Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/15/16
-
‘Monsanto Rider’ Would Shield Chemical Giant From Liability for Injuries Caused by PCBs in Public Schools
Mar 15, 2016 | Eco Watch
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The New York Times reported last month that Congressional Republicans have clandestinely inserted a provision into the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reauthorization bill that will give Monsanto permanent immunity from liability for injuries caused by its toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The long awaited and grievously needed bill is now in the Conference Committee for reconciliation with a companion Senate bill. -
Prominent Chemist: We Are Facing a ‘Crisis of Innovation’
Mar 15, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
It’s no secret that the world of chemicals manufacturing has an image problem. As the Toxic Substance Control Act reform plays out in the public phrases like “80,000 un-tested chemicals are on the marketplace,” are touted almost daily. -
US NTP Science Board to Review Haloacetic Acids
Mar 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) is set to discuss di- and tri-haloacetic acids, at an upcoming meeting. -
U.S. Chamber's Harbert Says EPA Used 'Unreasonable' Assumptions on Renewables in Rule Targets
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As momentum toward clean and alternative energy investments in the electric power sector grows, how are states that have chosen to suspend their Clean Power Plan planning balancing the demands of utilities for certainty with calls for the rule to be overturned by the courts? During today's OnPoint, Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, discusses her organization's next steps as litigation on the power plan ramps up. -
Enviros Hopeful Leasing Plan Will Embrace Climate Commitments
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Environmental groups said yesterday that they hope the Interior Department will remove the Arctic and Atlantic oceans from a forthcoming oil and gas leasing plan in order to make good on U.S. climate commitments. -
Obama Rescinds Atlantic Coast Drilling Plan
Mar 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama is rescinding his proposal to open the Atlantic coast to offshore drilling after encountering strong opposition. -
California Regulator Sees Possible NatGas Shortages For Power Generation
Mar 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A member of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Monday signaled concerns about possible curtailments of natural gas to power generation plants due to the closure of the state’s largest underground gas storage field, Aliso Canyon. -
Activists Demand Action Against Industrial Chemical in Water
Mar 15, 2016 | New York Times
By Associated Press
Prized for its ability to make things super-slick, it was used for decades in the manufacture of Teflon pans, Gore-Tex jackets, ski wax, carpets and the linings of pizza boxes and microwave popcorn bags. -
Contamination from Closed Factories Roils Northeast
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
More than a decade after a chemical factory closed in a Vermont village, residents there are joining others across the Northeast in staring down the polluted legacy of their industrial past. -
'Heroic' Action Sways Regulators to Propose Two-Person Oil Train Crews
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators say the "heroic" actions of a BNSF Railway Co. employee during a fiery 2013 oil train derailment show the need to keep more than one person on trains hauling hazardous materials. -
North Carolina Holds Back On Suing EPA Over Petition To Expand OTC
Mar 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
North Carolina is holding back on its threat to file a lawsuit to compel EPA to respond to a petition by several states asking the agency to greatly expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states where tougher ozone control measures apply than elsewhere, as uncertainty lingers on EPA's response. -
State Considers Emergency Toxic Air Rules
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality yesterday advanced a set of emergency rules to end a loophole that allowed glassmakers to legally emit dangerous metals like arsenic and cadmium without safeguards. -
EPA Critics Fear Agency 'Piling' CWA, ESA Enforcement For Waterbodies
Mar 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA critics including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and one industry attorney are warning that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are "piling" enforcement of the Clean Water Act (CWA) on top of litigation under other statutes such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), warning that the agencies are trying to expand the CWA's scope. -
Probe Finds High Arsenic Levels at Taps Across Texas
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
Dozens of communities in Texas have delivered drinking water tainted with a known carcinogen, says a new analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project. -
EPA Official to Defend Handling of Flint Water Crisis
Mar 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
A former Environmental Protection Agency administrator planned to defend her handling of lead contamination in Flint, Mich., at a congressional hearing Tuesday that promised to lay bare tensions between city, state and federal officials over who is most to blame for the city’s water woes.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Mar 15, 2016 | Eco Watch
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The New York Times reported last month that Congressional Republicans have clandestinely inserted a provision into the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reauthorization bill that will give Monsanto permanent immunity from liability for injuries caused by its toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The long awaited and grievously needed bill is now in the Conference Committee for reconciliation with a companion Senate bill. The so-called “Monsanto Rider” would shield the chemical colossus from thousands of lawsuits by cities, towns, school districts and individuals, who have been injured by exposure to PCBs.
PCBs are known human carcinogens and potent endocrine disruptors, which can interfere with physical, intellectual and sexual development in children. PCBs persist in the environment and bio accumulate in animals and humans. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), children exposed to PCBs can suffer damage to their immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. Two recent publications from U.S. EPA and the National Institute Environmental Health Science Children’s Center at UC Davis report that PCBs can disrupt early brain development, by hijacking the signals that promote normal neuron branching which increase the risk of brain damage, including autism. Between 1935 and 1977, Monsantowas the exclusive manufacturer of PCBs in the U.S. Congress banned the manufacturing of PCBs in 1979 over concerns about its potential to cause severe health and environmental injury.
I’ve been sparring over PCBs since the start of my 32-year career as an environmental lawyer. For more than three decades I have been litigating and campaigning against General Electric (GE) to force the clean-up of the Hudson River. PCBs manufactured by Monsanto and dumped by GE have contaminated 200 miles of the Hudson, which is the country’s largest superfund site. GE’s long awaited Hudson River clean-up is now ongoing, but the Hudson is not America’s only PCB contaminated waterway.
Monsanto’s PCBs have poisoned 80,000 river miles elsewhere in our nation from Washington state’s Duwamish River to Connecticut’s Housatonic. Seattle and six other cities are currently in litigation with Monsanto to force the company to clean up local rivers and bays. The GOP’s TSCA’s shield provision would dismiss all those lawsuits. Congress would have the public, not the polluters pay to clean up Monsanto’s monumental mess.
Of even greater concern is the burgeoning issue of PCBs in our public schools.
Monsanto marketed PCB-based caulking to schools and other municipal buildings throughout the U.S beginning in 1950, touting the chemical’s ability to contract and expand with changing temperatures. Studies suggest that any school built or renovated between 1950 and 1977 may contain PCBs. As the scientific evidence about PCB hazards to human health accumulated in the early 1970’s, and regulatory agencies and Congress began moving toward a ban, Monsanto amplified its aggressive marketing of plasticizer PCBs for use in caulk that was applied throughout America’s public schools. Despite Monsanto’s own internal conclusion in 1969 that PCBs were becoming “global environmental contaminants,” Monsanto increased its production of PCBs which peaked in 1970 at 85 million pounds.
The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that 45 percent of all schools in the U.S. (approximately 45,000) were built during this era. About 27 to 54 percent of all these schools—12,000 to 25,000 nationwide—may contain PCBs with little variation among U.S. regions. The costs of mitigation and remediation ranges from $750,000 to $3.1 million per building. The total costs to school districts across the nation could be upwards of $80 billion. As the exclusive manufacturer of PCBs in the U.S., Monsanto is responsible for these damages. I am representing school districts across the country who are suing Monsanto to pay the costs of removing contaminated caulking and PCB laden light bulb ballasts.
TSCA section 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), which was enacted in 1977, requires that every school district with PCBs in caulking and lighting ballasts greater than 50 parts per million, immediately remove these contaminants to safeguard school children’s health. However, in 2009, the EPA implemented an informal policy allowing school districts to delay remediation until such time as there were major renovations or demolition of the contaminated structure. The EPA told the school districts that it would not enforce that law if the school district chose to wait.
While this unpromulgated and illegal EPA policy seemed like a concession to financially pressed school districts, it was actually a monumental gift to Monsanto. Most schools, low on cash flow, chose to delay the expensive and logistically challenging remediation projects indefinitely, despite the danger to children. When delays stretch past the five year statute of limitations (which begins running when the school district becomes aware—or should have been aware—of the contamination), Monsanto is off the hook. Those $80 billion in Monsanto’s costs are then transferred to local school districts. As predicted, school districts given the option to delay, mostly did just that despite the awful consequences to future taxpayers.
It’s important to understand that if a single school district in a state files a class action lawsuit against Monsanto to recover remediation costs, the statute of limitations is tolled for every district in that state. In most states, no district has filed a class action lawsuit. However, one courageous, pioneering district in Massachusetts chose to file, and that suit had the effect of tolling the statute for every school in that state—creating a deep pool of potential liability for Monsanto. GOP’s new shield provision is designed to abolish Monsanto’s liability as a favor to the company, which has donated $39 million to politicians over 30 years.
Documents uncovered during our litigation have confirmed Monsanto’s sickeningly corrupt corporate culture. Instead of being a good corporate citizen, Monsanto’s decision making matrix puts greed before public health and welfare.
As early as the 1930’s and 1940’s, Monsanto was aware that prolonged occupational exposure to PCBs might cause liver damage in humans. A Monsanto memorandum dated Sept. 20, 1955, stated:
“We know Aroclors [PCBs] are toxic but the actual limit has not been precisely defined.”
In late 1968, Monsanto learned that Japanese citizens were becoming ill from eating rice oil contaminated with Japanese manufactured PCBs. The company responded with a draft Oct. 2, 1969 directive stressing a preeminent focus on its bottom line:
“The objective of the [PCB] committee was to recommend action that will: 1. Protect continued sales and profits of Aroclors; 2. Permit continued development of new uses and sales, and; 3. Protect the image of the Organic Division and the Corporation as members of the business community …”
An internal draft document dated Oct. 2, 1969, illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the company:
“The committee believes there is little probability that any action that can be taken [that] will prevent the growing incrimination of specific [PCBs] (the higher chlorinated—e.g. Aroclors 1254 and 1260) as nearly global environmental contaminants leading to contamination of human food (particularly fish), the killing of some marine species (shrimp), and the possible extinction of several species of fish-eating birds. There are, however, a number of actions which must be undertaken in order to prolong the manufacture, sale and use of these particular Aroclors as well as to protect the continued use of other members of the Aroclor series.”
A document dated Jan. 26, 1970, The PCB-Pollution Problem, describes a Jan. 21 and 22, 1970 meeting between representatives of GE and Monsanto. This document appears to make a commitment by Monsanto science and safety division to fraudulently massage scientific data to make their dangerous product appear safe. The document states (emphasis added):
“In essence, results reported by Mr. Wheeler on chronic animal toxicity tests and animal reproducibility studies underway are not as favorable as we had hoped or anticipated. Particularly alarming is evidence of effect on hatchability and production of thin egg shells regards white leghorn chickens. The studies involved Aroclor 1242, 1254 and 1260. Some of the studies will be repeated to arrive at better conclusions.”
The GOP is currently working to rewrite TSCA to assure that no jury will ever see these or the many other damning documents in our possession.
If Monsanto gets its way, the American people will pay a high price for corporate greed and political corruption.
https://ecowatch.com/2016/03/15/robert-kennedy-jr-monsanto-rider/
-
Prominent Chemist: We Are Facing a ‘Crisis of Innovation’
Mar 15, 2016 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
It’s no secret that the world of chemicals manufacturing has an image problem. As the Toxic Substance Control Act reform plays out in the public phrases like “80,000 un-tested chemicals are on the marketplace,” are touted almost daily.
Why are so many potentially hazardous chemicals manufactured? Regulations are often named as the culprit. But if you ask prominent chemist John Warner, the issue of safe chemicals has deeper roots than what the EPA can track.
During an eye-opening keynote address at InformEx, held this year in New Orleans, Warner outlined what he calls a “crisis of innovation” and how the principles of green chemistry can play a huge role in developing safer chemicals
His point of view is not surprising. Warner literally wrote the book on the subject in a textbook called“Green Chemistry: Theory And Practice,” that was co-authored with former EPA science advisor Paul Anastas. Published in 2000, the textbook has been translated into 15 languages and has helped propel Warner to a though-leader in the field.
His career is not short on other note-worth accomplishments. Warner spent years leading the research team at Polaroid, founded the PhD program in green chemistry at the University of Massachusetts, has travelled to 40 countries to speak, founded the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry and received a Perkin Medal from the Society of Chemical Industry — one of the highest honors given in chemistry.
Despite the accolades and the growing interest in green chemistry, Warner says the term is often misunderstood and associated with unrelated efforts like banning chemicals or producing new biofuels. Instead, the 12 principles of green chemistry Warner and Anastas outline in their book boil down to this straight-forward goal: to innovate chemicals that are safe for human and environmental health — while also being superior to existing chemicals in performance and cost.
It’s in the process of making chemicals with those requirements that Warner says innovation can thrive. After his keynote, I sat down with Warner to find out more about this “crisis of innovation” and how the industry can overcome it. Here’s how he breaks down the issue:
Around 65 percent of technologies haven’t been invented:
During his address, Warner posited that a high number of inventions that could happen haven’t come to light. It’s a number that seems to reveal a staggering failure in chemistry. But how did he come to that conclusion?By “technologies” Warner means safer alternatives to potentially toxic chemicals.
“If you assess a supply chain and look for the possibility of safer alternatives and try to find a company that provides that alternative…about 25 percent of the time you’ll find something, but 65 percent of the time, you’ll come up empty,” he explained.
When it comes to complying with Warner and Anastas’ 12 principles of green chemistry — which include “less hazardous chemical syntheses,” “designing safer chemicals,” “design for energy efficiency” and “reduce derivatives” — Warner said that roughly 95 percent of chemicals don’t make the grade.
The “publish or perish” climate of universities stifles innovation:
“I’m not saying universities don’t do a good job. They are under a lot of pressure,” Warner explained. “But this is a huge philosophical debate: Is the university serving society or does it serve itself?”Warner says it’s a situation that forces scientists to work on papers that often make little impact outside of the university walls.
“I think statistically most academic papers are never read,” Warner said.
Students aren’t taught to innovate:
“Each student has the capacity to invent, but they are convinced they don’t,” Warner said in his keynote about the hierarchal world of academic chemistry.Warner says students need to be freed to see what they can accomplish in a lab.
“When we start a project at my company, I forbid scientists to go to the library,” he explained in his keynote. “I make them go to the lab and trust their instincts without being biased [by other scientists’ previous research.]”
Universities don’t teach toxicology:
According to Warner, in the U.S. around 15,000 people graduate each year with degrees in chemistry, but no university requires a chemist to pass a class in toxicology — meaning that once these chemists start working, they don’t know if they could be on a path to create the next dangerous neurotoxin or cancer-causing chemical.Recently, Warner and other scientists went to Capitol Hill to argue that the U.S. needs to improve its training of chemists to include green chemistry principles. The increased emphasis on green chemistry would not only boost sustainability and safety efforts — by restricting a researcher to a set of guidelines they must follow, chemists will have to become more creative and thus, more innovative.
Chemists put themselves in buckets too much:
Rather than working in silos, Warner says chemists should work across different sectors of the industry — whether its pharmaceuticals, cosmetics or material sciences — to help each other.“A molecule doesn’t know if it’s a drug or in asphalt,” Warner said in his keynote.
Big companies can still innovate:
“The bigger the company, the more innovation happens. Five scientists can innovate five times faster,” Warner said in his keynote. But he warned: “In a big organization, the negation effect is also stronger. If an organization doesn’t keep in control the ‘dream robbers’ and the naysayers, they could throw that innovation away.”Chemists aren’t connected with their purpose:
Why are chemists in this line of work in the first place? It’s to serve society, Warner said — a mission too many scientists forget when they’re busy in the lab. This fix to this is easy: Start connecting with your community.“When I was a professor, I’d have about 30 to 40 people in my lab and I had a rule: At least twice a month, every scientist had to go to a classroom and explain their science,” Warner says. “We didn’t have a grant or a program — we just did this. The kids and the scientist loved it!
“Because if you’re looking at 3rd graders in the eyes and talking about your chemistry…you start thinking: Isn’t what we do as scientists ultimately for them? If not, what are we doing?” Warner said. “We have a need to serve society.”
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/03/prominent-chemist-we-are-facing-crisis-innovation
-
US NTP Science Board to Review Haloacetic Acids
Mar 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) is set to discuss di- and tri-haloacetic acids, at an upcoming meeting.
The substances, found as water disinfection byproducts, have been nominated for possible inclusion in the 14th Report on Carcinogens (RoC), which is currently under development.
The meeting is scheduled for 11 April. The deadline for written public comments, and preregistration for providing oral comments, is 4 April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/45704/us-ntp-science-board-to-review-haloacetic-acids
-
U.S. Chamber's Harbert Says EPA Used 'Unreasonable' Assumptions on Renewables in Rule Targets
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As momentum toward clean and alternative energy investments in the electric power sector grows, how are states that have chosen to suspend their Clean Power Plan planning balancing the demands of utilities for certainty with calls for the rule to be overturned by the courts? During today's OnPoint, Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, discusses her organization's next steps as litigation on the power plan ramps up.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy. Karen, nice to have you back on the show. Thanks for coming on.
Karen Harbert: Nice to be here. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Karen, the chamber has been one of the leading voices opposing EPA's Clean Power Plan. Now that the rule has been stayed, have you shifted your messaging on the plan as litigation begins?
Karen Harbert: Well we are a main opponent of the Clean Power Plan, but we're in good company because there's 159 different organizations and states that have sued the EPA, and now we have -- and there's a number of amicus that have been filed, so I think the momentum continues even with the stay to show why this is wrong, how it is going to affect the economy, and the businesses are really speaking up.
Monica Trauzzi: And the institute recently released a report where you cited unreasonable renewable energy assumptions by EPA when it assigned state targets in the final rule. What do you see as the key calculation issue that the agency made?
Karen Harbert: I think that's probably plural because there's a number of flaws. This rule is interesting in that it is legally flawed, it is technically flawed, it is economically flawed, and now all of the bottom-line assumptions that EPA put into this rule have now been fun to have messy math as we call it. So it is no wonder you have all of this opposition, and now we have 166 chambers that have joined into the fight representing 40 states. That's in my book a plurality of opposition, and it's because it is so messy and incomprehensible.
Monica Trauzzi: By E&E's latest count, 19 states have indicated they will continue planning for the Clean Power Plan, 19 states have suspending planning. Are the states that have suspending their planning, are they missing out on some potential business opportunities in the clean energy space? Because there are so many states who are moving forward.
Karen Harbert: Well I think the Supreme Court got it right when they said not only are we staying it, but if it is upheld in whatever court upholds it that then EPA has to reset the clock. So they're not losing any time, and those that are actually in the planning stage right now are actually giving up some time because they're going to be afforded time later and can make more informed decisions once we understand the outcome of the legal challenges.
Monica Trauzzi: But at that point you're not talking about the EPA's timeline necessarily, you're just talking about business and investments. So are opportunities being lost?
Karen Harbert: Well business looks for certainty rather than uncertainty, and if they don't know what the final rule will look like or even if there will be one, it's hard to make investment decisions along those regards. So I think everybody is holding back waiting to see what these challenges produce. I mean this is the most challenged rule in EPA's history, so there's a lot on the line here and businesses are going to wait and see what comes out of the process.
Monica Trauzzi: But there's no denying that the momentum in the electric power sector is moving towards a changing business model, investments in alternative forms of energy, so even if the power plan is struck down by the courts, won't coal-heavy states still have to start making that pivot and that transition to cleaner energy?
Karen Harbert: Well I think we have a market shift because we have an economic shift. I mean natural gas prices, who would've thought they could be this low, and so people are investing in natural gas. We do have abundant renewable opportunities in this country. The value in this is diversity and so we don't want to back any type of fuel out of the system. We can't just eliminate coal because we can't make it up with these other sources. Everybody's seat at the table is starting to change a little bit, but everybody's still at the dinner table and that's important to realize that coal is not being backed out entirely. It is under duress from market conditions and also from the slew of EPA regulations.
Monica Trauzzi: There are states who are part of the lawsuit who have indicated they will continue planning for the Clean Power Plan. Does that weaken the argument against the plan?
Karen Harbert: Well states are going to make the decision that's right for them, whether it's a plan A or a plan B, but they're going to have to redo the planning process once this is over because things will change if EPA is directed to change things from the court system.
Monica Trauzzi: What do you make of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy saying that the stay does not slow down the energy transition from the Clean Power Plan, that the Clean Power Plan was underpinning, and that the stay is not slowing the agency down?
Karen Harbert: Well I don't understand that because the court has spoken and I think all of us in the United States live under the legal system. So the court has said "stop, stay," and you don't need to do anything until the court system decides what the outcome of this is. So they have shown repeatedly that they are on an aggressive posture to regulate every form of energy. As late as today they are announcing another slew of regulations on the fossil fuel industry, so they're relentless. That doesn't mean they're right.
Monica Trauzzi: You used the word "relentless." A lot of this has occurred, a lot of this regulation has occurred as a result of Congress not acting. Would that be a better alternative at this point?
Karen Harbert: Well I think we've always said Congress should be involved in this, and quite frankly in this regulation the American people and the business community was left out of it because let's not forget the final rule for the Clean Power Plan is so different than the proposed rule. Nobody had a chance to comment on this. So whether it's the American people, the business community, the utilities, the industries that are being regulated, nobody had a say in this, and Congress at the end of the day will have to be the one to adjudicate this in the future.
Monica Trauzzi: But EPA says that all of those changes in the final rule came as a result of all the comments that were made about the proposed rule.
Karen Harbert: But it's hard to imagine the dramatic change in targets. If you look at North Dakota and the huge increase in reductions, you look at California that actually had a reduction in its targets, there's some things there that were just impossible to explain and EPA has not stepped forward and said "We're going to explain it to you." This is why we released a report that says what's in your target, and you look at how the math adds up. It doesn't add up. That's the problem.
Monica Trauzzi: So heading into litigation, the D.C. Circuit panel is considered to be one that's potentially more favorable to EPA, but we also know that the justices on the Supreme Court are keeping a close eye on the proceedings and the outcome. Any change in calculation or strategy on your end heading into the litigation?
Karen Harbert: Well we're really confident in our legal arguments and increasingly confident that we have shown demonstrable economic harm to a broad variety of industries and a huge swath of the economy. When you have business organizations in 40 states step forward and say "This is bad for my state," the court has to listen to some of these things. It's just unprecedented with this amount of opposition.
Monica Trauzzi: It's expected of course that after the D.C. Circuit takes this up, we'll see the Supreme Court also taking up this role, and clearly the president's pick to fill Justice Scalia's spot on the court will be a game changer in terms of the prospects of the rule. If someone like Sri Srinivasan is the pick, how good are your chances then before the Supreme Court?
Karen Harbert: Well again I think the court has demonstrated an interest in this case already by issuing the stay. It's like forecasting oil. I can't forecast the Supreme Court. That's a dangerous business, but we have supreme confidence in the Supreme Court taking this case very seriously and listening to the business voice that is so important in this argument.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there. Always nice to have you on the show.
Karen Harbert: Nice to see you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2108/transcript
-
Enviros Hopeful Leasing Plan Will Embrace Climate Commitments
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
Environmental groups said yesterday that they hope the Interior Department will remove the Arctic and Atlantic oceans from a forthcoming oil and gas leasing plan in order to make good on U.S. climate commitments.
As early as today, Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) could release the second iteration of areas it would offer up for oil and gas drilling during the 2017-22 program.
The New York Times reported late last night that the Obama administration in fact intends to withdraw its plan to allow offshore drilling off the Atlantic coast. But in the first draft of the five-year oil plan, the agency suggested 14 potential lease sales: 10 in the Gulf of Mexico; three offshore from Alaska; and one, for the first time in more than 30 years, in the Atlantic.
Activists said they are hopeful that the plan will hew to Obama's pledges to tackle climate change.
"There's simply no reason to offer new leases in the Arctic Ocean," said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel with Oceana. "It would be inconsistent with the president's commitment to taking meaningful action to solve climate change, and it would be bad environmental and fiscal policy."
But the Consumer Energy Alliance issued a statement blasting the administration over reports that Interior is planning to exclude the Atlantic from its plan.
"By removing the entire proposed Atlantic leasing area, the administration has failed to present a serious offshore plan that will help meet our energy needs over the coming decades," CEA President David Holt said.
The agency currently manages about 6,000 active leases on the outer continental shelf, covering more than 32 million acres, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2013, offshore oil and gas leases accounted for about 18 percent of domestic oil production and 5 percent of domestic natural gas production, according to the Interior Department.
Industry groups argue oil and gas production generates billions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments as well as taxpayer coffers, while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.
"Keeping federal offshore acreage off limits to development is not in America's interests," Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations with industry group the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.
"This is a big opportunity and if the U.S. is to continue the success we've seen over the past decade of American energy leadership and our ability to compete on the global market, the time to get it right on energy policy is now," he said.Undermining Paris?
But climate advocates disagree with that characterization, citing concerns that any drilling of oil and gas jeopardizes the ability of the United States to fulfill its climate commitments made at the Paris talks last year.
"Any new offshore drilling will be a stain on President Obama's climate legacy," May Boeve, executive director of the green group 350.org, said in a statement. "If the President is going to meet the targets he agreed to at the climate talks in Paris, he needs to keep fossil fuels in the ground or in this case, under the sea. We can't afford any more oil spilling into the oceans and carbon pouring into the atmosphere."
Activists also pointed to language used by Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in their joint statement released last week (ClimateWire, March 11).
In addition to proposing cuts to methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the two leaders spelled out a new partnership in the Arctic. It suggests any commercial development, including for oil and gas, should be based on scientific evidence.
The two countries also agreed to use "similar values for the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases for assessing the benefits of regulatory measures."
Tim Donaghy, a senior research specialist with Greenpeace, said those were big, important steps that could have direct impacts on the three lease sales proposed in Alaska in the draft five-year plan. Currently, there is one sale each in the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet Planning Area.
"One thing we'll be looking for is if the Arctic will be taken out of the plan," he said. "Allowing any Arctic drilling to go forward contradicts pledges Obama made in Paris and contradicts pledges he made last week with the Canadian prime minister."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/03/15/stories/1060034006
-
Obama Rescinds Atlantic Coast Drilling Plan
Mar 15, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Obama is rescinding his proposal to open the Atlantic coast to offshore drilling after encountering strong opposition.
The Interior Department announced the decision Tuesday, reversing Obama’s previous proposal to govern offshore drilling from 2017 to 2022, in which he floated the idea of a single lease sale on the outer continental shelf in an area stretching from Virginia to Georgia in 2021.
In abandoning the proposal, Interior cited the current oil market, with its weak demand and historically low prices, along with local opposition and potential conflicts with commercial and military activity on the East Coast.
While the governors of four states supported drilling with certain conditions, the plan faced staunch opposition from coastal towns, cities, businesses, environmentalists and nearby states. It was by far the most contentious piece of the offshore drilling plan floated in January.
The latest proposal for offshore drilling keeps the possibility of up to two sales in the Arctic Ocean, something opposed by environmentalists. But those sales would be subject to strict environmental tests, including evaluations of the climate change impact from the oil and gas drilled.
“The program takes a balanced approach to oil and gas development, focuses potential lease sales in areas with the highest resource potential, greatest industry interest and established infrastructure, while removing certain areas for consideration that we know are not appropriate for leasing,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told reporters Tuesday, adding that officials gave more opportunities for public engagement in the consideration process than ever before.
Regarding the Atlantic, Jewell said she and her staff “heard from many corners that now is not the time to start leasing off the Atlantic coast. This includes many local communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing, tourism and shipping activity.”
“When you factor in the conflicts with commercial and national defense activities, market conditions and opposition from local communities, it simply doesn’t make sense to move forward with the Atlantic lease sale in the near future,” she concluded.
The Gulf of Mexico would have 10 lease sales under the plan, the same as last year’s proposal.
It’s the second time Obama has floated Atlantic drilling only to withdraw it later; he did the same thing in 2010 after the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The moves comes in the middle of the presidential election cycle where drilling has emerged as a hot issue.
Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both oppose Atlantic and Arctic drilling, while the Republican candidates generally want more offshore drilling.
The drilling program unveiled Tuesday would give a Democratic successor to Obama leeway to cancel more lease sales, but would largely tie the hands of a Republican president by making it difficult to add more sales without extensive outreach and consideration.
The plan still needs to be made final, which the administration plans to do later this year after gathering more input.
Environmentalists declared victory Tuesday and said that their “keep it in the ground” approach to cutting down on fossil fuels is working.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, said Obama’s plan “reaffirms his dedication to protecting and conserving the great outdoors.”
“President Obama has taken a giant step for our oceans, for coastal economies and for mitigating climate change,” said Jacqueline Savitz, United States vice president for Oceana. “This is a courageous decision that begins the shift to a new energy paradigm, where clean energy replaces fossil fuels, and where we can avoid the worst impacts of decades of our carbon dioxide emissions.”
“This plan is a huge win for everyone who treasures the east coast’s beaches,” said Gene Karpinksi, president of the League of Conservation Voters.
“Our public lands and waters, such as these oceans, should be managed in the public’s best interest, which means not issuing permits to drill and burn oil that will make climate change worse and divert our focus away from our transition to clean energy.”
But the oil industry and its allies blasted Obama for missing out on a great opportunity to produce more domestic energy.
“By removing the entire proposed Atlantic leasing area, the administration has failed to present a serious offshore plan that will help meet our energy needs over the coming decades,” said David Holt, president of the industry-backed Consumers Energy Alliance.
“The exclusion also guarantees that domestic energy policy will be a major issue in the presidential election, and underscores the critical need for the nominees of both parties to bring forward thoughtful, intellectually serious energy policies that will secure the nation's long-term energy, economic, and national security,” he said.
The Chamber of Commerce said Obama’s plan is “remarkable for its catering to fringe constituencies at the expense of energy security and the American economy.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) took issue with the administration’s concerns, saying offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico coexists peacefully with fish, recreation, military activity and other uses.
“This decision is a win for foreign workers and a sucker punch to American workers,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/273026-obama-pulls-atlantic-coast-drilling-plan
-
California Regulator Sees Possible NatGas Shortages For Power Generation
Mar 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A member of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Monday signaled concerns about possible curtailments of natural gas to power generation plants due to the closure of the state’s largest underground gas storage field, Aliso Canyon.
In a commissioner's ruling, the CPUC's Catherine Sandoval directed Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) and Southern California Edison Co. (SCE) to take steps to protect consumers, particularly low-income residents, from possible gas reliability problems this summer.
The focal point of Sandoval's concerns is SoCalGas' 86 Bcf capacity, 3,600-acre Aliso Canyon storage facility, which stopped injecting new supplies in the midst of a prolonged well leak and is prohibited from resuming operations until after all of its 115 storage wells are inspected, tested and cleared for operation by state regulators (see Daily GPI, Feb. 25). Residents near the facility who were displaced by the incident want it closed permanently.
In her ruling Monday, Sandoval expressed concerns about potential curtailment of gas to residential customers and gas-fired power plants that could "cause hardship and negatively affect the health, safety and comfort of low-income customers in the state's energy savings assistance program (ESAP)."
Sandoval noted "safety and ratemaking issues, and broader implications" from the storage well leak, which has cost SoCalGas more than $300 million to date (see Daily GPI, March 7). She acknowledged these broader impacts are being addressed in other regulatory proceedings but said "certain actions may be appropriate" within the ESAP proceeding.
By taking more aggressive steps under the energy saving program, Sandoval said demand for natural gas may be reduced in the geographic areas most impacted by the well leak, namely, the greater Southern California basin.
"While the full extent of natural gas resource reliability issues arising from Aliso Canyon is still unknown, it is highly likely that a natural gas shortage could lead to a rise in the price of natural gas in Southern California, or to curtailments of gas supply to both core and noncore customers, including electric generators and hospitals," Sandoval said. "I am particularly concerned that low-income customers will be disproportionately impacted by this natural gas shortage."
Sandoval urged concentrating on multi-family dwellings where 80% of the ESAP-eligible customers reside, focusing on water heater and furnace replacements, along with weatherization measures that can cut energy consumption. Both SoCalGas and SCE have substantial amounts of unused funds for the program.
At a meeting last month, the Sempra Energy gas utility estimated it had $158.6 million in unused ESAP funds, and SCE determined that it had another $89.7 million of unspent funds. Because of these large balances, "it is appropriate to ask SCE and SoCalGas to step up their efforts under existing grants of ESAP authority to mitigate future negative bill impacts," Sandoval said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105699-california-regulator-sees-possible-natgas-shortages-for-power-generation
-
Activists Demand Action Against Industrial Chemical in Water
Mar 15, 2016 | New York Times
By Associated Press
Prized for its ability to make things super-slick, it was used for decades in the manufacture of Teflon pans, Gore-Tex jackets, ski wax, carpets and the linings of pizza boxes and microwave popcorn bags.
Now, with the suspected cancer-causing chemical PFOA being phased out in the U.S., it is still very much around, turning up in the water in factory towns across the country — most recently in upstate New York and Vermont — where it is blamed by residents for cancers and other maladies.
The latest cases have brought renewed demands that the Environmental Protection Agency regulate PFOA the way it does arsenic, lead and dozens of other contaminants, and set stringent, enforceable limits on how much of the substance can be in drinking water.
"Where is the government that is supposed to protect people and the environment? It's an outrage," said Tracy Carluccio of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which uncovered PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, in tap water in New Jersey a decade ago.
In their defense, EPA officials said that the agency has been considering for years whether regulations are needed for PFOA and related perfluorinated chemicals, but that it is a drawn-out testing and evaluation process dictated by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In the meantime, the EPA has taken action around the country to fine companies and force them to clean up such chemicals.
For now, there are no mandatory limits on how much PFOA, also called C8, can be in drinking water. The same goes for its cousin perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, which is being checked for at 664 U.S. military sites where it was used in firefighting foam.
As part of its review of such chemicals, the EPA ordered nationwide testing of water supplies in 2013.
Of 4,764 water supplies, 103 systems in 29 states had trace amounts of PFOA, but none exceeded 400 parts per trillion, EPA's advisory level for short-term exposure — water you drink for only a few weeks. Seven had levels slightly over 100 ppt, the new advisory level for long-term exposure — for the water you drink for years — that the EPA is expected to set this spring.
But the EPA's national survey didn't tell the whole story.
Towns the size of Hoosick Falls, New York, whose water supply serves just 4,500 people, weren't included in the testing. Its PFOA level of 600 ppt was discovered in village wells in 2014 only because residents, concerned about what they perceived as a high cancer rate in the plastics factory town, demanded testing.
In January, after the lead crisis in Flint, Michigan, focused national attention on water contamination, EPA and New York officials warned people in Hoosick Falls not to drink the water. The state is promising a new water supply with a price tag of $10 million.
More recently, testing turned up PFOA at about 100 ppt in drinking water in nearby Petersburgh, New York, and North Bennington, Vermont, which also had plastics plants.
Michael Hickey, a local insurance underwriter, exposed the contamination in Hoosick Falls, a bucolic community near the Vermont state line known as the hometown of folk artist Grandma Moses.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
"My father died of kidney cancer. My grandmother had kidney cancer," Hickey said. "My concern isn't really about me; it's about my 5-year-old son."
At the least, health and environmental advocates say, communities that have factories and other installations that used the chemical should test their water.
"I would consider it an urgent priority to decrease exposures," said Philippe Grandjean, a researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health who believes the 100 ppt safe-exposure level EPA is proposing is still 100 times too high.
Vermont health officials, for example, have set that state's PFOA level at 20 ppt, based on the same research the EPA is relying on.
Class-action lawsuits have been filed as far back as 2001 against companies such as 3M and DuPont over PFOA contamination of water near factories or disposal sites in a host of communities, including Decatur, Alabama, and Cottage Grove, Minnesota.
In settling a lawsuit involving 70,000 people in West Virginia and Ohio, DuPont agreed in 2004 to install filters to remove PFOA from water systems in six communities surrounding its Parkersburg, West Virginia plant. In October, DuPont was found liable for a woman's kidney cancer in the first of 3,500 lawsuits filed by people with diseases they blame on the contamination.
The American Water Works Association, a water industry group, believes that nationwide regulation of PFOA isn't needed but that testing for the substance at manufacturing sites would be prudent, spokesman Greg Kail said.
Advanced filtration systems to remove PFOA can cost millions of dollars up front, plus tens of thousands a year in operating costs.
3M invented the chemical 1947, and it became so ubiquitous that more than 98 percent of Americans have traces in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3M began to phase it out in 2002 in response to health concerns raised by the EPA. DuPont and eight other companies later agreed to do the same by 2015.
Studies funded by the DuPont settlement concluded PFOA is a "probable cause" of six illnesses, including thyroid disease and kidney and testicular cancer. Those studies were based on people who drank water with PFOA at a level of 50 ppt for a year — half what the EPA is expected to set as the safe level. Other studies have linked PFOA to low birthweight and other problems in children.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo warned that PFOA and other chemicals will probably be discovered in the water across the state and country.
"We allowed waste disposal in fashions that, in retrospect, were not prudent," he said, "and now, in many ways, we are paying the price as a society."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/03/15/us/ap-us-drinking-water-chemicals.html
-
Contamination from Closed Factories Roils Northeast
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
More than a decade after a chemical factory closed in a Vermont village, residents there are joining others across the Northeast in staring down the polluted legacy of their industrial past.
"From an environmental perspective, we kind of fell asleep at the wheel when it came to those components," said Kiah Morris, the Vermont state representative whose legislative district includes North Bennington, where a ChemFab factory once operated. "There's things we didn't know, and there's things we hoped we wouldn't find out."
The village is now grappling with the legacy of a plant that closed 14 years ago. Private wells near the facility have tested positive for perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, an industrial chemical linked to thyroid disease, cancer and pregnancy complications.
The chemical was first discovered across the border in Hoosick Falls, N.Y., where residents are now expressing anger at the delayed response to the discovery (Greenwire, Feb. 29).
"We were kind of young and foolish," said David Barber, 67, recalling the naiveté among his co-workers at the ChemFab plant about any risks. "We never really talked about it; we never really thought too much about it. It paid good, and they treated us fairly well."
PFOA was once widely used in making products ranging from Gore-Tex boots to nonstick pans, and its health effects are still poorly understood. Contamination is likely to be found in many more areas.
"I think when people look," said Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute, "they're going to find it".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/15/stories/1060034022
-
'Heroic' Action Sways Regulators to Propose Two-Person Oil Train Crews
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal regulators say the "heroic" actions of a BNSF Railway Co. employee during a fiery 2013 oil train derailment show the need to keep more than one person on trains hauling hazardous materials.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking released yesterday, the Federal Railroad Administration said a student engineer for BNSF skirted danger to prevent more crude-laden tank cars from exploding after a train carrying grains collided with an oil train near Casselton, N.D., in December 2013.
"The student engineer borrowed the [Casselton] Assistant Fire Chief's fire protective clothing and walked within 10 car lengths of the fire and uncoupled approximately 20 additional cars from the burning train," FRA said, noting that a second engineer was then able to quickly pull those cars away and create a "safety gap."
"The heroic actions of the grain train's crewmembers potentially prevented the environmental and property damages from being much worse, in addition to potentially shortening the evacuation period" for Casselton residents, FRA concluded in its draft rule.
The regulator has proposed requiring two employees on all freight trains while leaving open the possibility for railroads to seek exceptions from the government.
A leading rail industry group blasted FRA's findings yesterday, arguing that evidence for the safety benefits of two-person train crews is largely anecdotal.
"Coming from an administration that champions smart, data-driven regulations, it is inexplicable how this proposal was approved by the President's Office of Management and Budget," Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement yesterday. "Even the FRA concedes they have no 'reliable or conclusive statistical data' to suggest that two-person crews are safer. I encourage the FRA to reexamine the facts and exercise sound regulatory judgment before finalizing a rule that lacks empirical support."
The federal regulator cited the freight rail industry's safety record as a point in favor of two-person crews, arguing that accident rates have declined in recent years as trains have employed larger crews. Meanwhile, a rise in hazardous materials shipments, brought on by a surge in oil production in places such as North Dakota, has made rail safety a pressing concern.
For years, U.S. transportation regulators have discussed plans to require two-person crews on oil trains, but yesterday's rulemaking marks the first concrete step to that end. A July 6, 2013, derailment and fire in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, called attention to the crew size issue, as a single locomotive engineer was responsible for operating the 72-car oil train. The train ultimately broke free from its overnight parking spot and jumped the tracks in the center of town, killing 47 people in an explosion.
Though the Transportation Safety Board of Canada did not determine that train crew size contributed to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, the independent safety agency did find a general need to address the risk of one-person operations.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it was still reviewing FRA's latest proposed rulemaking and declined additional comment.
FRA said it is "concerned" that technological shifts in the rail industry, including adoption of automated positive train control systems, could lead railroads to cut back on the number of employees in the field.
"[Railroads] may expand use of less than two-person crews on operations without considering safety risks or implementing risk mitigating actions that FRA believes are necessary," the regulator said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/15/stories/1060034004
-
North Carolina Holds Back On Suing EPA Over Petition To Expand OTC
Mar 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
North Carolina is holding back on its threat to file a lawsuit to compel EPA to respond to a petition by several states asking the agency to greatly expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states where tougher ozone control measures apply than elsewhere, as uncertainty lingers on EPA's response.
Sources within OTC states say North Carolina appears to want a quick response by the agency that would ensure the Tar Heel State is excluded from any expanded region.
In a Nov. 13 notice of intent to sue (NOI), the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) gave EPA 60 days' notice of its intention to file suit over the agency's failure to respond to a petition by nine OTC states to greatly enlarge the OTC region, which expired Jan. 13 yet no lawsuit has been filed.
The states that filed the petition are seeking the expansion in order to combat interstate emissions of ozone-forming contaminants, which they say contribute to their problems attaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which the agency tightened in October.
The current OTC region includes 12 states and the District of Columbia, with Virginia a partial member. The Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington are included, but the rest of the state is not.
Nine member states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont -- petitioned EPA under Clean Air Act section 176 in December 2013, asking the agency to expand the OTC area to include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and the remaining part of Virginia in order to force stricter ozone controls on those states.
In the NOI, NCDEQ says EPA has missed an 18-month deadline under the air law to respond to the petition. North Carolina sources confirm that to date, the state has not filed suit, and state's General Counsel's office, which represents NCDEQ in the matter, declines to comment on possible pending litigation.
However, sources say that North Carolina opposes the suggested OTC expansion and EPA's latest air emissions transport modeling shows that the state could perhaps be excluded from future transport reduction efforts.
The state is currently included under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), including the "update" rule EPA proposed Dec. 3 to tighten the rule's limits on ozone-forming pollutants.
The original CSAPR created an emissions trading program for 28 states and was intended to help states meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb), while the update, covering 23 states, aims to meet the tougher 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb.
Also, EPA tightened its ozone NAAQS late last year to 70 ppb, and implementation of that standard will require fresh measures to limit interstate pollution.
'Good Neighbor'
States must craft state implementation plans (SIPs) to meet their "good neighbor" obligations under the air law, to prevent upwind emissions from creating NAAQS attainment problems downwind.
EPA officials have suggested that almost all areas of the country will attain the 70 ppb standard by 2025, but OTC-area air regulators note that states' good neighbor SIPs, and also attainment of the NAAQS for areas classed in "marginal" or "moderate" nonattainment, will both be required years before 2025. "Marginal" areas must attain by 2020, while "moderate" areas must attain by 2023.
One East Coast regulator says North Carolina wants a quick decision on the section 176 petition, so it can be excluded from any expansion of the OTC area.
However, the regulator says that reduced ozone levels in much of the OTC area could be the result of favorable meteorology in recent years, rather than only reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) spurred by EPA regulation. "There is a lot of posturing going on right now," says the regulator.
OTC states, led by Maryland and New Hampshire, attempted to craft a state-led answer to the ozone transport problem, which might obviate the need for a CSAPR update rule or subsequent EPA rules.
However, the initiative, known as the State Collaborative On Ozone Transport, or SCOOT, has failed to produce a regulatory response such as the coordinated SIPs that were once thought possible.
To the frustration of OTC states, the process did not extend beyond technical collaboration on ozone and NOx emissions modeling, the regulator says. That means that the CSAPR emissions trading system will play a key role in helping states attain the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to transport.
Another initiative by OTC area states to obtain tougher pollution controls across a wider area failed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last June ruled against a slew of challenges to EPA's attainment area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Mississippi Commission On Environmental Quality v. EPA, et al. In that case, some OTC states sought to massively enlarge existing nonattainment areas, in which tougher pollution controls apply than in attainment zones, to include several entire states upwind of the OTC area.
It is unclear when EPA intends to respond to the section 176 petition. An EPA spokeswoman says the agency "has received this petition under section 176 of the Clean Air Act and is reviewing it."
However, another OTC-area air official says that regulators with the organization have heard nothing from EPA on the matter. North Carolina "can still go forward with a lawsuit. My guess is they probably will," the source says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/north-carolina-holds-back-suing-epa-over-petition-expand-otc
-
State Considers Emergency Toxic Air Rules
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality yesterday advanced a set of emergency rules to end a loophole that allowed glassmakers to legally emit dangerous metals like arsenic and cadmium without safeguards.
As the agency hurried to publish the proposed rules, 23 hours before its commission was scheduled to vote, it became clear the regulator couldn't say how many businesses would be affected by the change.
House Speaker Tina Kotek (D) and several other lawmakers have asked the agency to slow down and allow for a 14-day delay.
"We are concerned that the department and the commission may not involve the public in a meaningful way prior to adopting this temporary rule," they said in a letter calling for a two-week delay. "An open public process is essential in building public understanding of and trust in the eventual outcomes."
Advocates have said the period of time was too short and did not allow for public input.
It's been over a month since the department said two art glass producers were linked to cadmium air pollution hot spots in north and southeast Portland (Greenwire, Feb. 15).
The agency does not know if there are additional glassmakers without pollution controls. The proposal said the state is looking into a number of such facilities but did not specify how many or which ones.
A DEQ spokeswoman did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/15/stories/1060034033
-
EPA Critics Fear Agency 'Piling' CWA, ESA Enforcement For Waterbodies
Mar 15, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA critics including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and one industry attorney are warning that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are "piling" enforcement of the Clean Water Act (CWA) on top of litigation under other statutes such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), warning that the agencies are trying to expand the CWA's scope.
The two agencies crafted the contested CWA jurisdiction rule that aimed to clarify the law's reach, but which has been blocked from implementation nationwide by a federal appeals court while it prepares to hear challenges to the rule. As a result, EPA is currently using George W. Bush administration guidance on the CWA's scope, but if the agency successfully defends its rule in court then it would use the new rule to determine which waters are subject to the law.
Industry groups, GOP lawmakers and others have warned that the rule vastly expands the reach of the CWA beyond Congress' intent, and now some critics are saying EPA and the Corps are trying to also expand enforcement.
For example, Grassley in Feb. 25 Senate floor remarks cited concerns raised by a California farmer named John Duarte that the "agencies are piling the [waters of the United States] law with other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, to dictate how farmers use their own land or keep them from farming it at all."
Duarte is currently involved in litigation, Duarte Nursery v. Corps of Engineers, Members of the Board of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, over a CWA enforcement action under the 2008 CWA guidance.
The industry source says "it does make sense that there would be more 'piling on' under" the new CWA rule given that it "expands CWA jurisdiction substantially" because it is more likely that an activity in aquatic habitat for an endangered or threatened species could trigger both CWA and ESA concerns.
"It's also similar to the policy complaint underlying the prosecution in Yates v. United States in that having lots of federal laws that penalize the same conduct gives prosecutors significant plea bargaining leverage," the source adds.
In Yates, the Supreme Court held Feb. 25, 2015 in a 4-1-4 ruling that criminal enforcement action against destroying corporate records cannot apply to a commercial fisherman for throwing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution. The ruling split the Court's nine justices widely on the question of how judges should interpret federal laws, a Feb. 25, 2015 SCOTUS blog post says.
EPA and the Corps finalized the CWA jurisdiction rule on June 29. The rule seeks to clarify which waters are jurisdictional following confusion stemming from competing Supreme Court tests in the 2006 decision inRapanos v. United States.
The rule seeks to preserve all existing statutory exemptions in the CWA for agriculture, including for normal farming, ranching, and silviculture practices, soil and water conservation activities in dry land, maintenance of drainage ditches and others.
But agriculture groups have raised concerns that the rule's provisions will create new permitting burdens for agriculture and leave them vulnerable to citizen suit enforcement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in a divided ruling Feb. 22 held that it has the power to hear suits over the rule, but the decision has largely created more legal uncertainty than before the ruling.
EPA is starting to ask for district courts to dismiss the myriad suits over the rule in deference to the 6th Circuit challenge, while opponents of the CWA rule are pushing for en banc rehearing of the appellate decision by the full court.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-critics-fear-agency-piling-cwa-esa-enforcement-waterbodies
-
Probe Finds High Arsenic Levels at Taps Across Texas
Mar 15, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
Dozens of communities in Texas have delivered drinking water tainted with a known carcinogen, says a new analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project.
The environmental advocacy group found that 65 public water systems in Texas have exceeded the allowable limit for arsenic under the Safe Drinking Water Act for the last two years, with 34 communities carrying high levels of the contaminant for at least a decade.
Eric Schaeffer, EIP's executive director, called on U.S. EPA yesterday to step in to control the high levels of arsenic, which have been linked to bladder, kidney and other cancers.
"These long-term violations matter because arsenic risk increases the longer you are exposed to this toxin," said Schaeffer in a conference call.
Schaeffer and report co-author Courtney Bernhardt said many of the contaminated drinking water systems are hooked up to mobile home parks, which they say raises environmental justice concerns.
The highest average arsenic levels in water samples were from the Bruni Rural Water Supply Corp. in Webb County, Texas, which touches the Mexican border.
Those samples registered at nearly 80 parts per billion over 2014 and 2015 -- eight times the legal limit. The long-term average of samples dating back to 2002 topped 85 ppb.
Schaeffer faulted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's shortcomings in notifying communities of high arsenic levels in the water, considering the decadelong exposure to the toxin in some areas.
TCEQ's arsenic notices say residents "do not need to use an alternative water supply" in the short term. They also say long-term arsenic contamination can lead to skin problems, circulatory system malfunction and cancer.
Schaeffer said, "I don't think the warning systems are set up for that kind of long-term exposure."
EPA finalized its arsenic rule in 2001, setting the 10 ppb limit. The agency allowed states to grant certain rural water utilities exemptions until Jan. 23, 2015. There are about 7,000 public drinking water systems throughout Texas.
TCEQ fired back at the report, stating that the agency follows EPA guidelines in issuing arsenic notifications, sampling water and analyzing samples.
TCEQ added that arsenic levels in the United States "do not pose an immediate health threat," and that cancers linked to arsenic were from Taiwanese population studies.
"Out of the 65 water systems cited in the study, all but two are currently under enforcement, or have undergone enforcement, either by the TCEQ, EPA or Texas attorney general," said TCEQ spokesman Brian McGovern.
EIP shot back at the Texas environmental agency's response, calling its explanation misleading.
"The EPA rules do not require Texas to advise its own citizens that, 'This is not an emergency. You do not need to use an alternative water supply' when water violates arsenic limits," wrote Schaeffer in a response to TCEQ's statement.
Schaeffer also criticized TCEQ's assertion that arsenic does not pose an "immediate" health risk.
"Smoking a cigarette may not pose an 'immediate' health risk either. But continuing to do so over time makes cancer much more likely," he wrote.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/15/stories/1060034032
-
EPA Official to Defend Handling of Flint Water Crisis
Mar 15, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
A former Environmental Protection Agency administrator planned to defend her handling of lead contamination in Flint, Mich., at a congressional hearing Tuesday that promised to lay bare tensions between city, state and federal officials over who is most to blame for the city’s water woes.
“I did not sit on the sidelines and I did not downplay any concerns raised by EPA scientists or apologize for any memos they wrote,” wrote Susan Hedman, former administrator for EPA Region 5, in prepared testimony she was expected to deliver to the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at its second hearing on the crisis.
Flint’s drinking water became contaminated with lead after the city began using the Flint River as its water source in April 2014 and old pipes became corroded and began leaching lead. Ms. Hedman was the top federal environmental official for a regional office that has jurisdiction over a section of the Midwest that includes Flint. She resigned earlier this year amid criticism of her handling of the crisis.
In her prepared testimony, Ms. Hedman said responsibility for making the catastrophic decision not to require the use of a chemical to prevent corrosion of Flint’s water system rested with officials at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. She also faulted the state agency for not being more responsive to the crisis and acting more quickly, the same criticism that has been leveled at her by others.
“What happened in Flint, should not have happened anywhere in United States—and I was horrified that it happened in my region, the Great Lakes Region,” wrote Ms. Hedman in her testimony.
Darnell Earley, who became emergency manager of Flint in October 2013, and Dayne Walling, the city’s former mayor, also deflected blame for the water crisis onto the state environmental agency in prepared testimony.
At the same time, both former officials also criticized Ms. Hedman. Mr. Earley wrote that Ms. Hedman played down a memo from an EPA water expert in June 2015 which warned that Flint didn’t have a corrosion control plan in place.
Mr. Walling, who was Flint’s mayor from 2009 through November, wrote that he was disappointed that the EPA didn’t do more to assist Flint to deal with the lead issue earlier.
In his testimony, Mr. Walling wrote that he asked Ms. Hedman about the June memo raising alarms about potential lead contamination in the city. “She explained that the review process was proceeding and the City would be notified through the MDEQ of any new requirements,” he wrote. “This was another missed opportunity to correct the problems sooner.”
Like Mr. Earley, Mr. Walling said he also relied on the technical expertise of water officials at the MDEQ, and he now felt that he had been misled. Both men said the state experts never raised the issue of corrosion control and the potential for lead contamination before or after the city began using the Flint River.
Parsing who is most to blame for the water crisis is expected to continue. On Thursday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy are scheduled to appear before the committee. In a recent op-ed, Ms. McCarthy also said failures by the state agency were primarily to blame.
Virginia Tech environmental engineering professor Marc Edwards, who helped uncover high lead levels in Flint’s drinking water last year, wrote that the water crisis was inevitable given the EPA’s lax oversight of state water programs. He had an even harsher assessment of both federal and state regulators.
“Ms. Hedman actively aided, abetted and emboldened, the unethical behavior of civil servants at the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,” he wrote in prepared testimony.
Gov. Snyder has said that a series of missteps at the local, state and federal levels caused the contamination. He said he only found out about the severity of the lead problem in early October, about the same time residents were told not to drink their tap water. More than five months later, many of Flint’s nearly 100,000 residents are still drinking and cooking with bottled water. The National Guard has also distributed thousands of home water filters.
“What happened in Flint cannot ever happen again. It is almost unbelievable how many bad decisions were made,” said Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, in prepared remarks.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-official-to-defend-handling-of-flint-water-crisis-1458051757
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested