by more than 190 countries in Paris, but congressional Republicans said his efforts will still face strenuous opposition domestically.
Republicans have vowed to undercut U.S. participation in the international agreements reached in Paris Dec. 12, which included essentially voluntary pledges of climate actions from developed and developing nations. It also formalized a commitment from richer industrialized nations to provide $100 billion annually in private and public funds beginning in 2020 to help developing nations adapt to climate impacts.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told Bloomberg BNA after Obama's speech that it is still unclear whether that largely voluntary agreement will translate into action on climate change.
“History is in the process of being written, but I think it's hard to say what's going to come out of all that,” Thune said. “Things get signed and the question is, whether those actions are followed through,” according to Thune, who holds the number three position in Republican Senate leadership.
Congressional Republicans remain largely opposed to any climate aid the U.S. would provide under the deal, Thune added.
“Obviously he will meet a lot of resistance in Congress if he decides he wants to invest enormous amounts of money in some of these areas of the world,” Thune said. “I think he's going to have a hard time getting appropriations to do that.”
Obama had highlighted the Paris climate accord in his Jan. 12 speech as proof that his efforts to restore U.S. leadership in international negotiations paid dividends with the 2015 deal, the first in which developed and developing nations alike committed to climate action. Renewed U.S. leadership on the climate front paved the way for what Obama called “the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change” and one “that helps vulnerable countries” adapt to climate impacts.
‘Lonely’ Voices Challenging Climate Science
With continued opposition expected, the president 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 Jan. 12 speech 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 dioxide emissions limits for power plants.
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) said Obama will get high marks by the end of his presidency for taking those actions, particularly given opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress. “How will history judge all this? I think good,” Brown told Bloomberg BNA after the speech.
“This guy had a lot of success and he was up against the most organized, focused entire eight-year opposition of one political party—unprecedented in this nation's history,” Brown said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), in a Jan. 12 statement, said the president's climate actions represent little more than a “war on fossil fuels” from “unbridled mandates being issued by the EPA.” Increased domestic production of oil and natural gas in the U.S. has come “in spite of the president's policies,” Inhofe said, which are “intended to stifle the development of our domestic resources.”
Falling Short on a Climate Bill
Obama made his first pitch for congressional climate action in 2009 in his address to a joint session of Congress—his first State of the Union address would come a year later—calling for passage of climate change legislation to include a “market-based cap” on greenhouse gas emissions.
That request came amid the economic turmoil of a deep recession and months before a bruising battle over health care reform, which would leave many Democrats wary of tackling the 1,000-page plus climate bill.
Obama's call to action 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. But Obama's two-term presidency will end almost certainly short of his goal of getting U.S. climate legislation enacted.
Looking back, Obama's push for the cap-and-trade bill was always an uphill battle, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Bloomberg BNA after Obama's speech. “The president was focused very much at that time on, first and foremost, passing the Affordable Care Act” to address health care issues, Van Hollen said.
“He prioritized that, and so I think he recognizes that the politics made it difficult to pass a major piece of energy legislation after that” push for the health care bill, he said.
“I hope we can get back to the point in this country where we can have a bipartisan discussion on an energy bill” that addresses the climate issue comprehensively, according to Van Hollen, a member of the House Democratic leadership who is campaigning for the Maryland Senate seat held by Democrat Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring.
A bill (H.R. 1027) introduced by Van Hollen in February 2015 would require oil, coal and natural gas sectors to purchase carbon permits for each ton of greenhouse gases they emit, with all revenue returned to U.S. households (37 DEN A-14, 2/25/15).
Credit Claimed on Renewable Expansion
On renewable energy, the president claimed credit for the expansion of wind, solar and other clean energy sources and the reduced costs of those technologies during his two-term presidency.
But his 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,” Obama said.
“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,” Obama said.
While the speech stopped short of offering new domestic energy and climate policies, Obama did signal that his administration continues to review the issue of royalties collected for coal mined on public land (see related story).
“Now we've got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy,” Obama said. “Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future,” he said, particularly in coal regions and other communities that have long relied on fossil fuels.
The president has been urged by Democratic senators to ensure the Interior Department accounts for the social costs imposed by carbon in calculating those royalties (232 DEN A-3, 12/3/15).
Obama also made a brief reference to rolling back regulatory burdens, a concern Republicans have raised repeatedly during his seven years in office. But he offered no new initiatives to cut actual regulations.
“I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy,” Obama said. “I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there's red tape that needs to be cut,” he said.
-
Cuomo Proposes Aggressive Climate Agenda for 2016
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) proposed closing New York's two coal-fired power plants and increasing state funds for projects to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as part of an aggressive climate change agenda for the state in 2016.
Cuomo, in a joint budget and State of the State proposal Jan. 13, said he would direct the Public Service Commission to start a proceeding to close the state's two coal plants by 2020. The state would provide $19 million in job training and assistance to offset financial losses in the communities where the plants are located.
“Let's become the international capital for clean and green energy,” Cuomo said in his speech. “I believe this is the economy of tomorrow.”
As part of his proposal, Cuomo also recommended increasing the state Environmental Protection Fund to $300 million and expanding the types of projects that may be funded to include reducing greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, water treatment plants and commercial buildings. The fund also would be used for climate change mitigation and adaptation projects.
Cuomo announced earlier this month that his budget would include a record $300 million for the state's Environmental Protection Fund and another $250 million for water infrastructure projects (03 DEN A-9, 1/6/16).
Cuomo also said the state would reduce carbon dioxide emissions at state facilities by constructing five megawatts of solar power at state parks and expanding the use of solar and renewable energy at all 64 campuses operated by the State University of New York.
Cuomo also proposed:
• $9 million to build zero emission vehicle charging stations;
• a goal of increasing the energy efficiency of an additional 500,000 homes and 20,000 businesses by 2020;
• construction of 300 additional wind turbines and creation of an offshore wind master plan; and
• an 8.2 percent increase in the budget for the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
.
Many of Cuomo's proposals must still be approved by the state Legislature.
-
House Passes Resolution to Overturn Water Jurisdiction Rule
Jan 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The House approved a joint resolution Jan. 13 to overturn an Obama administration rule to clarify the regulatory scope of the Clean Water Act but was unable to muster a two-thirds, veto-proof majority.
The resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res. 22), passed on a vote of 253-166, now goes to President Barack Obama, who is expected to veto it.
The resolution would invoke the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Clean Water Rule, which clarifies the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly promulgated it June 29 (RIN 2040-AF30; 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054).
The Senate passed S.J. Res. 22 in November by a vote of 53-44 (214 DEN A-20, 11/5/15).
The resolution can take effect if both chambers secure a two-thirds majority to overturn the promised presidential veto.
The Clean Water Rule, commonly known as the waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule, has been opposed by manufacturers, roadbuilders, miners and farmers, who say it could increase permitting costs because of the extra effort needed to determine if waters or wetlands on their properties are subject to Clean Water Act requirements.
‘Waste of Time.'
During the House debate on the resolution, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called the House vote a “waste of time.” The president will veto the measure as promised, he said, and it will return to the Senate, which in November also failed to secure the two-thirds vote needed to override the veto.
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who supports the measure, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 13 the bill has some bipartisan support, but not enough to overcome a veto.
“What's more important is that the American public will see what is going on, and that Congress doesn't want this rule,” Gibbs said. He chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. The full committee has oversight of the implementation of clean water programs by the EPA Office of Water and the corps civil works program.
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the full committee, who supported the resolution, reminded the House that 32 states oppose the WOTUS rule. “That's significant,” he said.
Shuster and Gibbs authored the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act (H.R. 1732) that the House passed in May, which would send the rule back to the agencies for a rewrite. A similar bill introduced in the Senate failed to pass on procedural grounds (92 DEN A-3, 5/13/15; 213 DEN A-18, 11/4/15).
DeFazio repeatedly reminded House members that current confusion over which waters and wetlands fall under Clean Water Act protections is because the agencies are operating under guidance issued under the Bush administration. He quoted the American Farm Bureau Federation, a critic of the Clean Water Rule, as saying the Bush-era guidance resulted in a “hodge podge and inconsistent” interpretation of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Rule can't be causing confusion because it has been put on hold nationwide by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pending a decision, expected any day, on which federal court is best suited to hear the multiple challenges against it, DeFazio said (Ohio v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs. (In re EPA and Dep't of Def. Final Rule), 6th Cir., No. 15-3799, 10/9/15; 236 DEN A-1, 12/9/15).
Shuster reminded the House of Obama's State of the Union address in which the president acknowledged there are outdated rules that need to be changed. Shuster called on Obama to sign the measure and to show he meant what he said (see related story).
“If the president is really honest, he would sign this bill. If he's sincere about this statement, he should sign it,” Gibbs told Bloomberg BNA.
However, Gibbs said he fears Obama's statement had more to do with reworking existing rules that aren't to his liking and redoing them to make them “more intrusive and one-size-fits-all regulations.”
Gibbs has repeatedly warned, as he did again on the House floor, that the Clean Water Rule allows the federal government to claim jurisdiction over any water at any time of its choosing. He particularly objected to the broad discretion the rule grants to the agencies in using a case-by-case analysis to assert jurisdiction over waters and wetlands.
For the first time, the administration's Clean Water Rule defines tributaries and limits statutory coverage for wetlands and waters based on their proximity to navigable waters and their tributaries. The rule also allows the agencies to determine jurisdiction on a case-specific basis by assessing the impact isolated wetlands and waters have on downstream navigable waters, either singly or in combination with similarly situated waters and wetlands.
Gibbs said the jurisdiction rule sets a “very high bar” for property owners to prove the waters or wetlands aren't jurisdictional.
“This rule establishes the presumption that all waters are jurisdictional,” thereby shifting the burden to property owners to prove otherwise, he said.
Congressional Republican leadership also weighed in on the rule.
“The Obama administration's sweeping new rule, dubbed Waters of the United States (WOTUS), could upend the way water is used across the country,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) wrote in an op-ed in the Jan. 13 Omaha World-Herald.
Following the House vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to social media to make his opposition known. “With the House voting to overturn #WOTUS land grab, @POTUS has to decide if he stands with the people or out-of-control fed bureaucrats,” McConnell tweeted.
A day prior to the House vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advocated support for the measure, while the League of Conservation Voters urged opposition.
-
Moderate House Dems Shift Away From Bid To Kill WOTUS
Jan 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Tiffany Stecker
Opponents of the Obama administration's hot-button regulation to define federally protected waters have lost the support of moderate Democrats in the House, compared with votes on a similar measure last year to block the rule.
The House easily passed S.J. Res. 22 this morning 262-152, with a lone Republican -- Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey -- voting in opposition to the measure, which would stop the U.S. EPA-Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS (Greenwire, Jan. 13).
Though passage was expected in the Republican-majority House, the legislation received eight fewer votes than last year's vote for H.R. 1732, which would have forced EPA and the Army Corps to withdraw the then-proposed rule within 30 days and create a consultation process with state and local communities and interest groups (E&E Daily, May 13, 2015).
The following Democrats voted last year to block the rule but voted against this morning's resolution: Reps. Cheri Bustos, Danny Davis and Robin Kelly of Illinois; John Carney of Delaware; James Clyburn of South Carolina; John Delaney of Maryland; Sean Maloney of New York; Gene Green of Texas; Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona; and Eric Swalwell of California.
Fourteen lawmakers did not vote for today's resolution, compared with 16 last year.
Smith also voted yesterday against another GOP attempt to block an Obama administration water rulemaking, the stream protection rule. A total of 10 Republicans opposed that bill (E&E Daily, Jan. 13).
-
House Votes to Overturn Expanded Waterway Regulations
Jan 13, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
The House on Wednesday voted to overturn regulations aimed at bringing more waterways under federal protection, the latest in a series of clashes between Congress and the White House over President Barack Obama’s environmental agenda.
The White House has threatened to veto the measure, and Congress is unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities required to override a veto. The Senate passed a similar measure in early November.
The water regulations, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were slated to take effect in mid-2015, but a federal court in October suspended the rules while legal challenges play out.
The dispute highlights the dynamic of Mr. Obama’s environmental push during his final year in office as he scrambles to defend a series of executive rules against challenges in Congress and the courts.
Republicans see these moves as federal overreach. The water rule is “another example of Washington bureaucrats sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) in an opinion column in the Omaha World-Herald in Nebraska, where Mr. Obama visited on Wednesday.
Wednesday’s 253-166 vote, largely along party lines, is part of a larger campaign by the GOP to repudiate Mr. Obama’s environmental agenda. Given the president’s veto power, the fights will have to be resolved in the courts—or potentially changed by a GOP president.
In late December, Mr. Obama vetoed two measures Congress had passed a few weeks earlier that blocked EPA rules cutting carbon emissions from new and existing power plants, the cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s plan to address climate change.
Earlier this week, the House approved legislation delaying a proposed Interior Department rule to put tighter restrictions on coal mining near streams, a move that would affect mining in Eastern and Midwestern states the most. The bill drew a White House veto threat. The Senate hasn’t voted on the measure yet.
The water regulation, though not core to Mr. Obama’s climate agenda, has become one of the administration’s most high-profile and controversial regulations in recent years.
Opponents of the rule, which include a range of agriculture and energy companies and their congressional representatives from rural and energy-intensive states, say the regulation amounts to a federal intrusion into states’ rights. The Obama administration maintains the rule is necessary to clarify two earlier Supreme Court rulings on the issue.
“Clean water is vital for the success of the nation’s businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health of our communities,” the White House said in threatening to veto the Senate version of the measure, and if enacted, it “would nullify years of work and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water.”
The water rule, issued last May, is estimated to put about 3% more waterways in the U.S. under federal jurisdiction. That would require a federal permit to pollute those waters and could restrict access altogether.
Major waterways, like most rivers and lakes, are already under protection of the Clean Water Act and aren’t affected.
More than 30 states have challenged the rule on several legal grounds, and a ruling from the Cincinnati-based Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could come within the next few months.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested