Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 4/15/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - Apr 2016
Apr 14, 2016 | Nasdaq
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry traversed rough waters in 2015, contending with a spate of headwinds including soft agriculture market fundamentals, slowdown in China, lumpiness in Europe, a stronger dollar... -
(ACC Mentioned) Do You Want a Side of Industrial Chemicals with That Hamburger?
Apr 14, 2016 | Digital Journal
By Karen Graham
Those of you who have eaten fast food in the past 24 hours probably have elevated levels of infertility-producing industrial chemicals in your body. -
(ACC Mentioned) Your Fast Food Might Be Adding ‘Industrial Chemicals’ to Your Body
Apr 14, 2016 | Teen Vogue
By Lily Puckett
No one’s really under the impression that fast food is good for them, but it may not be the harmless indulgence we tend to think of it as. -
McCarthy Signals Impending EPA Action on PFC Drinking Water Levels
Apr 14, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey and David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is signaling that the agency is preparing to significantly ramp up its work on addressing the drinking water contaminants perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), as it faces pressure from states... -
Chemical Profile: Reduce Hazards Lurking in the Products You Consume
Apr 14, 2016 | U.S. News & World Report
By Michael O. Schroeder
Imagine if you could put sticky notes on your household products to denote each potentially hazardous chemical lurking in your home, in the personal care items you put on your skin and the foods or drinks you consume. -
Lead Hazard Disclosure: Time to be Better Inform Home Buyers and Renters
Apr 15, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
In the past 20 years, if you’ve bought or rented a home built before 1978, you’ve seen it–130 words in a dense paragraph titled “Lead Warning Statement.” -
Vegetables Grown with Treated Wastewater Boost Human Exposure to Pharmaceutical Contaminants
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alla Katsnelson
With freshwater resources dwindling worldwide, the practice of using treated wastewater to irrigate crops is growing. But that practice might have a downside: In a new study, people who ate vegetables grown using such reclaimed water... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Invests Big in Wake of Shale Boom
Apr 6, 2016 | Washington Examiner
By John Siciliano
The shale gas revolution is keeping America's chemical industry in top form as it finds itself awash in plentiful and cheap natural gas, which an industry group said Wednesday is spurring well over $100 billion in new investments. -
Interior Unveils New Offshore Drilling Rule, Draws Industry Backlash
Apr 14, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Interior Department released new offshore drilling rules Thursday that give oil companies slightly more leeway, but the tweaks didn't silence the criticism from the industry and its allies on Capitol Hill. -
$37.5 Billion Energy, Water Bill Cleared for Floor
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously voted April 14 to approve a $37.5 billion energy and water spending bill, clearing the way for floor consideration of the measure as soon as next week. -
Panel Says It Backs Tech Spending But Can't Fund It
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
Senate appropriators say they support doubling federal clean energy investments over the next five years. But they only do so in principle and are proposing to slash key funding components for the concept. -
Even Uncommon Voices Can Find Common Ground on Energy Efficiency
Apr 14, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ross Eisenberg and Kit Kennedy
Washington, D.C., has earned a reputation in recent years as a city plagued by hyper-partisan gridlock. Yet our two organizations – which often disagree – have found common ground on energy efficiency. -
Senate Republicans Challenge BLM Over Methane Rule
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
Republican critics of the Bureau of Land Management's proposed rule to reduce natural gas waste argued at an oversight hearing April 14 that the agency doesn't have the authority to regulate methane emissions. -
White House Wraps Up Review of Mercury Rule
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is on track to release the final version of a "supplemental finding" to its power plant mercury rule by tomorrow now that the Office of Management and Budget has wrapped up its review. -
Why Fracking Has Become Such a Critical Issue in the New York Primaries
Apr 15, 2016 | Washington Post
By Philip Bump
Fracking is based on water. A narrow shaft is dug straight down and then horizontally through a formation of shale -- flat, layered rock. Water (mixed with some chemicals) is pumped in at high pressure, and the rock fractures. -
Study Finds ‘Plausible’ Link Between 2012 Texas Quake and Injection Wells
Apr 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
A new study released Wednesday by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) adds to the growing body of research suggesting a link between seismicity and underground wastewater injection wells. -
Lawmakers Push Emergency Planning for Power Grid Attack
Apr 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jennevieve Fong
Lawmakers pressed federal officials Thursday over their emergency plans in the event of a cyber or physical attack on the nation's electrical grid. -
House Transportation Committee Unveils Pipeline Safety Bill
Apr 14, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unveiled legislation today that would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for four years and give the agency authority to impose... -
California Attorney General Kamala Harris Challenges Benicia Oil Plan
Apr 14, 2016 | Sacramento Bee
By Tony Bizjak
California Attorney General Kamala Harris weighed in on Benicia’s ongoing oil train debate on Thursday, arguing that the city has a legal right to reject a local refinery’s oil train plan and the obligation to review environmental risks. -
(ACC Mentioned) Arizona Regulator: Attainability Concerns Drove Ozone Suit
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Concerns over the ability of rural counties to meet more stringent ozone standards drove Arizona to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion, the state's top environmental regulator told lawmakers. -
Talk of Clean Air Act Reform Clouds Hearing on Ozone Reg Delay
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
At a House hearing yesterday on a bill to postpone implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard, it quickly became clear that some participants saw a bigger issue in play: revisiting the basic framework of the Clean Air Act. -
Clinton Environmental Justice Plan Released Before N.Y. Primary
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D) would address issues from climate resilience and environmental enforcement to brownfields redevelopment and clean energy proliferation as president...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - Apr 2016
Apr 14, 2016 | Nasdaq
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry traversed rough waters in 2015, contending with a spate of headwinds including soft agriculture market fundamentals, slowdown in China, lumpiness in Europe, a stronger dollar and depressed demand in energy markets. Despite these challenges, the highly cyclical industry put up a decent performance last year, thanks to continued strong momentum in the automotive market and a recovery in commercial construction -- an end-market that has long been out of favor.
Amid a still-challenging macro backdrop, chemical companies are looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidation. The $130 billion proposed mega-merger of Dow Chemical ( DOW
) and DuPont ( DD
) -- the biggest chemical deal ever -- is a huge testimony to these strategic moves.
Chemical companies also remain actively focused on increasing their reach in high-growth markets in a bid to whittle down their exposure on businesses that are grappling with depressed demand and input cost pressures. Strategic measures including cost management and productivity improvement also remain the prime focus of these companies.
Some industry-specific challenges, Eurozone's tepid recovery and concerns over China's future growth remain sources of near-term uncertainties for the chemical industry. Chemical makers are also feeling the pinch of weak demand in the energy space amid a still difficult oil price environment. Moreover, a stronger dollar is hurting U.S. chemical exports, reducing their attractiveness in overseas markets.
While the European chemical industry remains in a rut given sluggish demand in key markets, lower prices, flat production growth and weak R&D investments, prospects in the U.S. look healthy supported by an improving economy.
U.S. Looks Sunny, EU & China Still Cloudy
The U.S. chemical industry is poised for growth despite several challenges. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, U.S. chemical production will continue to expand over the next several years, and the American chemical industry will eventually transcend the nation's overall economic growth and emerge as a long-term economic growth engine as improvements in key end-use industries and emerging markets take hold.
Despite softness across a number of major markets, slowdown in China and headwinds from a stronger dollar, the U.S. chemical production expanded 3.6% in 2015. The outlook points to continued expansion as the ACC envisions national chemical production to rise 2.9% in 2016 and 4.4% in 2017. The trade group also sees the momentum to continue through the second half of the decade on the heels of new capital investments and capacity additions.
The shale gas bounty and abundant supply of natural gas liquids has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country and have provided the U.S. petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The ACC expects this competitiveness to drive export demand and new capital investment in the country.
The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars to boost capacity. Chemical makers including BASF ( BASF ), Dow Chemical, LyondellBasell Industries ( LYB), Eastman Chemical ( EMN), Celanese ( CE ) and Westlake Chemical ( WLK ) are investing heavily on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies which is expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.Outlook for Europe, however, remains tepid given sustained sluggishness in the region. The Eurozone economy continues to sputter with a lackluster growth in the fourth quarter of 2015. Chemical makers in the European Union remain affected by lower prices, flat production growth and sluggish demand.
According to the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), European chemical output rose just 0.5% in 2015. CEFIC expects a modest 1% growth in chemical output in 2016 factoring in a host of challenges including decelerating demand from major industries and slowdown in key export markets.
Moreover, the persistent weakness in China -- a key market for chemicals -- is expected to remain a major drag on the industry. China's economy hit a wall in 2015, growing at its slowest pace in 25 years as a raft of government stimulus measures (including interest rate cuts) failed to stabilize its financial markets. The world's second-biggest economy remains hamstrung by its tepid property market and weak infrastructure investment, which is contributing to its sluggish economic growth.
In addition, the outlook for the fertilizer and agricultural chemicals space remains cloudy in the short haul due to insipid economic growth in certain developing markets, particularly Brazil.
Zacks Industry Rank
Within the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry falls under the broader Basic Materials sector (one of 16 Zacks sectors) which had a 2.5% share of total earnings for the S&P 500 in 2015. We rank all of the more than 260 industries in the 16 Zacks sectors based on the earnings outlook for the constituent companies in each industry.
The way to look at the complete list of 260+ industries is that the outlook for the top one-third of the list (Zacks Industry Rank of #88 and lower) is positive, the middle 1/3rd or industries with Zacks Industry Rank between #89 and #176 is neutral while the outlook for the bottom one-third (Zacks Industry Rank #177 and higher) is negative. (To learn more visit: About Zacks Industry Rank .)
We have three chemicals related industries: Chemical Specialty, Chemical Diversified and Chemical Plastics. The Chemical Specialty industry is featuring in the bottom one-third of all Zacks industries with a Zacks Industry Rank #187, followed by the Chemical Diversified industry with a Zacks Industry Rank #211 and the Chemical Plastics industry with a Zacks Industry Rank #226.
Looking at the exact location of these industries, one could say that the general outlook for the chemical industry is 'Negative.'
Sector Level Earnings Trends
Basic Materials is among the sectors that witnessed double-digit earnings declines in fourth-quarter 2015. Earnings for the sector participants in the S&P 500 index fell 23.4% in the quarter, worse than an 18.8% decline in the third. Total revenues for these companies went down 16.2% in the fourth quarter versus a 14.4% decline a quarter ago.
The earnings picture for first-quarter 2016 looks bleak with a projected decline of 25.2%. Revenues are also forecast to fall 8.1% in the quarter. For second-quarter 2016, earnings are expected to fall 14.1% while revenues are forecast to decline 6.6%.
For more details about the earnings of this sector and others, please read our ' Earnings Trends ' report.
Bottom Line
The chemical industry is still feeling the bite of slowdown in China, sluggishness in Europe and the impacts of a stronger dollar and still depressed oil prices . However, a gradually healing U.S. economy, continued strength in the automotive space and positive trends in the construction markets augur well for the industry.
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days . Click to get this free report >>
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemicals-industry-stock-outlook-apr-20161-cm606656 -
(ACC Mentioned) Do You Want a Side of Industrial Chemicals with That Hamburger?
Apr 14, 2016 | Digital Journal
By Karen Graham
Those of you who have eaten fast food in the past 24 hours probably have elevated levels of infertility-producing industrial chemicals in your body.
A detailed study in Environmental Health Perspectives that looked at how fast food may expose us to certain industrial chemicals led to some startling results. So think about what the study found the next time you order at your favorite fast food restaurant.
We're talking about plastics, and there are plenty of products either made of plastic or that contain plastics. Chemicals called phthalates are used to make plastics more flexible and durable. These chemicals don't occur in nature, but they are found in cosmetics, soap, food packaging, vinyl toys, wallpaper, flooring and even plastic wrap.
The study
According to Bloomberg, the researchers focused on two specific types of phthalates, DEHP (Di(2-ethylhexyl phthalate) and DiNP (Diisononyl phthalate). The interesting thing about these two chemicals is that when they are in a product, and the product is heated or warmed, they are set loose into the environment or the body.
Researchers analysed data from 9,000 individuals who had participated in federal nutrition surveys between 2003 and 2010. Participants answered detailed questions on what they had eaten in the past 24 hours and submitted urine samples. The samples were tested for the presence of the phthalates, DEPH, DINP, and another chemical, bisphenol A (BPA).
The results of the testing showed a significant relationship between fast food intake and the levels of the two chemicals, DEHP and DINP as opposed to participants who had not consumed fast food. DEHP levels of 24 percent and DINP levels of 39 percent were found in those participants who had consumed fast food in the previous 24 hours.The levels of BPA, which is used to line aluminum cans, were not significant enough to correlate with fast food intake.
What's with the infertility claims?
"Our findings raise concerns because phthalates have been linked to a number of serious health problems in children and adults," researcher Ami Zota, an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, says.
Previous studies on phthalates have shown they can adversely affect the male reproductive organs. According to the press release, "the American Chemistry Council says phthalates aren't harmful, the EPA is concerned about them, Japan has banned them in food-prep gloves, the EU has limited their use in food, and a 2008 US law restricted them in children's toys."
The CDC reports that phthalate exposure is widespread in the American population, with adult women have higher levels of urinary metabolites than men for DEHP and DINP phthalates that are used in soaps, body washes, shampoos, cosmetics, and similar personal care products.
While further studies are needed, Zota has this advice for us: "People concerned about this issue can't go wrong by eating more fruits and vegetables and less fast food."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/health/do-you-want-a-side-of-industrial-chemicals-with-that-hamburger/article/462848 -
(ACC Mentioned) Your Fast Food Might Be Adding ‘Industrial Chemicals’ to Your Body
Apr 14, 2016 | Teen Vogue
By Lily Puckett
No one’s really under the impression that fast food is good for them, but it may not be the harmless indulgence we tend to think of it as. A new study from the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. confirms that fast food eaters have morephthalates in their bodies than those who didn't consume fast food. Phthalates are industrial chemicals used to make plastic more durable and flexible, so unless you were planning on becoming human Tupperware, this may not be good news.
While the Centers for Disease Control maintains that “phthalate exposure is widespread in the U.S. population,” fear of the industrial plasticizer, which is used in cosmetics, detergents, shower curtains, and vinyl flooring, among other things, is justified. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies them in Group 2A of carcinogens, as a “probable human carcinogen,” which is one step down from the official designation of “carcinogenic to humans.” So not only are you ingesting a totally unnatural chemical, but it’s potentially harming you way more than just putting you in a sluggish post-cheeseburger haze.
Two specific phthalates, designated as DEHP and DiNP, were shown to have a significant relationship with fast food intake, with study participants who ate fast food in the previous 24 hours seeing more evidence of phthalates in their urine than those who did not. The third chemical in the study, Biphenol A, wasn’t specifically correlated to fast food intake, though BPAis found in many canned goods. It is suspected that the phthalates present in fast food originate from processing machinery, packaging, and protective gear worn by workers handling food.
Though the American Chemistry Council says, after study, “phthalates used in commercial products do not pose a risk to human health at typical exposure levels,” this may be another reason to keep your Mickey D's trips limited to special occasions.
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/fast-food-industrial-chemical-phthalates
-
McCarthy Signals Impending EPA Action on PFC Drinking Water Levels
Apr 14, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey and David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is signaling that the agency is preparing to significantly ramp up its work on addressing the drinking water contaminants perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), as it faces pressure from states and advocates to issue new advisory levels that would inform how states target contamination.
At the Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) spring meeting here April 13, McCarthy hinted that states should expect action on the chemicals within the next month. She vowed that the agency would work closely with ECOS' state members on the issue. “It's going to be very challenging and there's no way you're not going to be in the room prior to being faced with that challenge. That's not how partners work,” she said.
Similarly, in April 14 remarks at the National Wildlife Federation's anniversary luncheon in Washington, D.C., McCarthy identified perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- two of the class of contaminants known as PFCs -- as among the agency's top drinking water priorities.
“It's not just about lead in Flint, which is a horrible, horrible situation, but that needs to be a bigger wake-up call,” McCarthy said to the NWF audience, referring to the ongoing drinking water contamination in Flint, MI that has drawn national attention to EPA's drinking water oversight. She continued, “We have things like pharmaceuticals, PFCs, PFOA and PFOS, friends, that are everywhere.”
EPA is under pressure to quickly issue a PFOA health advisory for long-term exposures to the chemical in drinking water, which would also apply to PFOS.
EPA issued a provisional advisory on the chemical in 2009 but has been working to craft a new advisory for some time, with environmentalists and others arguing that the provisional finding falls far short of setting a protective level for the public.
Unlike a drinking water standard such as a maximum contaminant level, health advisory levels are not enforceable. However, states have said a new, long-term advisory would still provide important guidance to regulators seeking to assess the dangers from specific instances of PFC contamination.
States' Concerns
At the ECOS spring meeting, McCarthy hinted that a new agency action on PFCs would be released within the month after New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Commissioner Thomas Burack raised concerns about PFOA and the broader class of PFCs overall.
During an April 13 breakfast discussion with McCarthy, Burack asked for a show of hands among ECOS' state members about “how many states feel right now that they're dealing with a PFC issue?”
Burack said he counted between a half-dozen to a dozen states showing their hands.
In response, McCarthy suggested an upcoming PFC announcement when she said, “If you ask the same question a month from a now there'd be a lot more hands going up -- that's a little hint.”
Burack also asked McCarthy, “Can we find a way to bring those states together with EPA” on “joint governance” to “collectively talk about, for example, how we message on this, how we share information on this, how we learn from each other?”
McCarthy responded, “We actually need all of us to work together on this issue,” saying that “there is an opportunity for this to be seen as a much bigger risk than you might want it to be seen as. It is a challenge, and we can work it through, but it also will be seen as a very broad issue and it has the opportunity for people to really lose faith in whether or not we're doing the job that we're supposed to do in the way that they expect it.”
Concerns over PFCs also raise questions about products that contain the chemicals, and over the multiple routes of exposure, “the lesser of which is drinking water,” she said.
PFOA Contamination
States and environmentalists are calling on EPA to issue a long-term PFOA health advisory level to inform action on drinking water contamination from the chemical in New York and elsewhere.
The agency has issued a provisional advisory level of 400 parts per trillion (ppt), but environmentalists have argued that level is insufficient to protect human health from chronic exposure while lawmakers, state regulators and three Northeast governors have said a long-term advisory is needed in order to provide uniform guidance for states to assess drinking water safety.
Concern about the short-term advisory level has grown after EPA Region 2 earlier this year advised Hoosick Falls, NY, residents to refrain from consuming private well water with PFOA levels higher than 100 ppt -- a much more stringent standard than the 400 ppt EPA set out in its provisional advisory.
Stakeholders have questioned the agency's reason for applying the more stringent level in New York while standing behind the 400 ppt level elsewhere.
For instance, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) in a March 28 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said EPA in New York "has set an 'action level' of 100 ppt of PFOA, and further the State of Maine has set a health advisory level of 100 ppt and the State of Vermont has set a health advisory level of 20 ppt. These varying levels have created great uncertainty among the public regarding what PFOA level is safe for use and consumption.”
However, an EPA spokeswoman in a recent statement to Inside EPA defended the agency's decision not to immediately broaden the 100 ppt advisory, explaining the agency's advice in that community was given to private well owners as a result of specific circumstances there, namely that free bottled water was already available and that New York's health department had already offered to test private wells for PFOA.
Along with the pressure being exerted on EPA, state officials and other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense (DOD) are also facing stakeholder calls to address PFOA and other PFCs, from lawmakers, environmentalists, the law firm representing citizens in a landmark PFOA class-action suit and at least one state. DOD sites have seen PFC contamination as a result of fire-fighting training exercises, while a DuPont plant in Parkersburg, WV, is the subject of the class-action litigation.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/mccarthy-signals-impending-epa-action-pfc-drinking-water-levels
-
Chemical Profile: Reduce Hazards Lurking in the Products You Consume
Apr 14, 2016 | U.S. News & World Report
By Michael O. Schroeder
Imagine if you could put sticky notes on your household products to denote each potentially hazardous chemical lurking in your home, in the personal care items you put on your skin and the foods or drinks you consume. If that were all worked out and known, how many individual reminders of harmful ingredients would there be? Would it be nothing to sneeze at or would a light breeze turn your abode into a flutter of paper?
"We are being exposed, if not bombarded, by chemicals every day. Our chemical regulatory system is such that a lot of the chemicals on the market haven't been assessed for safety, or they've been grandfathered into our products or the things that we bring into our homes every day," says Nneka Leiba, deputy director of research at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington. "So while many may assume that if a product is on the market, it has been assessed for safety and it's perfectly good for us to use, or eat or slather on our skin – a lot of times that is not true."
Not all chemicals are hazardous, of course. The wellspring of life – water – is a chemical compound made of hydrogen and oxygen; and though gorging oneself on water can drive the level of sodium concentrated in the blood dangerously low, causing a condition calledhyponatremia, which can kill in extreme instances, we need H2O to survive and thrive.
However, the ubiquity of some other chemicals in common products can present real dangers – known and unknown – experts say. "We live in a soup of chemicals, and chemicals may act even additively or synergistically at times," says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program. "We're trying to understand all that, trying to help educate not only communities, but also we work with our stakeholders across the spectrum … the regulatory agencies – EPA, FDA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Labor, you name it – and we work with our industry partners as well, so that they have the information to make better public health decisions."
The aim is to increase understanding of what chemicals may present hazards and to give consumers something, experts say, we don't have now: a firm grasp of the potentially dangerous substances we're putting on or in our bodies or to which we're otherwise exposed. "We need more transparency in chemical use in consumer products," says Heather Stapleton, an associate professor of environmental chemistry at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Despite long-standing governmental regulation aimed at providing that, as well as Congressional efforts to reform those regulations, Stapleton notes, there's disagreement on how to improve transparency.
"There are a lot of chemicals out there that are not associated with any sort of health harms whatsoever," Leiba says. "But the vast majority of the chemicals on our market have not been assessed for safety, and that's where the concern lies." While there's no way to prevent exposure to all potentially hazardous chemicals, experts say there are resources and simple steps consumers can take to reduce risk.
Pick over your personal care products. The average woman uses 12 personal care products that contain 168 unique ingredients every day. "Men, on the other hand, use six products daily with 85 unique ingredients, on average," she adds, noting that governmental regulation requires product makers to list all ingredients on packaging – though much about those ingredients remains unknown. In one particularly high-profile court case, Johnson & Johnson was recently sentenced to pay $72 million and the company admitted some of its products contain ingredients that cause cancer. It did so after Jackie Fox of Birmingham, Alabama, filed a suit claiming she developed ovarian cancer as a result of using a Johnson & Johnson baby powder containing talcum.
Nor is full transparency a gaurantee in areas ranging from feminine products to fragrances. Consumer pressure, including over worries about products possibly contributing to cancer risk and causing allergic reactions, have led some companies to be more forthcoming about, for example, ingredients in tampons and pads. But experts still say much remains unknown.
To help consumers evaluate what's in their personal care products, EWG compiled chemical profiles of tens of thousands of these products in its Skin Deep Cosmetics Database, where products can be searched to return a color-coded rating from green to red, alerting consumers to hazard levels as well as how much is known about product ingredients.
Beware of regrettable chemical substitutions. "One of the problems that we're all dealing with is we identify a chemical of some concern, and so the marketplace responds, and then industry responds to the marketplace and gives us a substitute," Birnbaum says. "But often we move from something we know something about to something that we know nothing about, and I think that's an issue." Stapleton's own research, in concert with EWG, found a higher level of triphenyl phosphate in the bodies of women who applied some popular nail polishes marketed as "eco-friendly" that contained the chemical. Triphenyl phosphate is also used in flame retardants in place of a chemical called dibutyl phthalate, because of health concerns associated with the latter; the Environmental Protection Agency notes on its website that animal studies have reported developmental and reproductive effects resulting from oral exposure to the chemical, but that its effects in humans aren't clear. "But in the flame retardant research world, there's a lot of concerns about health effects now from triphenyl phosphate, because it also is an endocrine disruptor," Stapleton notes. Not familiar with a chemical of concern? Learn more about it through the U.S. National Library of Medicine Toxicology Data Network, TOXNET.
Clean up your cleaning solutions. "Regulation of cleaning products does not require the manufacturer to list all the ingredients," Neika says. "They notoriously also have chemicals of concern – some preservatives, like methylisothiazolinone, and some of those complicated ones that, again, only a chemist would know what it is, that have been linked to severe dermatitis and allergic reactions, and are especially concerning for babies." EWG rates many cleaning products in its Guide to Healthy Cleaning on an A to F scale based not only on ingredients listed, but how much manufacturers tell consumers about what's in the products.
Wash your hands frequently. The same happy birthday song-and-clean routine that reduces the spread of germs can help protect against unsafe chemical exposures, including the likelihood you'll ingest something hazardous. "People put their hands in their mouth all the time – it's not only infants and toddlers," Birnbaum says. "Washing your hands and not putting your hands in your mouth is a good way to lessen some of your exposures."
You are the chemicals you eat. On Tuesday, EWG released its latest annual report detailing produce that have the highest rates of detectable pesticide residues; strawberries grown with conventional farming methods topped the latest list, knocking off the perennial list-topper, apples, which came in second. "Some of the chemicals detected on strawberries are relatively benign," according to EWG. "But others are linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental damage, hormone disruption and neurological problems." Nectarines, peaches, celery, grapes, cherries, spinach, tomatoes, bell peppers and cherry tomatoes rounded out EWG's so-called Dirty Dozen for 2016, while on the "clean" side, less than 1 percent of samples of certain produce, such as avocados, corn, pineapples, cabbage and onions, showed any detectable pesticides. To reduce exposure to pesticides, buy organic, particularly for produce with higher rates of detectable pesticides, Neika says. Also, thoroughly wash all fruits or veggies before eating them.
Pesticides are just the beginning, too, experts say, as chemicals are found in all types of modern foods from fresh to stored, canned to boxed. EWG scores food, based on nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns, on its website and through its Healthy Living app, which also contains the personal care products ratings. Health and governmental organizations like the Food and Drug Administration provide information on known threats in the food system – chemical and otherwise – and experts recommend keeping up on the latest guidance.
Clean to reduce dust. "More frequent vacuuming can reduce the accumulation of dust in the home, and thus one's exposure to chemical contaminants in dust," Stapleton says. "Wet mopping techniques are ideal because they can trap particles and prevent them from moving into the air."
Though much remains unknown, experts say it's important to take action, where possible, to minimize potential harmful chemical exposures, including if it might be carcinogenic. "If you have the options, or you are able to minimize your ingestion, or your inhalation, or just your exposure to a certain potentially cancer-causing ingredient, then you take that opportunity as much as you can, because there are other cases where you will not have that opportunity," Leiba says. She adds that consumers should choose products with the same discretion, taking into account any potential associated ills. "Don't get overwhelmed, educate yourself and then vote with your wallet."
http://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-04-14/chemical-profile-reduce-hazards-lurking-in-the-products-you-consume
-
Lead Hazard Disclosure: Time to be Better Inform Home Buyers and Renters
Apr 15, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
In the past 20 years, if you’ve bought or rented a home built before 1978, you’ve seen it–130 words in a dense paragraph titled “Lead Warning Statement.” Below it, the landlord or seller most likely checked the box saying he or she “has no knowledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing” and “has no reports or records pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing.”
By the time you read that dense paragraph, you’d have already chosen your new home, so you likely signed the forms and put the “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet in your to-do pile; a pile that all-t0o-easily gets lost in the chaos of a big move.
Congress created this lead hazard disclosure requirement in 1992 as part of a comprehensive law designed to protect children from lead in paint. The objective was to transform the marketplace by having buyers and renters demand homes that were either free of lead paint or, at least, lead hazards.
It has not worked out that way. The marketplace for lead-free or lead-safe homes never materialized, and sellers and landlords have little to no incentive to look for problems that might complicate the transaction.
The current lead hazard disclosure requirement had all of the hallmarks of an effective right-to-know policy but has fallen short of meeting its objective. It is simply too little too late to help consumers make informed decisions.
Further, the disclosure requirement failed to address another important source of lead in the home—lead in drinking water.
Today there is an opportunity to align the principle of transparency with the practice of better management of the hazards of lead in paint and water. Just as Congress updated the financial disclosure requirements to match the current realities of the real estate marketplace, it needs to do the same for the lead disclosure mandate.
And there is also a powerful role for the private sector as well. Consumer demands for transparency are driving change in every conceivable market, including real estate. Firms like Zillow and Redfin provide extensive information for consumers shopping for a new home from the number of bathrooms and size of the yard to the quality of local schools. What if they also included information on environmental hazards in homes such as lead-based paint and lead pipes and plumbing? Together with new Congressional mandates for disclosure transparency we might finally begin to deliver the outcomes we all seek—healthier homes.
What changes are needed to the 1992 law?
1. Expand the disclosure to lead hazards in drinking water: Flint has shown us that drinking water is a significant source of exposure to lead. Consumers need to be told about the risk and whether they have lead pipes in the underground service lines that connect the main in the street to homes. It makes little sense for a new homeowner to first learn of the hazard from a water bill or after their child is tested by a pediatrician.
2. Use plain English: The lead warning statement is difficult to read, and only Congress can change it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should be given the flexibility to update the specific wording and requirements to reflect what we now know about how to effectively communicate the risk to buyers and renters. The effort should mirror the science-driven approach used by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when it revised the mortgage disclosure requirements.
3. Inform consumers before not after they make a commitment. Consumers need to know about environmental hazards when they are evaluating a potential home not after they have already committed. They should be informed early in the process – in the rental application or in a seller’s counteroffer. Obtaining information at this stage of the purchasing process may allow a buyer to choose a different property or demand that the hazards be remediated and the costs folded into the mortgage.
What could the private sector do to inform potential buyers or renters?
Just as the internet has transformed how we buy consumer goods, it has reshaped the landscape of real estate, especially for people buying or renting homes. Two firms dominate the market. Zillow is “dedicated to empowering consumers with data, inspiration and knowledge around the place they call home.” Redfin’s“mission is to redefine real estate in the customer’s favor.”
Instead of a property listing system tightly controlled by real estate professionals who make commissions on sales, information technology draw from county records and other data sources to provide consumers with easier access to much more information about a home. Consumers can now learn about neighborhood schools, who owns the home and what they paid, and the walkability of the neighborhood.
If data on environmental hazards were also included in these search engines, consumers could determine whether a home has a lead service line or if it is likely to have lead-based paint as well as the likelihood of having high levels of radon.
Why do consumers need the information on environmental hazards such as lead?
The connection between the condition of a home and the health of a resident has become increasingly clear in the past 20 years. Mold and pests are linked to asthma. Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. More than 500,000 children have elevated levels of lead in their blood. And carbon monoxide from damaged fuel-burning equipment kills thousands each year. In 2009, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a call to action to promote healthy homes.
Some of these hazards should be identified by a top-notch home inspector. They can inspect a roof for a leak or identify an ungrounded electrical outlet. But environmental hazards such as radon, lead pipes, lead hazards in dust or soil, and carbon monoxide are invisible. Do-it-yourself kits can be useful, but certified professionals provide more rigorous assessments.
A potential buyer or renter who is informed of the presence of the hazards early in the process can make a decision whether the risk needs to be investigated, tested, and mitigated. Just as buyer will demand that a leaky roof be repaired, a buyer may insist that radon hazards to mitigated, lead hazards controlled, or lead service lines be replaced. The costs often range from $1000 to $5000 and can be built into the mortgage. A smart seller or landlord will anticipate the problems and fix them before putting the property on the market.
Even when a buyer or renter chooses not to investigate or mitigate the environmental hazards, they will still be aware of them and have the option to deal with them in the future.
Information technology has fundamentally changed the residential real estate market since Congress directed EPA and HUD to mandate lead hazard disclosure in 1992. Today, the market is more transparent. Therefore, Congress needs to update the law. And private sector firms that have driven that change have the opportunity to expand transparency by including environmental hazard information critical to families in making a decision about a healthy home.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/04/14/lead-hazard-disclosure/
-
Vegetables Grown with Treated Wastewater Boost Human Exposure to Pharmaceutical Contaminants
Apr 14, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alla Katsnelson
With freshwater resources dwindling worldwide, the practice of using treated wastewater to irrigate crops is growing. But that practice might have a downside: In a new study, people who ate vegetables grown using such reclaimed water had increased urine levels of carbamazepine, an antiepileptic drug commonly detected in wastewater (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, DOI:10.1021/acs.est.5b06256).
The randomized, controlled study is the first to directly address human exposure to such pharmaceutical contaminants via produce, says Ora Paltiel of the Hadassah-Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Paltiel and her colleagues gave 34 healthy volunteers batches of produce to eat for a week—either vegetables grown with reclaimed water or organic vegetables grown with only freshwater.
Before the study began, some volunteers had quantifiable concentrations of carbamazepine in their urine while others didn’t. This remained true for participants after a week of eating the organic produce. But after a week of eating produce grown with reclaimed water, every subject excreted detectable levels of the drug.
“This fits what we’ve all suspected but have not shown experimentally,” says Alistair Boxall of the University of York. Although the urine levels were very low—four orders of magnitude lower than those from patients actually taking the drug—people who eat a lot of produce will be exposed to such contaminants throughout their lifetimes, he adds.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i16/Exposure-pharmaceutical-contaminants-via-vegetables.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Invests Big in Wake of Shale Boom
Apr 6, 2016 | Washington Examiner
By John Siciliano
The shale gas revolution is keeping America's chemical industry in top form as it finds itself awash in plentiful and cheap natural gas, which an industry group said Wednesday is spurring well over $100 billion in new investments.
That investment could be the silver lining of low oil prices that are driving down investment in shale oil ventures. Natural gas is plentiful and U.S. businesses are taking advantage of it.
The American Chemistry Council, representing chemical industry giants such as Dow and Dupont, issued a report Wednesday that showed that investments tied to plentiful and affordable shale natural gas and natural gas liquids, or NGLs, has topped $164 billion.
Forty percent of the investment has gone to 264 projects that include new production facilities, expansions and factory re-starts in the United States, which are completed or underway. Fifty-five percent of the new projects are in the planning phase, according to the group's report.
"America enjoys a robust supply outlook, expected to last for decades, and a price environment that's the envy of the world," said Owen Kean, the council's senior director, who announced the report from the Hudson Institute. "Our country has become the most attractive place in the world to make chemicals, and a historic wave of expansion and investment is underway."
But the report comes with a warning for the Obama administration and Congress not to impose regulations that could make it more difficult for oil and gas companies to extract oil and natural gas.
"We need the right regulatory and policy approaches in order to fully realize the potential of shale gas as an engine of manufacturing growth," Kean said. "Policymakers must avoid unreasonable restrictions on oil and gas production on public lands; keep oversight of production on private lands in the hands of the states; and expedite the construction and permitting of infrastructure, such as pipelines, needed to move natural gas and NGLs to market."
Natural gas is the primary source for making a number of chemical compounds and related products, from perfume and antibiotics to rocket fuel. NGLs are natural gas compounds that are pumped out of the ground as a liquid and are sometimes referred to as "natural gasoline."
High-value chemical liquids such as ethane flow out of gas wells, like in the Utica shale formation in Ohio where ethane is plentiful.
The Energy Information Administration, the independent analysis arm of the Energy Department, has projected that domestic petrochemical projects will increase domestic demand for ethane by 600,000 barrels per day between 2014 and 2018. Demand for liquid propane, another by-product of shale gas production, will rise by nearly 200,000 barrels.
The increase in demand is in response to a massive supply increase in the liquids, which is keeping prices in the U.S. cheaper than in other countries, the agency says.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chemical-industry-invests-big-in-wake-of-shale-boom/article/2587860
-
Interior Unveils New Offshore Drilling Rule, Draws Industry Backlash
Apr 14, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Interior Department released new offshore drilling rules Thursday that give oil companies slightly more leeway, but the tweaks didn't silence the criticism from the industry and its allies on Capitol Hill.
Republicans from Gulf states had been bracing for the regulations from Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement that they complain will strangle offshore drilling, and their frustration was echoed by industry lobbying groups as the Obama administration rolled out the proposal.
The offshore rule "is bad news for Louisiana, and certainly has the potential to kick our oil and gas industry while it’s down," Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a statement.
The final regulation changed language in the year-old proposed rule to give the industry flexibility to seek permits to operate outside BSEE's designated "safe-drilling margin." BSEE also opted to require stricter monitoring of the drilling process than previously envisioned and to mandate additional inspections of blowout preventers, the piece of equipment on the Deepwater Horizon rig that failed to operate, resulting spill in that massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico six years ago that ultimately cost BP $40 billion in cleanup and fines.
"It takes a long time to do this right, and it takes a long time to understand what went wrong," Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told reporters. "We wanted to make sure we took care of the reforms we needed to make as well as the reforms the industry needed to make."
The Independent Petroleum Association of America's senior vice president, Dan Naatz, chastised the administration in a statement for taking years to develop a rule that "could result in unintended negative consequences leading to reduced safety, less environmental protection, fewer American jobs, and decreased U.S. oil and natural gas production."
National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi said he was "gratified" to see BSEE gave the industry several years to implement the technological changes, but lamented the "flawed" process Interior used and warned in a statement: "There may very well be more earwigs tucked away in the corn, but we are just now beginning to peel back the layers of this massive rule."
Asked about pushback from Republicans like Vitter or House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who preemptively slammed the regulations during a Wednesday appearance with fellow GOP leaders, Jewell projected confidence that legislative or legal threats to the rule would not succeed.
"We're in good communication with people on both sides of aisle on a bicameral basis," she said. "They're aware of the work we've done on this rule, and we're confident it will stand."
Environmental groups largely hailed the regulation, although many indicated that rather than focusing only on boosting the safety of existing operations, they were now aiming to curb all future drilling off the nation's coasts.
"We should be doing everything we can to make drilling — an inherently risky and polluting process — as safe as possible," Rachel Richardson, Environment America's drilling program director, said by email. "But when you drill, you spill, and the only sure way to protect the Gulf from another BP disaster is to transition away from dirty fuels altogether."
The Wilderness Society's Arctic program director, Lois Epstein, called the rule "long-awaited and much needed," citing a chart that showed offshore blowouts on the rise in recent years.
BSEE projected the rule's 10-year costs at about $890 million and its benefits over the same period at more than $1 billion.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/04/interior-unveils-new-offshore-drilling-rule-draws-industry-backlash-107317
-
$37.5 Billion Energy, Water Bill Cleared for Floor
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously voted April 14 to approve a $37.5 billion energy and water spending bill, clearing the way for floor consideration of the measure as soon as next week.The bill would appropriate $30.7 billion for the Department of Energy, $6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, and nearly $1.3 billion for the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation.The legislation would also authorize interim nuclear storage sites and contains a rider sought by Alpha Natural Resources and other mining companies that prohibits any changes to the definition of “fill material” and “discharge of fill material” under the Clean Water Act (72 DEN A-20, 4/14/16).Other than a manager's amendment making minor technical changes to the bill, no amendments were adopted during the markup.WOTUS Amendment PlannedSen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) offered and withdrew an amendment that would block the Army Corps of Engineers from moving forward with its so-called waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) regulation, which attempts to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act, after securing an commitment to offer it to the bill on the Senate floor.Other highlights of the Senate bill include $2 billion for renewable projects and energy efficiency programs within the DOE, $632 million for the DOE's fossil energy research and development programs and $293 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.The House's $37.4 billion version is scheduled to be marked up by the House Appropriations Committee April 19, according to a committee notice.In addition to providing nearly $30 billion in funding for the Energy Department, the House legislation includes riders that would block the Clean Water Rule (RIN 2040-AF30) and “restricts the application of the Clean Water Act in certain agricultural areas, including farm ponds and irrigation ditches,” according to a summary (71 DEN A-11, 4/13/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87370414&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87370414&jd=87370414
-
Panel Says It Backs Tech Spending But Can't Fund It
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
Senate appropriators say they support doubling federal clean energy investments over the next five years. But they only do so in principle and are proposing to slash key funding components for the concept.
In the report accompanying the Senate Appropriations Committee's energy and water spending bill, lawmakers said they support the "premise and goals set out by Mission Innovation" and said their actions "take the first step in this effort, while working within the constraints in discretionary funding."
Mission Innovation is a global plan to address climate change by doubling clean energy research and development. It is tied to a separate initiative of billionaire investors led by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates. In the United States, Department of Energy renewable, efficiency, technology and national lab programs are at the forefront of implementing the idea.
Senate appropriators approved legislation yesterday that would allot increases for two segments of the Mission Innovation proposal -- the Office of Science and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). Those increases are either equal to or lower than the levels House appropriators proposed this week.
The Senate bill would fund ARPA-E at $292.7 million. The House would give the agency $306 million. In contrast, the administration asked for $350 million for ARPA-E, which funds cutting-edge technologies in the early stages of development.
The Senate bill would also fund renewable and clean energy efforts far below President Obama's Mission Innovation request. It would fund DOE's wind program at $80 million and its solar program at $222 million for fiscal 2017, below currently enacted levels. The administration asked for $156 million and $285 million.
Similarly, geothermal research, vehicle technologies and hydrogen, and fuel-cell technologies all would fall below last year's level under the Senate plan.
At an event yesterday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said he expected Congress would provide funding for Mission Innovation "eventually" (Greenwire, April 14).
Similar to previous appropriations cycles, the Senate plan would boost DOE's fossil energy spending above the administration's request, jumping to $632 million. The House plan includes $645 million. The administration requested $600 million.
The Senate bill includes $2.07 billion for efficiency and renewable programs, comparable to current levels. The House would cut renewable programs $248 million below fiscal 2016.
Other requests
The Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended that DOE submit another report within 180 days on progress for reforming the national labs in response to an earlier congressionally mandated task force.
That task force, the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, made numerous recommendations last year in a report, such as establishing a standing body to assess the labs on a regular basis (E&E Daily, Feb. 25).
The committee report also commended recent efforts to reorganize the National Energy Technology Laboratory but recommended more attention on funding safety measures there.
Additionally, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said he was successful in adding provisions to the bill that would help bring more technologies from the national laboratories to market. The bill contains language, for example, providing DOE more flexibility with matching funds.
Udall's provision called for DOE to provide matching funds in line with other cost-sharing programs authorized by the Energy Policy Act, according to a Udall aide.
"For other programs, a 20-80 [cost share] match has proven to much better leverage federal dollars while producing better outcomes," the aide said.
Udall also pushed for language that would fully fund DOE's new Office of Technology Transitions, which is operating a $20 million fund to help commercialize technology from the national laboratories (E&ENews PM, Feb. 16).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/15/stories/1060035672
-
Even Uncommon Voices Can Find Common Ground on Energy Efficiency
Apr 14, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ross Eisenberg and Kit Kennedy
Washington, D.C., has earned a reputation in recent years as a city plagued by hyper-partisan gridlock. Yet our two organizations – which often disagree – have found common ground on energy efficiency. It’s instructive to look at why both the National Association of Manufacturers and the Natural Resources Defense Council both support it.
It's simple, really: by building better buildings, making more innovative products, and using creative manufacturing processes, we can accomplish multiple goals – reducing wasted resources, improving our electricity system, preventing more toxic pollution, reducing climate change, and fueling economic growth. Many new, innovative energy efficiency products and technologies are made right here by American manufacturers, creating jobs and economic growth across the nation.
Candidates aren’t banging their fists on the lectern about energy efficiency. There are no big-budget commercials or fiery debates on TV. But that’s not because the issue isn’t important. Buildings consume approximately 40 percent of all the energy used in the United States. Improving energy efficiency of our buildings, and of the appliances and equipment inside them, is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to improve the environment, save money, combat global climate change, and stoke our economy.
This week the U.S. Senate continues debating a broad energy bill. It’s been nearly a decade since comprehensive energy policy was enacted. We disagree about some elements of the NAM-supported bill, but we do agree on much of the energy efficiency policy.
We both support provisions in the bill that would help states adopt better building codes, assist small and medium-sized manufacturers with energy efficiency measures, and redouble existing efforts to develop new technologies at national labs and elsewhere.
NAM and NRDC have long supported the SAVE (Sensible Accounting to Value Energy) Act, introduced as an amendment to the bill, which would help homeowners use mortgage financing to make their homes more energy efficient. We support financing programs operated by many cities and states (called Property Assessed Clean Energy, or “PACE”) that allow homeowners to pay for efficiency improvements through an assessment on their property tax bill.
We support the federal government, America’s largest building owner, using performance contracting to invest to upgrade federal buildings to make them more energy and water efficient. Together, Presidents Obama and Bush committed to over $6 billion to these projects, but there are a lot more federal buildings in need of upgrades.
Energy efficiency can help drive innovation. When America’s industrial facilities invest to improve energy efficiency--such as through onsite generation, combined heat and power technologies, waste heat recovery systems, water reuse and recycling, high-efficiency motor systems, and demand response--they help commercialize these innovations, which makes it easier for others to follow.
Similarly, reasonable standards for appliances can contribute to innovative product advances. A good example is today’s typical new refrigerator, which uses one-quarter the energy than a similar model in 1973, while offering 20% more capacity and being available at half the retail cost.
A lot of great work on energy efficiency occurs in states, where utilities invest billions of dollars year after year to help upgrade America’s homes and buildings and to help businesses and manufacturers operate more efficiently.
Federal action has contributed to significant energy savings for consumers and businesses. Our organizations don’t agree on everything, but we do agree that energy efficiency should be a priority for Congress, the administration, and states. NAM and NRDC will continue to try to find common ground on such sensible policies.Eisenberg is the Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy with the National Association of Manufacturers. Kennedy is the Director Energy & Transportation Program with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/276293-even-uncommon-voices-can-find-common-ground-on-energy
-
Senate Republicans Challenge BLM Over Methane Rule
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
Republican critics of the Bureau of Land Management's proposed rule to reduce natural gas waste argued at an oversight hearing April 14 that the agency doesn't have the authority to regulate methane emissions.
The BLM's proposal, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation (RIN 1004-AE14), is aimed at reducing flaring, venting and leaking of gas on federal and Indian lands. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a potent short-lived greenhouse gas.
“Air quality is the responsibility of the [Environmental Protection Agency], the states, and some tribes, like the Southern Ute, but not BLM,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), said at the hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining.
Barrasso, subcommittee chairman, predicted the Obama administration would “need to employ legal gymnastics to defend the rule.”
The proposed rule would limit allowable flaring. Gas typically is flared when an oil well is producing it as a sidestream in a location where no gas pipeline is available to transport the gas to market. In addition, flaring not judged by the BLM to be unavoidable would be subject to royalties (18 DEN A-7, 1/28/16) (15 DEN A-14, 1/25/16).
Rule's Requirements
The rule requires “simple, cost-effective actions” that would provide more revenue to taxpayers and reduce methane emissions that contribute to climate change, said Amanda Leiter, deputy assistant secretary for lands and mineral management at the Interior Department, who defended it at the hearing.
The BLM is required under the Mineral Leasing Act to make sure that oil and gas operators use reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil and gas, she said, adding, “It just happens that in this case the waste goes into the air.”
But Barrasso and other critics of the rule at the hearing said the Obama administration was attempting to regulate existing sources of methane emissions through the rule. That task should be left to the Environmental Protection Agency using procedures under the Clean Air Act, they said.
An EPA final rule now under review at the White House (RIN 2060-AS30) would set the first-ever methane emissions for new oil and natural gas wells. The agency also plans to gather data on emissions from existing wells, the first step toward issuing a rule for them as well (66 DEN A-3, 4/6/16).
BLM's Authority Questioned
Barrasso and Oklahoma Republican Sens. James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and James Lankford, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, questioned in an April 13letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan whether the BLM had authority to issue the regulation.
The letter noted that the rule made the connection that “wasting gas also produces air pollution” and argued that this “encroaches on what is decidedly EPA's mandate.”
The senators said the BLM's ability to regulate air quality with a rule about methane emissions was a “gray area” because the Mineral Leasing Act only gives it authority to prevent waste of oil and gas resources.
The three senators also questioned the BLM's estimate that compliance with the rule would cost $27,000 to $36,000 per year for each oil and gas operation classified as a small entity. They wrote that many stakeholders and industry groups said this underestimated their costs to comply.
Pipelines Needed to Prevent Waste
Barrasso and others also criticized the BLM for delays on permits for pipelines needed to ship natural gas from oil wells to processing plants so that it wouldn't be wasted. He said more than half of the 832 applications for rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines had been pending with the BLM for more than two years.
Leiter said the bureau was “doing a lot to speed approval of pipeline rights of way,” including adding staff.
Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, said at the hearing that Wyoming already regulates air emissions from oil and gas operations. He opposed the BLM rule and said the agency should defer to the states on air quality issues.
But Leiter said that state regulations are uneven and that the rule would ensure that waste is reduced consistently across the country on federal and tribal lands.
Wasting Natural Gas
Waste of natural gas to the atmosphere harms the environment and “cheats taxpayers out of a fair return,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), subcommittee ranking member. The BLM hasn't updated rules to minimize waste in more than 30 years despite changes in technology and practices to reduce waste, he said.
Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a short-lived greenhouse gas that is between 28 times and 36 times more potent than carbon dioxide when measured over a 100-year period, according to the EPA. The Interior Department says nearly one-third of U.S. methane emissions are from the oil and gas industry.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87370426&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87370426&jd=87370426
-
White House Wraps Up Review of Mercury Rule
Apr 14, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is on track to release the final version of a "supplemental finding" to its power plant mercury rule by tomorrow now that the Office of Management and Budget has wrapped up its review.
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which received the finding on March 22, completed the assessment yesterday, according to the Reginfo.gov website.
The final version is not expected to markedly differ from the draft that EPA released late last year in response to the Supreme Court ruling that the agency should have considered costs in its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
EPA has committed to addressing the court's concerns by the end of this week, which marks the compliance date for plants that sought a one-year extension to the rule.
In its proposal, EPA concluded that MATS's projected benefits were substantial enough to justify the cost of new technology and other measures to reduce power plant pollution.
Coal-fired plants are the United States' largest emitters of mercury. Once the new standards are fully in place, EPA predicts that they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and yield between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits.
But the estimated $9.6 billion yearly compliance cost is also exceptionally high. Last year's 5-4 Supreme Court decision revived a debate over EPA's reliance on health "co-benefits" in justifying the price tag for meeting Clean Air Act regulations.
While industry and states fighting the mercury rule had raised that issue in the litigation, the high court didn't rule on it, although the 5-4 opinion said that MATS's "quantifiable benefits" were worth $4 million to $6 million per year. The bulk of the remaining monetary benefits would come largely from expected reductions in particulate matter, a pollutant that is not targeted by the mercury rule (Greenwire, July 1, 2015).
Release of the supplemental finding could now clear the way for a new lawsuit specifically challenging the use of co-benefits, said Adam Riedel, an environmental attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
The issue "has been lingering," Riedel said today, "waiting for someone to address it."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/04/14/stories/1060035648
-
Why Fracking Has Become Such a Critical Issue in the New York Primaries
Apr 15, 2016 | Washington Post
By Philip Bump
Fracking is based on water. A narrow shaft is dug straight down and then horizontally through a formation of shale -- flat, layered rock. Water (mixed with some chemicals) is pumped in at high pressure, and the rock fractures. (Hence "fracking," which is short for "hydraulic fracturing.") The fractures allow oil or natural gas to seep out once the water is removed, and the gas or oil can flow to the surface.
There are three environmental problems with this. The problem with oil is that it releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants when burned, exacerbating climate change. Natural gas -- mostly methane -- is much, much cleaner when burned, but if it escapes from the fracking site directly into the atmosphere, it's a much more potent greenhouse gas. (And studies suggest that a lot does escape, leaking into the atmosphere where it traps heat.) But perhaps the biggest environmental issue with fracking is that leftover wastewater. The wastewater is usually disposed of by being injected into deep wells at high pressure, where it can possibly seep into groundwater. Those wastewater wells have also been linked to an increase in earthquakes in fracking regions.
Fracking regions are defined by the presence of the critical element: shale. So the biggest boom in production has been in western North Dakota and eastern Montana, over a shale formation called the Bakken. There's another big shale formation, the Marcellus, that underlies the northern part of Appalachia, extending up into Western New York. The Bakken is being fracked like crazy, with North Dakota consistently seeing the biggest population growth in the country thanks to the booming industry. (It's also indirectly why gas prices have fallen. Middle Eastern nations have let prices fall in part in an attempt to make fracking not profitable.) But the Marcellus is not seeing the same sort of growth, in part because it overlaps with less remote areas. And, in part, because of politics.
If you drive through the Finger Lakes region of Western New York, a series of a dozen long, narrow lakes carved into the ground by ancient glaciers, you'll see lawn signs for a number of political causes. This is a more conservative part of the state than New York City, so there are excoriations of legislation introducing new gun laws, for example. But there are also a number of signs for and against fracking. For, because the region needs jobs, and jobs have been the third most important by-product of the fracking boom after oil and gas. But against because of the risks posed by fracking -- particularly from that wastewater. The purity of the Finger Lakes is one of the main industries in the region, and spoiling the lakes with leaking wastewater would potentially be enormously harmful.
Whether or not the state should allow fracking had been a contentious issue for Gov. Andrew Cuomo for years. It wasn't until after he won reelection in 2014 that Cuomo finally nixed fracking in the state, after previously suggesting that he might allow it in the economically depressed counties along the state's southern border.
With the advent of the 2016 presidential race, though, it's been reintroduced (thanks, too, to the fact that Pennsylvania votes shortly after New York).
During an interview with MSNBC, for example, Ted Cruz told the network's Chuck Todd that not allowing fracking was a mistake. Responding to a question about his dismissal of "New York values," Cruz explained that he meant the bad policies of liberal New York politicians. "[F]or example, you look at the policies of Governor Cuomo where just next door in Pennsylvania they've been experiencing incredible economic boom developing the Marcellus Shale," Cruz said, "and yet knucklehead Democratic politicians here think New Yorkers don't want jobs. You've got the Marcellus Shale here. You could have thousands and thousands of high-paying jobs if the politicians would just let you develop the resources that are here and I want to see more jobs and more economic opportunity for New Yorkers."
The reason Cuomo didn't approve fracking, though, is that a lot of Democrats live and work and vote in the state, and for a large, vocal subset of Democrats, fracking is a nonstarter because of that water pollution and because it's an expansion of the fossil fuel industry.
During the Democratic debate on Thursday night, the two Democratic contenders for the presidency had a very different debate over the process. It's worth quoting at length.
MODERATOR ERROL LOUIS: Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you're done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?
HILLARY CLINTON: No, well, I don't think I've changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas.
And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.
That's why I've set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years.
So I have big, bold goals, but I know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like Russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy.
LOUIS: Thank you, Secretary. All right, Senator?
BERNIE SANDERS: All right, here is -- here is a real difference. This is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough.
Not right now. Not on climate change. Now, the truth is, as secretary of state, Secretary Clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. Second of all, right now, we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet.
And that means -- and I would ask you to respond. Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?
What's presented here is another microcosm of the differences in the approaches of the two candidates. Clinton is strategic and incremental. Sanders is dogmatic and ambitious.
Clinton's point about bridge fuels is entirely correct. At the beginning of President Obama's first term in office, the idea that transitioning from coal to natural gas as a means of fighting climate change was widely accepted. The Sierra Club was even on-board with the idea of embracing natural gas. Again, burning natural gas is much, much cleaner than burning coal.
As the New Yorker explained in a great 2011 article on the industry, this was just as drillers had figured out the key technological issue to make fracking work: the horizontal drilling. Innovations in the ability extend a well through the shale unleashed the fracking boom, which in turn led to a glut of natural gas. At the same time, fracking shifted the debate over natural gas from one about bridge fuels to one about the process of fracking itself. Apparent seepage of methane and wastewater into water supplies and water systems drew negative attention to the process, and public opinion shifted.
That's where Bernie Sanders is now. Fracking is emblematic of the problems with relying on fossil fuels generally. It is to oil and gas what Citizens United is to campaign finance -- a not-well-understood phenomenon that's become a partisan shorthand. Sanders invokes "fracking" because he knows it prompts a visceral, negative response. Clinton's description of the politics eight years ago is correct, but the politics on the subject have changed.
In New York, which votes next Tuesday, those politics sit very near the surface. It's more a complicated issue outside of New York City, where the drilling would happen and the much-needed jobs would appear. But there are an awful lot of environmentally sensitive Democrats in the city for whom the idea itself is unacceptable. Giving us three political positions: It should be allowed (Cruz), it held promise (Clinton), it can't happen (Sanders).
Fracking sits at a fascinating nexus in American society and politics, a job creator that can help or can hurt climate change and which bears other environmental risks. Which is why the debate over it takes so many forms -- and why that debate is playing out about a mile above a shale formation that's been buried under New York State for hundreds of millions of years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/15/why-fracking-has-become-such-a-critical-issue-in-the-new-york-primaries/
-
Study Finds ‘Plausible’ Link Between 2012 Texas Quake and Injection Wells
Apr 15, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
A new study released Wednesday by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) adds to the growing body of research suggesting a link between seismicity and underground wastewater injection wells.
The study, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, looked at a series of earthquakes near Timpson, TX, including a 4.8 magnitude earthquake that occurred May 17, 2012. Researchers built a computer model that simulated the effects of fluid injection on the stability of the fault suspected of generating the seismicity using a number of parameters, including the physical properties of the reservoir and the orientation of the fault.
The results found it “plausible” that two injection wells near Timpson caused the earthquakes, which began occurring in April 2008, around 17 months after the wells began operating. However, while “earthquakes were generated using a certain range of input parameters,” the modeling also found that “no earthquakes were generated in simulations using a wider set of equally probable parameters,” according to a summary of the study’s findings.
The use of a computer model differentiates the UT study from previous research that relied on the timing and proximity of underground injection activity to determine whether it had induced nearby seismic activity.
While showing a potential link between underground injection and seismicity, the results also “underscore the difficulty of conclusively tying specific earthquakes to human activity using currently available subsurface data,” according to the researchers.
“We used a more rigorous approach than previous studies, but our analyses are limited by the availability of robust, high-quality data sets that describe the conditions at depth at which water is injected and earthquakes occur,” said Peter Eichhubl, a senior research scientist with UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology and a co-author of the study. “This study demonstrates the need for more and higher quality subsurface data to properly evaluate the hazards associated with wastewater injection in Texas.”
The UT study was authored by Eichhubl, Zhiqiang Fan and Julia F.W. Gale and funded through the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Research and Development Program authorized by the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The study builds on previous research suggesting a link between a number of small Texas temblors and underground injection wells, though there have been conflicting findings on the issue.
Regulators with the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) asserted at the time that earthquakes in May 2012 near Timpson, located in the eastern part of the state, were unlikely to have been caused by natural gas drilling or wastewater injection wells (see Shale Daily, May 22, 2012). But researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) cited drilling-related injection wells as the reason for a "remarkable" uptick in seismic activity in the region (see Shale Daily, April 2, 2012).
Another report released in 2012 found a link between injection wells in the Barnett Shale and a series of small earthquakes nearby (see Shale Daily, Aug. 8, 2012).
More recently, the RRC conducted studies of injection wells operated in Texas by EnerVest Operating LLC (see Shale Daily, Sept. 11, 2015) and XTO Energy Inc. (see Shale Daily, Sept. 2, 2015) and found a lack of evidence to show that those wells had caused small earthquakes.
This year, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott appointed a seismicity technical advisory committee to advise the Bureau of Economic Geology on the use of $4.47 million appropriated to UT by the Texas Legislature to help study seismic activity near oil and natural gas operations (see Shale Daily, March 28a).
Neighbor Oklahoma has also been dealing with a series of seismic events linked to underground injection wells (see Shale Daily, March 29). The USGS recently released a report showing Oklahoma as the riskiest state for induced seismicity, with Texas third on the list (see Shale Daily, March 28b).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106064-study-finds-plausible-link-between-2012-texas-quake-and-injection-wells
-
Lawmakers Push Emergency Planning for Power Grid Attack
Apr 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jennevieve Fong
Lawmakers pressed federal officials Thursday over their emergency plans in the event of a cyber or physical attack on the nation's electrical grid.
At a hearing of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, lawmakers expressed concerns the government is not prepared to handle the aftermath.
“Virtually all critical infrastructure is dependent upon the electrical grid, particularly lifeline sectors, telecommunications, transportation, water, and financial services,” said Chairman Lou Barletta (R-Pa.).
"If the goal of the bad guys is to collapse the U.S. economic system, they are going to cut off the power," he added. "Our national security, public safety, economic competitiveness and personal privacy is at risk."
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said a coordinated physical and cyber attack could be almost as devastating to communities as a massive earthquake or tsunami.
The hearing comes as fears grow about a crippling attack on the nation's grid. The FBI has also started to warn power companies about potential threats, according to a report last week.
A historic cyberattack on a Ukrainian power company in December, which that country blamed on Russia, led to a massive blackout.
Lawmakers said that any emergency plans should account for cyber incidents.
Officials at the hearing said they were taking the issue seriously, but also shared some of the difficulties with preparing for the fallout from a massive attack on the grid.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate said they have learned a great deal from responding to natural disasters about the need to have long-term resources in an area.
"A lot of the lessons have been learned by natural hazards. The question with cyber is how widespread and how many jurisdictions will simultaneously be impacted," he said of a blackout.
State and local officials are often ready to handle short-term or local outages, but more must be done to prepare for long-term or wider blackouts.
Fugate said the situation would grow more complicated the longer the power is out.
"The longer you have power disruptions, the more you have cascading effects from everything to not being able to get to retail or grocery stores or gasoline distribution."
Witnesses told the committee that emergency planning begins with local utilities on the scene.
“Should any threat or emergency exceed the capability of any local or private sector resources, then the federal government and the electric sector will engage in coordinating a response to this type of crisis,” said Patricia Hoffman, assistant secretary of the Energy Department's Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability.
Fugate also said that in massive blackout from a cyberattack, FEMA would operate on the state level to communicate with citizens.
"Governors and their teams are going to be the best to give information at the local level. Our job on the federal side is to provide the back up and tools required," he said.
But some lawmakers, including Barletta, were concerned that agencies have not connected the dots all the way to the local government.
Caitlin Durkovich, from the Department of Homeland Security, tried to assure the lawmakers that the administration is taking the threat seriously.
"Protecting the electrical grid is a top priority for this administration," she said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/276359-lawmakers-push-emergency-planning-for-power-grid-attack
-
House Transportation Committee Unveils Pipeline Safety Bill
Apr 14, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unveiled legislation today that would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for four years and give the agency authority to impose broad emergency restrictions on pipeline operators.
The legislation echoes a pipeline safety bill that was approved by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee last month. The two bills will need to be reconciled before a vote in the full House.
The Transportation panel's bill (summary here), like the E&C legislation, allows the industry to petition PHMSA to overturn the emergency orders. But the Transportation committee's bill goes a step further by specifying that pipeline companies can seek judicial review of the orders in federal court.
In addition, the Transportation committee's bill mandates that PHMSA issue minimum safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities within two years of the enactment of the bill into law, a response to the Aliso Canyon disaster.
It also requires that PHMSA update Congress every 60 days on the status of a series of unfulfilled mandates included in a 2011 pipeline safety bill.
The bill does not appear to include two other provisions that faced objections from industry: a measure included in the Senate version of the legislation that would allow lawmakers on the committees with jurisdiction over PHMSA to review the industry's unredacted emergency response plans, and a provision removed from an earlier draft of the House E&C bill that would have allowed citizens to file lawsuits to force PHMSA to implement regulations.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
California Attorney General Kamala Harris Challenges Benicia Oil Plan
Apr 14, 2016 | Sacramento Bee
By Tony Bizjak
California Attorney General Kamala Harris weighed in on Benicia’s ongoing oil train debate on Thursday, arguing that the city has a legal right to reject a local refinery’s oil train plan and the obligation to review environmental risks.
The debate involves a plan by Valero Refining Co. to ship up to two 50-car trains a day of crude oil through Northern California, including through Roseville, downtown Sacramento and Davis, to its plant on Suisun Bay on the outskirts of Benicia. Valero is seeking city permits to make changes at its refinery to allow it to receive train shipments.
In a five-page letter Thursday, Harris repeatedly challenged Valero’s assertion – and the opinion of an attorney on hire to Benicia – that the city cannot consider any potential negative impacts of oil trains to cities along the rail line.
“We disagree that the city is prohibited from considering the project’s 11 significant and unavoidable rail-related impacts when exercising its local land use authority,” said Harris, the state’s top law enforcement official, said.
An earlier environmental impact report conducted by Benicia concluded that the trains presented significant and unavoidable risks of oil spill, environmental damage and potential loss of human life if one were to derail while en route to the refinery. Several spills and explosions in recent years, including one in which 47 people were killed, have highlighted the dangers of crude oil trains nationally.
Bradley Hogin, an environmental attorney hired by Benicia, has argued that federal interstate commerce law pre-empts the city from turning Valero’s proposal down because that decision would at least indirectly be telling the Union Pacific railroad company what it can and can’t do.
The Benicia Planning Commission earlier this year rejected Hogin’s opinion and denied Valero’s permit request. Planning commissioners said they did not want to put cities on the rail line at risk, but they also made a point of saying they also wererejecting Valero’s proposal because of local issues, such as flood and traffic concerns.
Valero appealed that decision to the Benicia City Council, which is conducting hearings, including two scheduled for next week.
Numerous attorneys representing environmental and social justice groups have argued that Hogin’s reading of the law is wrong. Sacramento-area officials have sent several letters to Benicia calling on that city to protect communities along the rail line, and a number of Sacramento and Davis residents have testified in Benicia against the plan.
The state attorney general is the highest law enforcement official to weigh in on the matter. Harris, a Democrat, is running for U.S. Senate this year.
Harris argues, in her letter, that federal pre-emption law on rail shipments does not apply because Valero is not a railroad company and is only asking Benicia for permission to make improvements at its local refinery site.
“Both Valero and city staff incorrectly argue that the city’s denial of Valero’s use permit will somehow impermissibly interfere with Union Pacific’s rail operations,” the attorney general said in her letter, written by Deputy Attorney General Scott Lichtig. “The city’s denial of Valero’s use permit is not categorically pre-empted” by federal law because it doesn’t interfere with UP’s federal rights.
In sum, the attorney general’s office said that under federal law Benicia “retains its authority to take discretionary action to approve or deny Valero’s project.”
Valero spokesman Chris Howe responded Thursday in an email to The Sacramento Bee, saying, “We remain confident in our views related to the application of federal pre-emption in this matter.”
In an email to The Bee Thursday evening, Hogin responded.
“City staff disagrees with the Attorney General’s letter,” he wrote. “Based on current law, cities do not have the authority to make permitting decisions based on impacts from rail operations. Cities may only consider local impacts that could result from a shipper’s unloading facility. The status of the permittee as rail carrier or shipper is not the deciding factor; what matters is the nature of the regulation – whether it addresses impacts from a shipper’s unloading facility, or impacts from rail operations.”
Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor, who has acted as spokesman for the local six-county Sacramento Area Council of Governments, said the Attorney General’s analysis is consistent with SACOG’s own legal analysis. “At this point it seems clear that the significant environmental impacts and public safety risks of this expanded crude oil terminal outweigh the project benefits,” he said.
Ethan Buckner of Stand California, one of several organizations that oppose crude oil shipments, issued a statement lauding Harris.
“Attorney General Harris stood up for democracy and public safety today,” Buckner said. “Valero was hoping to cloud the issue with complicated federal law. ... The City Council must now uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to reject the Valero oil train project.
“And all other cities in California and around the U.S. now know for certain that federal law does not preempt or constrain the city’s discretionary decision-making authority.”
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article71926902.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Arizona Regulator: Attainability Concerns Drove Ozone Suit
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Concerns over the ability of rural counties to meet more stringent ozone standards drove Arizona to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 ozone standards of 70 parts per billion, the state's top environmental regulator told lawmakers.
Misael Cabrera, director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, said during an April 14 House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing that the tools provided under the Clean Air Act to bring areas into compliance with the ozone standards will be inadequate. Cabrera said the 70 ppb standards are “simply not achievable” in parts of Arizona, including rural Yuma County.
“Our stance as an agency is typically to cooperate with EPA wherever we can, and on this particular issue, we've looked at all of the mechanisms for relief that EPA provides and none of them work well for Arizona,” Cabrera said. “Rather than holding counties accountable for air pollution they did not create, we decided to challenge the standard in court.”
Arizona led a coalition of five states in challenging the 2015 ozone standards in federal appeals court. The states, along with coal giant Murray Energy Corp., told the court in November that they intend to question whether the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by setting unattainable standards that are at or near background levels in certain areas of the country (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, statement of issues filed 11/30/15;231 DEN A-15, 12/2/15).
Yuma County Used as Example
Cabrera used Yuma County, a mostly rural, agricultural county that borders both California and Mexico, as an illustration of the difficulty many areas will have in meeting the 70 ppb ozone standards.
A very small portion of ozone precursor emissions that drive ozone concentrations in Yuma Country come from industrial sources within Arizona, Cabrera said. However, Cabrera said Yuma can't qualify for rural transport area status because the Yuma metropolitan area has too large a population, and the county won't benefit from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule because California already has the most stringent pollution controls in the country and has “no emissions reductions” to contribute to aid downwind areas.
The “best hope” for Yuma would be to make an international transport area designation; however, even that designation would subject Yuma to nonattainment area requirements, Cabrera said.
Bill Would Delay Implementation
Cabrera was one of five environmental regulators to testify before the Energy and Power Subcommittee on H.R. 4775, a bill that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standards and make various changes to the Clean Air Act's provisions for reviewing and revising national ambient air quality standards for all criteria pollutants.
Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, said in written comments to the subcommittee that H.R. 4775 would “jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and delay health protections” for millions of Americans.
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), the author of H.R. 4775, said the proposal would provide “needed balance” to the process of setting standards for ozone, particulate matter and other pollutants. As those standards tighten, regulators need to go after emissions from smaller sources, which “provides economic pain” at a local level, Olson said.
Regulators from Utah, Texas and the San Joaquin Valley joined Cabrera in voicing support for H.R. 4775, while an air regulator from Delaware said he couldn't support the bill because it would undercut important provisions of the Clean Air Act that are crucial to providing public health.
Pallone Opposes Bill
Many of the Democrats on the subcommittee also voiced strong opposition to Olson's bill. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said H.R. 4775 would break the commitment that Congress made when it passed the Clean Air Act to provide safe and healthy-to-breathe air.
“It's simply a bad bill,” Pallone said of H.R. 4775.
H.R. 4775 also is opposed by a coalition of 12 public health organizations, including the American Lung Association (72 DEN A-3, 4/14/16).
The measure is supported by the American Chemistry Council , which said in an April 13 letter that the bill would provide greater regulatory certainty for both state air regulators and industry.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87370428&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87370428&jd=87370428
-
Talk of Clean Air Act Reform Clouds Hearing on Ozone Reg Delay
Apr 15, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
At a House hearing yesterday on a bill to postpone implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard, it quickly became clear that some participants saw a bigger issue in play: revisiting the basic framework of the Clean Air Act.
"Everyone recognizes that it has been a successful piece of legislation, but we also know that every state is affected differently by the regulations coming out of EPA," said Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, at the hearing's outset. With regard to the air quality standards for ozone and other air pollutants, Whitfield said, many states on both sides of the partisan divide "agree that there needs to be some adjustments here."
That call was echoed by several state and regional regulators, who variously objected that the new 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard is based on flawed science, won't make much difference to public health and will be impossible to meet.
The most impassioned plea came from Seyed Sadredin, executive director of the 25,000-square-mile San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in California. The district, home to some of the nation's most stubborn air pollution problems, is now subject to four standards for ozone and another four for the fine particulates known as PM2.5, according to Sadredin's prepared testimony.
"We are reaching the point of diminishing returns," he said during the hearing. Despite reducing population exposure to ozone by more than 90 percent over the years, "we are nowhere near meeting the new standard," he added. The bill, H.R. 4775, would provide some "much needed streamlining" to the Clean Air Act, he said.
Two of the other four witnesses represented states -- Texas and Arizona -- that are suing to overturn the new benchmark. The hearing also furnished a reminder of the fiercely held perspectives that have kept the act in its current form since the last overhaul in 1990.
In a written statement added to the hearing record, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe attacked the measure -- sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) -- as unneeded and damaging to public health and the environment. A provision to change the review cycle for revising the limits on ozone and other major air pollutants from five years to 10 years would keep EPA from incorporating the latest science into agency decisionmaking, McCabe said, while delaying implementation of the ozone benchmark would undercut the health benefits of a regulation that EPA has estimated will head off hundreds of premature deaths and 230,000 childhood asthma attacks each year. For residents of areas that don't meet the new standard, the legislation would mean breathing unhealthy air for 10 years or more, McCabe said.
Continuing the offensive was New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the full Energy Committee's top Democrat, who called the legislation "a bad bill," and Ali Mirzakhalili, head of air quality for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. For his 7-year-old son, Mirzakhalili said, the proposed extension of the compliance deadlines would deny the boy the protection afforded by the new standard until he was about to enter college.
"This is just wrong," he said in his prepared testimony. During the hearing, Mirzakhalili took particular aim at a provision that would allow EPA to take technological feasibility into account as a secondary factor in revising air quality benchmarks. The effect, Mirzakhalili said, would be to "unravel" the Clean Air Act (Greenwire, April 14).
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the sunlight-driven reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Besides irritating lung passageways, it can worsen potentially fatal conditions like asthma and emphysema. EPA set the 70 ppb ambient air quality standard in October 2015, citing fresh scientific evidence about the health effects. Before then, the benchmark -- set in 2008 under President George W. Bush's administration -- had been 75 ppb.
In an interview after the hearing, Olson said he hopes to get a subcommittee markup on the bill within the next few weeks. In a news release later in the day, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) said he will seek to add a rollback in the compliance timetable for the ozone standard into next year's appropriations bill for EPA.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/15/stories/1060035677
-
Clinton Environmental Justice Plan Released Before N.Y. Primary
Apr 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D) would address issues from climate resilience and environmental enforcement to brownfields redevelopment and clean energy proliferation as president, according to a recently released campaign environmental justice fact sheet.
The fact sheet detailing Clinton's plan that was released April 13 addresses a current environmental justice issue: eliminating lead as a major public health threat within five years and modernizing drinking and wastewater systems. This responds to the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis.
However, it also touched on goals outside the mainstream that the justice community has been working on for decades, such as determining how to address the cumulative impacts of environmental pollution on communities.
“Hillary believes we need to break down all the barriers holding Americans back—including the burdens imposed by unhealthy air, polluted water, and exposure to toxins,” the fact sheet said. “No one in our country should be exposed to toxic chemicals or hazardous wastes simply because of where they live, their income, or their race. And the impacts of climate change must be addressed with an eye to climate justice, so no community gets left out or left behind.”
Clinton's fact sheet, which was released days before the April 19 New York primary and the day before CNN hosts another Democratic debate, offers the deepest dive yet into environmental justice across presidential candidates' 2016 platforms. The fact sheet strikes a blow to the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), her opponent for the Democratic nomination, who has offered climate justice components to his platform (21 DEN A-4, 2/2/16).
Protecting Health, Boosting Economy
The fact sheet carries throughout it a theme of not only protecting but also raising up these overburdened communities. For example, the fact sheet cites the need to “expand good-paying job opportunities for people of color throughout the clean energy economy” and to redevelop brownfields “in a way that creates good-paying jobs and new economic opportunities for impacted communities.”
It also looks at expanding and strengthening the framework for prosecuting criminal violators of environment and public health laws. For example, the fact sheet said that Clinton would work with Congress to strengthen Safe Drinking Water Act criminal provisions and would direct the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department to collaborate on use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act “to prevent or rectify environmental injustices.”
Peggy Shepard, who spoke on behalf of herself as an individual but also serves as executive director for WE ACT for Environmental Justice, told Bloomberg BNA that Clinton's environmental justice fact sheet was historic. She said it was the first time a presidential candidate has come out with a plan entirely centered on environmental justice, offering advocates a way to hold the candidate accountable.
Shepard highlighted Clinton's goal to eradicate lead within five years as an “aggressive” and significant promise, as well as the candidate's commitment to significantly expand the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ research and partnership grant programs. The institute-related research has been important in advancing the health disparities research field, she said.
Strengths of the Fact Sheet
However, for Shepard, who said Sanders doesn't understand environmental justice, the most important part of the fact sheet was very simple (235 DEN A-6, 12/8/15).
“I think the most powerful element of the plan is that there is a plan,” Shepard said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87370430&vname=dennotallissues&fn=87370430&jd=87370430
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested