Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/29/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Sector (Including Gases)
Apr 28, 2016 | Gas World
By JJ Koczan
The US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) revealed today that real GDP increased at an annual rate of 0.5 percent in the first quarter of 2016, according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 1.4 percent. -
(ACC Blog) What a “Defective” Radiation-Risk Standard Can Teach Us About Improving Chemical Risk Assessments
Apr 28, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck, Ph.D.
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. seems to have a knack for battling bad science – especially what he perceives to be misguided reporting and alarmist stories about climate change. -
(ACC Mentioned) American Coatings Association Pushing for TSCA Reform Bills
Apr 29, 2016 | Occupational Health & Safety
The American Coatings Association, a nonprofit trade association for the paint and coatings industry,this week urged Congress to finalize a bill that will reform the Toxic Substances Control Act as soon as possible. -
A Toxic Substances Control Act for the 21st Century
Apr 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Beth Bosley
As the chemical industry awaits the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills that will update the regulation of chemicals in the U.S., I've reflected on what it took to get to this point, and why it's essential for Congress to finish the job quickly. Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a novel regulation when enacted in 1976, has been debated in Congress for at least 10 years. -
Mainstreaming Green Chemistry: Why TSCA Reform is Necessary but Not Sufficient
Apr 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Joel Tickner
During the past 10 years there has been significant growth in regulatory and market demands for safer chemicals and more sustainable products. Reforming our toxics laws may go some distance towards incentivizing safer compounds but it will not be enough. -
Toxic Substances Control Act Reform or Irreversible Rollback?
Apr 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Linda Reinstein
The Senate and House are in the midst of reconciling bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The final bill the conference committee produces will shape the future of chemical safety for decades to come. -
24 Firms to be Awarded for Using, Promoting Safer Substances
Apr 28, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA will recognize 24 companies and organizations for embracing alternative chemicals under a program that provides labels to help consumers identify products that do not contain harmful substances. -
BASF Among Winners of EPA's 2016 Safer Choice Awards
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The BASF Corp. was among 24 recipients of the Safer Choice Partner of the Year awards the Environmental Protection Agency announced April 28. -
Lawmakers Amble Toward Chemical Reform Finish Line
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Anthony Adragna
There is no deal yet, but House and Senate lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA April 28 they continue to make positive progress on a revamp of the nation's primary chemicals law, and some believe an agreement could come as soon as the week of May 9. -
14 States Seek Clean Power Plan Guidance Despite Stay
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Andrew Childers
Fourteen states are asking the Environmental Protection Agency for assistance as they prepare to comply with the Clean Power Plan despite the rule being stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. -
Mayors Push Obama to Write Methane Regulations
Apr 28, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of American mayors are asking the Obama administration to issue strong rules on methane leaks and emissions at oil and gas drilling sites. -
What's at Stake in Next Round of Mercury Rule Litigation?
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The deadlines for power plants to come into compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards may have passed, but attorneys who are following the issue told Bloomberg BNA that there is still a lot at stake in the next round of litigation over the regulation. -
Lawmakers Mandate Tests Before Methane Leak Site Can Reopen
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Anne C. Mulkern
The California Assembly approved legislation today to require rigorous safety tests before Southern California Gas Co. can reopen a natural gas storage site that leaked this year. -
Texas Methane Leaks are a Problem—for California
Apr 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tim O'Connor
Aliso Canyon was a big methane release, especially in Los Angeles, but in the grand scheme of methane released every day by the nation’s oil and gas industry, it was a blip. And recent footage from Texas, coupled with a new study of over 8,000 oil and gas wells gives a glimpse at the kind of leaks that are happening outside of California’s borders – leaks that have huge implications for the state. -
The Legacy of Deepwater Horizon
Apr 29, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Sharpless
Six years ago, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing eleven workers onboard and opening an oil well that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. The spill ultimately released over 200 million gallons of oil into the ocean. -
Justices to Decide if Stringent Law Applies to Crude-by-Rail Port
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The Washington state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether permitting of a proposed crude-by-rail terminal on the Pacific Coast is subject to the stringent environmental provisions of the state's Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA) (Quinault Indian Nation v. City of Hoquiam, Wash., No. 92552-6, 4/26/16). -
California High-Speed Rail Authority Obtains Radio Spectrum for PTC
Apr 28, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has received final approval to acquire the radio spectrum it needs to operate positive train control (PTC) and other communication systems for its trains, authority officials announced yesterday. -
(ACC Mentioned) New GOP Bill Would Roll Back Ozone Standard
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and five other Republicans introduced legislation yesterday to roll back implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard and overhaul the broader system for updating air quality benchmarks. -
EPA Ozone Rule Looms Large in Swing State
Apr 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Denver area is playing a starring role in the national fight over President Obama’s new ozone pollution rule, with potential implications for a crucial Senate race. -
Ten States, Industry Groups Urge Appellate Court to Vacate EPA's Tighter Ozone Standard
Apr 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Ten states and several industry organizations, including the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), have filed petitions in federal appellate court challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Sector (Including Gases)
Apr 28, 2016 | Gas World
By JJ Koczan
The US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) revealed today that real GDP increased at an annual rate of 0.5 percent in the first quarter of 2016, according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 1.4 percent.
Incorporating the gases industry, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that the first quarter ended on a soft note, with the headline index essentially flat on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis during March. This follows flat activity in February, a 0.4 percent gain in January and a strong fourth quarter.
During March, chemical production rose in North America, Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and Africa and the Middle East, while activity fell in Latin America and Asia-Pacific. The Global CPRI was up 2.6 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis and stood at 108.5% of its average 2012 levels in March.
Related: Air Products reports growth despite EfW exit in Q2 results
During March, capacity utilization in the global business of chemistry slipped slightly to 80.1 percent. This is off from 81.0 percent last March and is below the long-term (1987-2015) average of 89.1 percent.
Mixed March results
All segments of the business of chemistry have improved from the trough of the recession with the most pronounced recovery having occurred in the cyclical segments. During March, results were mixed, with weakness in the global production of agricultural chemicals, inorganic chemicals, plastic resins, and manufactured fibers.
Considering year-over-year comparisons, chemical production increased in most categories. Growth was strongest in global plastic resins followed by organic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, other specialty chemicals, and consumer products.
More to come
Gas companies like Air Products, Praxair, Chart, and Air Liquide have begun issuing their quarterly updates, and with those and these overarching numbers, a clear picture of the gases business in the larger economic sphere should begin to take shape over the next several weeks.
http://www.gasworld.com/us-real-gdp-up-global-chemical-production-regional-index-soft/2010352.article
-
Apr 28, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Nancy Beck, Ph.D.
Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. seems to have a knack for battling bad science – especially what he perceives to be misguided reporting and alarmist stories about climate change.
In his most recent piece, Jenkins laments the fact that some activists have used faulty research to overstate the risks associated with developing potentially transformative alternative energy technologies. He cites nuclear as a prime example.
In making his case against bad climate science, however, Jenkins brought up an issue that resonates with chemical manufacturers because of its importance to the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently conducts chemical risk assessments.
The “linear no-threshold” model of risk
According to Jenkins, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s “linear no-threshold” (LNT) model of radiation risk, which he says has unfairly kept nuclear power low on the alternative energy priority list, has also contributed to keeping the EPA from being as accurate as it could when conducing chemical risk assessments.
That’s because the LNT model continues to be EPA’s default approach – both for chemicals that act in linear fashion and for those chemicals which scientific information shows do not act in a strictly linear way. In the latter case, different dosages can cause effects to change in ways that don’t always result in a straight line on a graph.
What that means is, while the LNT model isn’t entirely obsolete, neither is it the best tool to assess the effects of exposure to certain chemicals that aren’t directly proportional to the dose.
Why getting it right matters
If EPA’s approach to chemical assessments didn’t have significant implications for the general public, perhaps people might be more inclined to cut them some slack. But the fact is, the assessments – when they rely on default approaches over existing data, and don’t represent the true scientific information – can have major consequences.
The most palpable one to consumers is that many of the products they use could be removed from the marketplace, leaving them with fewer choices when searching for the one that best fits their needs.
Faulty risk assessments can also lead to the misdirection of public health resources towards “protecting” us from phantom risks rather than helping to tackle real, tangible health concerns. Instead, assessments should focus on our understanding of how chemicals may interact with the body to determine the likelihood of harm.
In addition, assessments should take into account the presence of chemicals that are produced naturally by the body.
Animal and human data, along with basic research, should be comprehensively reviewed, evaluated and integrated to provide an understanding of the potential hazards and risks that chemicals could pose to people at differing exposure levels.
That way, consumers can be more confident they are being protected from real risks, rather than risks that may not exist at all.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/04/what-a-defective-radiation-risk-standard-can-teach-us-about-improving-chemical-risk-assessments/
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Coatings Association Pushing for TSCA Reform Bills
Apr 29, 2016 | Occupational Health & Safety
The American Coatings Association, a nonprofit trade association for the paint and coatings industry,this week urged Congress to finalize a bill that will reform the Toxic Substances Control Act as soon as possible. TSCA reform has been in the works for years and advocated strongly by some in Congress, including the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who died in 2013, but a final bill has yet to emerge during this Congress.
ACA has supported two bills: the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S. 697, which passed the U.S. Senate on Dec. 17, 2015, and a House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2576, which passed June 23, 2015, on a 398-1 vote.
The TSCA was enacted in 1976; advocates of reform bills say it does not give EPA sufficient authority to regulate chemicals, and that many chemicals now on the market have never been evaluated for safety.
ACA noted in an April 26 online article that urged quick action to get a final bill out of conference that EPA, which is responsible for implementing and enforcing TSCA, supports TSCA reform and told Congress which parts of each bill it preferred in a letter dated Jan. 20, 2016.
"ACA has been pushing for modernization of the 40-year-old federal statute for the past five years, with the rationale that a strong federal chemicals management program is essential to avoid a patchwork of varied state chemicals management regulations," according to the article. "ACA supports a modernized, federal chemicals management program that will not only improve the public's confidence on the safety of chemicals, but will also provide businesses with much-needed certainty and consistency in the marketplace. While ACA applauds the progress that has been made to date, given that 2016 is an election year and the many remaining issues Congress must address (including the Supreme Court vacancy), the window of opportunity to pass legislation narrows every week. When it comes to TSCA Reform, time is truly of the essence. It is important that the coatings industry encourage Members of Congress to continue to be engaged and push for a timely resolution on TSCA reform as soon as possible."
The article asks members to use ACA's Coatings Connect grassroots advocacy website to submit a dedicated form letter to their own member of Congress, and it says ACA President Andy Doyle sent a letter recently to Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who authored the House bill and has been a leader of TSCA reform efforts in the House for years.
The American Chemistry Council also is pushing for passage of a final TSCA reform bill, with its goal being keeping provisions from both the House and Senate bills that support a cohesive national regulatory system, including Senate language that pauses states' ability to enact new restrictions on a specific chemical while EPA conducts a risk assessment.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/04/29/american-coatings-association-pushing-for-tsca-reform-bills.aspx?admgarea=news
-
A Toxic Substances Control Act for the 21st Century
Apr 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Beth Bosley
Chemist and small business owner Beth Bosley founded Boron Specialties after a 20-year career spanning biotech, fine chemical research, development and manufacturing, regulatory affairs, and custom synthesis. Boron Specialties is an active SOCMA member and Ms. Bosley has testified before House and Senate committees numerous times on behalf of small businesses regarding TSCA reform.
As the chemical industry awaits the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills that will update the regulation of chemicals in the U.S., I've reflected on what it took to get to this point, and why it's essential for Congress to finish the job quickly. Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a novel regulation when enacted in 1976, has been debated in Congress for at least 10 years. An assortment of legislative language and draft bills have been proposed, but no previous effort ever made it out of committee. That changed last year when two bills not only emerged from committee, but passed with overwhelming majorities in both chambers.
It took a tremendous amount of work and steadfast leadership to accomplish this—a multitude of hearings, consultation with NGOs and industry groups, and serious bipartisan negotiation among congressional members and staff. Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) deserve a tremendous amount of credit. But there is little time to pass a reconciled bill before the election and change of administration delay reconciliation and perhaps even jeopardize final passage of the bill.
Both pieces of legislation—a comprehensive bill from the Senate (S. 697, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, passed via voice vote in December 2015) and a narrower bill from the House (H.R. 2576, TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, which passed 398 to 1 in June 2015)—enable the Environmental Protection Agency to require testing when necessary without an overly burdensome rulemaking process, and mandate that the EPA evaluate existing chemicals. These two issues (lack of effective testing authority and lack of progress on existing chemicals) are usually cited as the biggest flaws of the EPA's implementation of TSCA.
Why It's Important.
Industry, the EPA, and the public all have a stake in ensuring sensible regulation of chemicals in commerce.
The chemical industry, which is one of the most regulated industries in the U.S., must be able to plan for the resources necessary to comply with a modernized chemical regulatory scheme. As the owner of a small chemical manufacturing business, I must provide advanced solutions to our customer's problems while confronting global competition, limited resources, and shifting priorities. We value the health and safety of our employees, our neighbors, our customers, and the environment and strive to fully assess and explain the risk our products may present. I'm confident that the large majority of the chemical industry has the same priority. I have never encountered anyone who wants their product to cause harm to human health or the environment. Remember that our industry employs over 800,000 U.S. workers—we are a part of the broader public.
The EPA realizes that there are risk assessment activities that are long overdue for many chemicals and chemical classes. Since they could not depend on new legislation after many false starts, the EPA has implemented a work plan to address these deficiencies. The added resources that must accompany their new mandate on existing chemicals will serve to speed this process and expedite regulatory action where warranted.
The EPA's initiative, and eventually the passage of reconciled legislation, will do much to strengthen public confidence in the industry and access to information about the chemicals involved in our lives, economy and environment. While no product is without risk, the EPA's evaluation of high-priority chemicals should address the perception and reality regarding the safety of the products to which families are exposed. There is no getting around the fact that, for instance, the paints used in homes all across the country are made up of dozens of molecules, but parents need to have access to information that the yellow paint their child uses to color the sun in that drawing on the fridge is not going to cause harm.
Economic Drivers and Importance of Sensible Regulation.
Small- and medium-size chemical manufacturers employ about 260,000 individuals in the U.S. (that's more than Google, Apple, and Microsoft combined). And, as stated above, total chemical industry employment is about 800,000 direct U.S. workers. Our workforce of scientists and engineers, technicians, plant personnel and administrators are highly skilled and well compensated. And like other manufacturing industries, we support a robust cadre of allied industries in construction, logistics, safety equipment, etc.
The chemical industry thrives on innovation and new products, so an effective and efficient new chemicals program is vitally important. And to the public: the EPA's own data reveal that many new chemical submissions are ‘greener’ alternatives to existing chemicals. I commend the EPA's current efforts under the new chemicals program—the 90-day review using judicious estimates of hazard and exposure have provided industry a reasonable route to commercialization, while also protecting the public's health, safety and right to information.
Also important to industry, though, is the ability (with robust substantiation and EPA oversight) to protect selected confidential information, even chemical identity, in certain cases. We will not hide the hazards of the materials we produce, but we need reasonable mechanisms like generic or trade names to protect against global competitors unfairly exploiting our valuable research investments.
Let's Get a Bill to the President.
We are tantalizingly close to enacting meaningful TSCA reform. Many, if not most, stakeholders support the bills currently under consideration. Passage could be an important bipartisan win for Congress at a time when such achievements are few.
While the chemical industry is, of course, advocating that the enacted legislation be robust and reliable, nimble enough for the EPA to effectively implement, and protective of our trade secrets, we chiefly need a bill to become law.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425914&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425914&jd=88425914
-
Mainstreaming Green Chemistry: Why TSCA Reform is Necessary but Not Sufficient
Apr 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Joel Tickner
Joel Tickner is Associate Professor of Environmental Health at the University of Massachusetts Lowell where he directs the Chemicals Science and Policy Initiative. He has led a number of efforts to develop the discipline of alternatives assessment and to accelerate the design, adoption, and scale of green chemistry solutions through the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council, a business-to-business network of leading companies across sectors.
During the past 10 years there has been significant growth in regulatory and market demands for safer chemicals and more sustainable products. Reforming our toxics laws may go some distance towards incentivizing safer compounds but it will not be enough.
In the absence of federal policy leadership, a number of states have enacted laws restricting particular priority chemicals and requiring disclosure of chemicals of concern in children's products. The state of California is moving forward with its Safer Consumer Products regulations, which will require companies to evaluate alternatives to chemicals of concern in priority products. And the European Commission has, for the past several years, been implementing its Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) regulation, in particular the law's sections on restrictions and authorization of Substances of Very High Concern. Meanwhile, consumer advocacy campaigns have successfully engaged major brands and retailers to demand greater chemical transparency in their supply chains and to restrict specific chemicals of concern in their manufacturing and sourcing.
Despite these increasing demands for safer chemicals, the supply of green chemistry solutions has not grown at the same scale. This is in part because the focus of most market and policy efforts to date have been on “avoiding bads” rather than promoting innovation. Public policy research clearly shows the important role of regulation in spurring innovation. But that same literature indicates that effective innovation policy requires attention not only to “willingness” (often driven by regulation) but also “capacity” (knowledge and support to innovate, such as education and technical support) and “opportunity” (incentives for innovation, such as tax and investment credit). It is in these latter two—focused on the supply of green chemistry solutions—that green chemistry policy to date has fallen short.
While green chemistry, research, education and adoption have certainly occurred and there are an increasing number of green chemistry success stories, it is still a niche consideration. Green chemistry has yet to be integrated into the fabric of the chemical enterprise, educational systems, or government programs. For example, it has received little attention or support from the White House or agencies outside of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, which have only small and under-resourced green chemistry programs. A recent EPA Inspector General report noted that the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention budget for green chemistry is less than $100,000. While the EPA has elevated and invested in some market-based programs to support safer chemicals, such as its Safer Choice program, these are still relatively small compared with traditional risk assessment efforts. We have tended to focus significantly more resources on studying and acting on problems than on designing innovative, scalable solutions—a win-win for everyone.
The Green Chemistry & Commerce Council (GC3), a multi-sectoral, business-to-business forum that works collaboratively to accelerate the application of green chemistry across industry sectors and supply chains, has spent the past two years exploring barriers to green chemistry and ways to accelerate its adoption. Our research has identified a number of barriers to green chemistry, including: (1) the complexity of global supply chains and their established infrastructures, (2) the costs and time to scale and adopt new technologies, (3) the incumbency of existing technologies that are cost-effective and high performing (but may be problematic environmentally), (4) concerns about the risks involved in moving to green chemistry solutions (performance, process changes, material incompatibility or costs of re-certification and potential for substitutes to be later designated chemicals of concern) and (5) limited investment, incentives, education and metrics for green chemistry. Even when viable green chemistry solutions exist, they may not be taken up in the marketplace as a result of some of these barriers.
However, a report by the sustainability research firm Trucost entitled Making the Business Case for Safer Chemistry, commissioned by the GC3 and the American Sustainable Business Council, identified a number of risks that companies take by not adopting green chemistry solutions. These include the risk of NGO and/or shareholder activism, regulatory risks, costs of incidents and accidents from hazardous materials, product liability and lost market opportunities. Conversely, companies that pursue safer chemistry can have higher growth rates than conventional markets, increased capital flows, greater market opportunities and job growth. A number of other studies have shown the potential for job growth, reduced costs, new markets and lower handling and disposal costs.
Given the clear business case for green chemistry innovation, and very obvious barriers to its adoption, the GC3 developed its Agenda to Mainstream Green Chemistry to focus on concrete strategies and actions that can be taken in the coming years to accelerate green chemistry research, development, and adoption. The agenda was developed based on more than two years of research and stakeholder dialogue and identifies five broad strategies to accelerate green chemistry innovation, including:
• Enhance Market Dynamics. Building a comprehensive, ongoing understanding of green chemistry enablers, market drivers and obstacles allowing for more effective interventions that create market shifts to support green chemistry research, development and adoption.
• Support Smart Policies. Designing and advocating for innovative state and federal policies that can effectively support the supply of and demand for green chemistry solutions.
• Foster Collaboration. Facilitating the flow of information about green chemistry solutions among suppliers and product makers as well as assembling partnerships to tackle priority challenges can support the collaborations necessary to grow the marketplace for green chemistry solutions.
• Inform the Marketplace. Disseminating information about green chemistry business, economic and health benefits, as well as opportunities and funding creates a clearer business and economic case for green chemistry.
• Track Progress. Improving green chemistry metrics and periodically gathering and reporting data on progress provides a way to demonstrate benefits and understand where interventions are necessary to accelerate green chemistry.
There is a critical and necessary role for government leadership and government funding in accelerating green chemistry as it has for the renewable energy and nanotechnology sectors. But this requires a more coordinated federal approach.
As such, the GC3 has strongly supported the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2015, introduced by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). Language from the bill has also been introduced (as Section 24) into the recently passed Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. There are a number of government actions included in the bill that have been identified as priorities for GC3 members, including:
• Development of a coordinated national green chemistry strategy,
• Establishment of sustained support (policy, organizational, technical) for green chemistry research, development, technology transfer, commercialization, education and training,
• Collection and dissemination of information and research on barriers and green chemistry solutions,
• Support and facilitation of supply chain and academic-industry partnerships,
• Providing incentives (and climate) for green chemistry R&D and manufacturing, and
• Providing ways to measure costs/benefits and progress towards green chemistry.
While important, Sen. Coons's bill is necessary but does not go far enough. It has to be coupled with adequate funding for agencies to implement the programs, combined with the establishment of sustained public and private sector funding to target critical green chemistry needs.
Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act can be supportive of green chemistry innovation by providing important information on chemical uses, toxicity and exposures and regulating those chemicals of highest concern, providing a demand signal for green chemistry solutions. Clear demand signals are not enough if they are not coupled with a sufficient supply of innovative, cost-effective and high-performing alternatives that are taken up in the marketplace. Demand side policies must be accompanied by government and market policies to change chemistry research, education, investment, commercialization and scale that can effect a shift in the chemicals enterprise necessary to mainstream green chemistry.
Effecting such a shift in the chemicals enterprise will require ensuring a new generation of chemists, engineers and toxicology experts are knowledgeable about green chemistry. GC3 companies recognized this in developing the GC3 Policy Statement on Green Chemistry in Education, including a training curriculum for supply chains. At this point, most engineers and chemists are not taught to think about how chemical and process design can affect health and environment. They are not taught tools of toxicology or lifecycle design. Similarly, most toxicologists and public health professionals are not taught about innovation and or chemicals and process design. A number of efforts are underway by the American Chemical Society's Green Chemistry Institute, the non-profit Beyond Benign, and others to increase green chemistry education at the K-12 and university level. However, these interdisciplinary education efforts will need to be scaled in the future if green chemistry is to be integrated into the fabric and culture of education and ultimately business.
Policies that combine the three elements of innovation exist. As an example, for the past 30 years Massachusetts has made significant strides in reducing the use of the use of toxics in manufacturing (such as a 95 percent reduction in the use of trichloroethylene) through its innovative Toxics Use Reduction Act. That law requires manufacturers to report on their chemical use every year and conduct a plan of how they will reduce their use of toxic chemicals and waste generation every two years. The regulatory requirements are supplemented by a government and academic research institute program (funded by regulatory fees) that supports training, research, demonstration projects, technical assistance and evaluation of safer substitutes.
This a unique time to accelerate the growth of green chemistry. Over the past decade, concerns about public and environmental health have increased and consumer and policy demand for safer products has grown. This has led to unprecedented growth in collaborations between sectors and within supply chains to advance safer, more sustainable chemicals and products. We have an opportunity to position the United States as a global leader in sustainable chemistry. But this will need a vision, leadership, resources and collaboration. No one policy will be sufficient to drive green chemistry. A package of “smart policies” that create not only demands but also the incentives and infrastructure necessary to scale green chemistry innovation will be needed. The GC3 looks forward to working with government, industry, academic groups and others in making this vision a reality.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425918&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425918&jd=88425918
-
Toxic Substances Control Act Reform or Irreversible Rollback?
Apr 29, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Linda Reinstein
Linda Reinstein is president and chief executive officer of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, a public health advocacy group that aims to eliminate asbestos-caused diseases through education and advocacy.
This article does not represent the opinions of Bloomberg BNA, which welcomes other points of view.
The Senate and House are in the midst of reconciling bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The final bill the conference committee produces will shape the future of chemical safety for decades to come. If the committee protects public health and the environment, its work will greatly improve the safety of American families. The litmus test for the success of TSCA reform is ensuring that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can expeditiously ban asbestos, once and for all.
Before my husband, Alan, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused cancer, we were like most American families—blissfully unaware that the chemicals in the foods we ate, clothes we wore, water we drank and air we breathed were largely unregulated by our government. I had never heard of TSCA and had no idea that one of the most important laws in our country had been rendered essentially ineffective decades ago. But after Alan's diagnosis in 2003, I learned that the law governing the chemicals in our country was so weak, the EPA wasn't even able to ban known toxic chemicals as notoriously poisonous as asbestos.
Alan and I co-founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) to educate the public about the dangers of asbestos, build a community to help prevent deadly exposure and protect asbestos victims' rights.
Asbestos, a human carcinogen, causes mesothelioma and lung, gastrointestinal, laryngeal, colorectal and ovarian cancers, as well as nonmalignant lung and respiratory diseases. Asbestos was heavily used in homes, workplaces and schools between the 1940s and the late 1980s, and its use continues to this day. Today, asbestos fibers often are released into the air during building renovations or other unintended disturbances. The inhaled fibers lie in wait in victims' lungs, only to gradually eliminate the ability to breathe years later.
Asbestos-related diseases are often misdiagnosed and under-reported. Most patients die within six to 12 months after diagnosis. Exacerbated by a latency period of 10 to 50 years, late-stage diagnosis often limits their treatment options.
Alan had both occupational and non-occupational asbestos exposures.
He paid the ultimate price for his job: his life.
During my past 12 years as the founder and president of ADAO, I have seen little progress from our elected officials in the fight to protect the public and prevent asbestos-caused diseases. Seven bills to ban asbestos have been introduced, but all have failed. With this paralysis comes a very real human cost. Each year, up to 15,000 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases.
Asbestos Under TSCA.
Forty years ago, Congress recognized the need to protect the public from toxic chemicals with the passage of TSCA. This landmark law gave the EPA the authority to regulate industrial chemicals, and gave hope to Americans that they could live in an environment that was free of dangerous chemicals. It has failed, however, and hazardous chemicals remain present in U.S. homes, schools, the environment and consumer products.
“More than three and a half decades since the passage of TSCA, the EPA has only been able to require testing on just a little more than 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory and has regulated or banned only five of these chemicals under TSCA's Section 6,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the EPA.
In 1973, under the EPA's Clean Air Act, most spray-applied asbestos products were banned for fireproofing and insulating purposes. But that was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to asbestos use in America.
Under TSCA, the EPA was provided with the authority to require reporting, record keeping and testing, along with restrictions related to chemical substances and/or mixtures. In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule under Section 6 of TSCA banning most asbestos-containing products.
“The poster child for TSCA reform is asbestos.”
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Before the ban could go into effect, the asbestos industry sued the EPA over the rule. The EPA defended the ban, arguing it was needed to address the unreasonable risk of harm imposed by the continued use of asbestos. But just two years after issuing the final rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the ban in the now infamous case, Corrosion Proof Fittings vs. EPA. The court found that the EPA failed to present “substantial evidence” to justify the ban under TSCA. Specifically, its decision was based on language in TSCA that the court said required the EPA to weigh the “costs” and “benefits” of banning asbestos and choose the “least-burdensome” regulatory alternative. Though these words may sound innocuous, given the context of the TSCA legislative text, they inhibited the EPA's ability to actually regulate toxic chemicals and led to regulatory paralysis.
As a result, most of the original ban on the manufacturing, importation, processing and distribution in commerce for the asbestos-containing products covered in the 1989 final rule was overturned. The only five asbestos-containing products banned under TSCA were corrugated paper, rollboard, commercial paper, specialty paper and flooring felt. Without a complete ban, this toxic compound remains legal and lethal in the U.S. and imports continue.
The court's ruling also led many to question, “If the EPA can't ban asbestos—a known carcinogen, at which no level of exposure is safe—how can the EPA regulate any toxic substance?”
Presently, the agency says, “3,000 different types of commercial products contained asbestos. The amount of asbestos in each product varied from as little as 1 percent up to 100 percent. Many older plastics, paper products, brake linings, floor tiles and textile products contain asbestos, as do many heavy industrial products such as sealants, cement pipe, cement sheets and insulation.”
Stakes Are High.
The recent efforts by the House of Representatives and Senate to revise TSCA present a promising opportunity to right this wrong. As Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) acknowledged, “The poster child for TSCA reform is asbestos.”
He is absolutely right. Real TSCA reform must ensure the EPA can expeditiously take action on asbestos. But not just asbestos, the primary goal of TSCA reform must be to protect public health.
When the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), sponsored by Sens. Udall and David Vitter (R-La.), and the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), sponsored by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), were introduced, there were serious concerns if either bill would in fact better protect the public or if they instead served to benefit the chemical industry by streamlining regulations.
The Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act (S. 725), sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), promised true reform with the goal of keeping American families safe from chemicals, but Congress chose to move forward with S. 697 and H.R. 2576.
After many hours of negotiations and multiple hearings, progress has been made on both bills—but we aren't at the finish line yet.
The bill the Senate passed ensures that decisions about chemical safety will be made solely on the basis of their impact on health and the environment, not costs. Additionally, under the Senate bill, asbestos is recognized as a carcinogen by its attributes, ensuring that it will receive the highest priority for review and regulation by the EPA.
While the House bill fails to address the cost-benefit analysis problem or ensure that the EPA moves expeditiously on asbestos, it allows states to regulate chemicals if a final and enforceable EPA regulation is not yet in effect. The House bill also helps reduce unnecessary regulatory delay by eliminating the high-low prioritization scheme for reviewing chemical substances.
Astonishingly, both bills fail to even mention the word “asbestos,” and neither provides for expedited action specifically for asbestos. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had the opportunity to address this when Sens. Boxer and Markey introduced the Alan Reinstein Asbestos Amendment to ensure that the EPA will expeditiously review and take action to ban asbestos within three years. It was defeated after every Republican on the committee voted against it.
Discretionary or Mandated?
Since the two bills are vastly different, the conference committee has its work cut out. But the goal should be clear: Protect public health and the environment from dangerous chemicals.
The final product from the conference committee must ensure that the EPA has the regulatory power to expeditiously review chemicals and take action to ban asbestos and prohibit imports.
We've known for decades that all forms of asbestos are deadly; Americans can't wait for the EPA administrator to place asbestos on a regulatory “to-do” list.
Rather, TSCA reform legislation must mandate that the EPA administrator include all forms of asbestos as high priority and complete a safety assessment and safety determination no later than two years after the date of enactment of the final TSCA reform bill. And, the EPA must promulgate a final rule no later than three years after the date of enactment of the final TSCA reform bill.
The “least-burdensome” requirement must be stricken and decisions about chemical safety must be made solely on the basis of impact on health and the environment, not costs. The Senate bill satisfies this key litmus test, yet the House bill has work left to accomplish with regard to costs.
In what is known as the “third wave of exposure,” many victims encounter asbestos after disasters. The aftermath of a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy left toxic debris in its wake. There was more than 5.6 million cubic yards of debris removed after Hurricane Sandy. Toxic debris remains a threat in the U.S. considering that more than 30 million homes, offices and schools contain asbestos.
The final TSCA reform bill also must protect states' rights to take action against dangerous chemicals, particularly if the federal government and the EPA fail to act. Since TSCA's failure, states have filled the void to protect the public from dangerous chemicals. A prime example of this is California's Proposition 65, which requires businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” to consumers if a product contains a chemical known to cause cancer or birth defects. It was this state law that enabled ADAO to advocate for the successful removal of an asbestos-containing children's toy from the market and hold the manufacturer accountable.
The Right to Know.
True TSCA reform must empower the public to protect themselves from asbestos exposure through knowledge, awareness and transparency. With greater awareness, we can save lives and dollars. Diseases caused by asbestos exposure currently cannot be cured, but they can be prevented by reducing and eliminating exposure. To do so, we have to know where the asbestos is in our country.
Americans cannot identify asbestos in their homes, workplace or consumer products, nor can they manage the risk. As recently as October 2015, the Cannon U.S. House Office Building was closed due to concerns of asbestos contamination. Congress and staffers remain at risk.
Without training and testing, it is nearly impossible to manage the risk during repairs, renovations and hazardous debris removal after disasters. Asbestos fibers can be nearly 700 times smaller than a human hair and are odorless, tasteless and indestructible. Our inability to identify and manage the risk of asbestos perpetuates this threat to the lives of future generations.
The public should have access to a database of asbestos-contaminated products. TSCA reform should urge the U.S. Surgeon General to issue public health warnings about asbestos dangers. The final bill also should improve current laws to protect students, teachers, staff and parents from asbestos exposure in schools.
The Evidence.
The asbestos industry and the government have known for more than 100 years that asbestos caused diseases; however, since 1900, more than 31 million metric tons of asbestos have been used in buildings and consumer products, and it is still found in homes, schools and workplaces. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that in 2014 alone, the U.S. consumed 406 metric tons of asbestos. The reason? To meet “manufacturing needs”—even when safer substitutes exist.
In 2014 alone, the U.S. consumed 406 metric tons of asbestos.
U.S. Geological Survey
In 1984, the EPA published the Asbestos in Buildings National Survey, which “estimated that asbestos-containing materials (ACM) existed in most of America's approximately 107,000 primary and secondary schools, as well as 733,000 public and commercial buildings.” Furthermore, the survey found that “approximately 34,800 schools were believed to have friable ACM, potentially exposing an estimated 15 million students and 1.4 million school employees.”
Even after the 1984 EPA asbestos survey confirmed the health dangers, asbestos use continued. Between 1984 and 2015, the U.S. consumed 1,038,481 metric tons of asbestos.
In 1986, Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requiring “local educational agencies to inspect their school buildings for asbestos-containing building material, prepare asbestos management plans, and perform asbestos response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards.”
In 2015, Sens. Markey and Boxer wrote a letter to all 50 governors inquiring as to how many of their school districts were following the AHERA requirements. Only 20 states replied and only three appeared to be following the AHERA regulations.
The U.S. lags the European Union and Australia in regulating asbestos. More than 50 countries have banned it and they remain economically viable without asbestos in consumer products and toys. Unlike the U.S., the EU has placed the burden of protection on industry instead of the everyday consumer, and established the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation to hold industries responsible for assessing and managing the risks posed by the chemicals they produce, use and sell. Instead of individuals and nonprofits spending time and dollars privately investigating asbestos in consumer products, they consider it industry's responsibility.
Who's at Risk Now?
In 2013, a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study of three cohorts in San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia provided new data. As reported, “The population of firefighters in the study had a rate of mesothelioma two times greater than the rate in the U.S. population as a whole.”
In May 2010, the U.S. President's Cancer Panel reported, “Construction workers were found to be 11 times more likely to develop mesothelioma, due to asbestos exposures at the site.”
Shockingly, independent investigations in 2000, 2007 and 2015 confirmed asbestos contamination in consumer products and children's toys. In 2000, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer confirmed that asbestos had been found in crayons. Seven years later, ADAO confirmed asbestos in five consumer products, including a child's toy. The EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) were hand-delivered full reports, but no action was taken. A new investigation in 2015 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund has once again found asbestos in children's crayons and toys. Asbestos was found in four of the 28 boxes of crayons and two of the 21 kids' fingerprinting kits purchased online and at stores.
There are an alarming number of younger victims in their 20s and 30s developing asbestos-related diseases through “secondary exposure”—which is exposure to asbestos through contact with someone who carried the toxic particles away from the original site. Many secondary exposure victims inhaled the fibers when they hugged their dads who unknowingly brought home asbestos on their work clothes.
Ignorance Isn't Bliss.
I watched my husband die a slow and painful death for preventable mesothelioma, caused from asbestos.
Acting U.S. Surgeon General Boris Lushniak stated: “The asbestos issue is not a thing of the past. It continues to this day.”
The conference committee must work together on behalf of those silenced by asbestos and other toxics. The time is now to reform TSCA and ensure that the EPA can and will expeditiously ban asbestos and other deadly chemicals.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425913&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425913&jd=88425913
-
24 Firms to be Awarded for Using, Promoting Safer Substances
Apr 28, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA will recognize 24 companies and organizations for embracing alternative chemicals under a program that provides labels to help consumers identify products that do not contain harmful substances.
The firms will take home a Safer Choice Partner of the Year Award at a ceremony on May 9 at 2 p.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. The program was known as the Design for the Environment program until a rebranding effort last year.
Under the program, companies voluntarily submit their products to EPA, which confirms that chemicals of concern are not present. Then, the companies receive permission to use an EPA-approved label to tout the products' benefits to consumers.
"Everyone wants products with ingredients that are safer for their kids, pets, communities and the environment," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement. "Using technology and innovation to turn challenges into profitable opportunities makes our businesses stronger and more competitive, our families and workers healthier and our environment cleaner."
EPA said McCarthy announced the winners during a visit today to San Francisco hardware retailer Cole Hardware in the city's Cole Valley neighborhood.
Cole Hardware was the city's first hardware store to win certification from the San Francisco Department of the Environment under a voluntary program in 2008. Its director at the time, Jared Blumenfeld, is now EPA's Region 9 administrator.
EPA has described the program as growing within the consumer products industry, though some trade organizations have raised concerns about how it defines award categories (Greenwire, May 7, 2015).
The program is having an impact not only at niche operations but at major corporations like Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
In its most recent "Global Responsibility Report," released last week, Wal-Mart said it's beginning to receive Safer Choice certification for its house-labeled cleaning products.
The company uses Safer Choice as part of its sustainability policy, which started publishing product ingredients online last year and calls for the company to label all "priority chemicals" on items by 2018. The company also claimed it cut use of high-priority chemicals by 95 percent since it launched its sustainable chemistry policy more than two years ago (E&ENews PM, Sept. 12, 2013).
EPA recognized 21 firms at last year's awards ceremony (Greenwire, June 11, 2015).
The awards:
Safer formulator/manufacturer
Boulder Clean of Boulder, Colo.
Bissell Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich.
Case Medical Inc. of South Hackensack, N.J.
Clean Control Corp. of Warner Robins, Ga.
Clorox Co. of Pleasanton, Calif.
Futurescape Inc. of Port Orange, Fla.
Jelmar LLC of Skokie, Ill.
Osprey Biotechnics Inc. of Sarasota, Fla.
Reckitt Benckiser of Parsippany, N.J.
Seventh Generation Inc. of Burlington, Vt.
Safer chemical innovator
BASF Corp. of Florham Park, N.J.
Ecolab Inc. of Eagan, Minn.
Virox Technologies Inc. of Oakville, Ontario
Purchaser/distributor
Solutex Inc. of Sterling, Va.
Retailer
Albertsons Cos. Inc. of Boise, Idaho
Wegmans Food Markets Inc. of Rochester, N.Y.
Program supporter
American Sustainable Business Council of Washington, D.C.
Ashkin Group of Los Angeles
Consumer Specialty Products Association of Washington, D.C.
Environmental Defense Fund of New York City
Federal Sustainable Acquisitions and Materials Management Practices Working Group of Washington, D.C.
Healthy Schools Campaign of Chicago
ISSA, the Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association of Northbrook, Ill.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families of Washington, D.C.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/04/28/stories/1060036449
-
BASF Among Winners of EPA's 2016 Safer Choice Awards
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The BASF Corp. was among 24 recipients of the Safer Choice Partner of the Year awards the Environmental Protection Agency announced April 28.
EPA's Safer Choice program recognizes companies and organizations that develop, use, purchase, provide or promote safer chemicals and products made with chemicals that are demonstrated to meet the agency's specific human and environmental health safety standards.
Award recipients are entitled to display a special label recognizing their contributions on websites, displays, consumer advertisements and other material.
Categories of companies and organizations that can receive rewards include chemical manufacturers, chemical formulators, purchasers, retailers and organizational supporters.
Denise Petersen, global sustainability manager at BASF told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail: “Innovation and cooperation with our partners plays a central role at BASF. As product sustainability is a crucial factor for consumers’ purchasing decisions, offering a comprehensive portfolio of ingredients that meet EPA's Safer Choice Standard allows us to help our customers to make products that fulfill certification requirements.”
The Consumer Speciality Products Association (CSPA) was among two trade associations recognized by EPA's awards.
In a statement, CSPA President Chris Cathcart said the program benefits consumers and businesses because household and institutional products makers are given an incentive to innovate, reformulating some existing products and developing new ones that meet Safer Choice criteria.
Other Awardees
CPSA members that received partner awards this year, Cathcart said, included: BASF, BISSELL, Clean Control Corp., Clorox Co., Ecolab, Osprey Biotechnics Inc., the Reckitt Benckiser Group plc and Virox Technologies Inc.
Other recipients of EPA's Safer Choice Partner awards include the American Sustainable Business Council; Case Medical Inc.; the Environmental Defense Fund; ISSA: the Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; and Wegmans Food Markets Inc.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425930&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425930&jd=88425930
-
Lawmakers Amble Toward Chemical Reform Finish Line
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Anthony Adragna
There is no deal yet, but House and Senate lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA April 28 they continue to make positive progress on a revamp of the nation's primary chemicals law, and some believe an agreement could come as soon as the week of May 9.
Chief among the remaining issues is how to handle federal preemption of state chemical laws and regulations, according to Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), key lawmakers on the chemical reform efforts. Negotiators are seeking a “middle ground” on preemption, Shimkus said.
“I'm cautiously optimistic on that, but preemption has always been a major sticking point,” the Illinois Republican told Bloomberg BNA. “There is positive movement.”
Several Senate Republican aides and Udall said an agreement was possible the week of May 9, though House lawmakers and aides said they would not be held to arbitrary timeframes.
Shimkus said the final agreement would be a “compromise” between the broader Senate overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (S. 697) and a narrower House-passed version (H.R. 2576). Such a bill would reflect “give and take” from both chambers, he said.
False alarms about imminent deals have dogged TSCA reform efforts repeatedly since the Senate passed its bill, which enjoys support from companies like 3M, BASF, and the Dow Chemical Co., in December 2015. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said a deal was “hours away” on April 19, but aides later called that prediction premature (76 DEN A-20, 4/20/16).
‘Final Stretch' Seen
But bill proponents now say a deal appears to be in sight.
“TSCA reform is in the final stretch,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of S. 697's original sponsors, told Bloomberg BNA in a statement. “We're closing in on a bipartisan bicameral compromise that will substantially update and reform our nation's outdated chemical safety law.”
Even Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), an early vocal critic of Senate efforts to overhaul TSCA, told Bloomberg BNA, “I'm feeling very good today about the way it's headed” and said lawmakers remained in “deep negotiations.”
Boxer declined to comment on how preemption might be handled and about whether she would support the final bill.
Both Shimkus and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wouldn't speculate on when a compromise might be ironed out.
“I don't want to give you any dates,” Pallone said, though he saw no major obstacles for negotiators to overcome and added, “I think we're getting close to agreement with everyone.”
Floor Time Expected
One thing negotiators are not concerned about—if and when they reach a final agreement—is getting sufficient time in their respective chambers to vote on the bill.
“I don't think there will be a problem there,” Udall said.
As recently as April 19, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called TSCA reform “a very important bill” and said “if they can wrap up an agreement, we expect to pass it.”
Meanwhile, Reps. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) and John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) announced the formation of the Congressional Chemistry Caucus April 27. The caucus aims to highlight the benefits of chemistry and sound science in public policy.
In April 28 e-mails, Lipinski and a Moolenaar spokesman told Bloomberg BNA both congressmen support efforts to modernize TSCA.
Lipinski said: “I have been in touch with House leaders on the bill to urge them to finalize an agreement with their Senate counterparts so that we can finally get this important legislation over the finish line.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425932&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425932&jd=88425932
-
14 States Seek Clean Power Plan Guidance Despite Stay
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Andrew Childers
Fourteen states are asking the Environmental Protection Agency for assistance as they prepare to comply with the Clean Power Plan despite the rule being stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We recognize that the EPA must respect the stay of the Clean Power Plan regulations in providing additional information and that this information would be subject to the outcome of the federal Clean Power Plan litigation,” the 14 states said in an April 28 letter sent to Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation. “We believe EPA can provide information helpful to states consistent with the stay, as EPA has done previously when litigation is pending and a stay is in effect.”
The states are encouraging the EPA to provide model rules that would guide their compliance with the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which sets carbon dioxide standards for existing power plants.
The states said the guidance would be beneficial as they prepare to implement updated ozone air quality standards, which also will impact the power sector, and begin working with state utility regulators on steps to comply with the carbon dioxide standards.
The states also are asking the EPA for additional guidance on tracking systems for emissions allowances; credits for trading programs; and methods to measure and verify energy efficiency gains.
The EPA has said it would continue to work with states, which are charged with implementing the carbon dioxide standards, on a voluntary basis despite a Supreme Court decision halting the rule until it can be litigated (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, 2/9/16).
Seek Details on Energy Incentive Program
In addition to the model rules and other guidance, the states said they also were interested in additional details on the EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program, a voluntary program designed to provide incentives for early investments in renewables and energy efficiency programs in low-income communities. The program is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget (82 DEN A-11, 4/28/16).
The letter was signed by environmental regulators in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, all of which are supporting the EPA in its legal defense of the rule (61 DEN A-14, 3/30/16).
Though the EPA has said it would continue to work with states that want to take voluntary measures to comply with the Clean Power Plan should it be upheld, opponents of the rule have argued that the Supreme Court's stay means that all work on the rule should stop until litigation is complete (30 DEN A-6, 2/16/16).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425934&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425934&jd=88425934
-
Mayors Push Obama to Write Methane Regulations
Apr 28, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A group of American mayors are asking the Obama administration to issue strong rules on methane leaks and emissions at oil and gas drilling sites.
The mayors said methane represents a climate change crisis given its potency as a greenhouse gas pollutant. They also called it a public health issue, nothing its impact on air pollution around drilling sites and natural gas storage wells.
Cutting emissions, the mayors wrote, “will protect our constituents from unhealthy air pollution associated with the methane and toxic chemicals emitted from oil and gas infrastructure and equipment, and protect us from the consequences of climate change that our cities and counties face on a daily basis.”
The list of mayors on the letter includes those from Denver, Santa Fe, N.M., Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and elsewhere.
Several are from Colorado, which has instituted its own state controls on methane emissions, and New Mexico, which has some of the most concentrated levels of methane in the nation.
Obama has pushed methane regulations as a top environmental policy on his way out of office. The Environmental Protection Agency is working to finalize methane rules for new drilling sites and will soon begin the process of writing a rule for new wells. The Bureau of Land Management is looking to write rules for methane leaks at drilling sites on federal land.
Combined, the mayors said, that suite of rules will make a big dent in American methane emissions.
The oil and gas industry says federal regulations are unnecessary because drillers have a financial incentive to cut down on methane — the key component of natural gas — on their own. They note methane levels have decreased recently without any federal regulations.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278021-mayors-push-obama-to-write-methane-regulations
-
What's at Stake in Next Round of Mercury Rule Litigation?
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The deadlines for power plants to come into compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards may have passed, but attorneys who are following the issue told Bloomberg BNA that there is still a lot at stake in the next round of litigation over the regulation.
While power plants have already invested billions in pollution controls to limit their emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants, attorneys said continuing to litigate over the MATS rule offers opponents of the Obama EPA's regulatory approach an opportunity to rein in the agency's authority.
Attorneys said power plants that are already in compliance could see some benefits if the MATS Rule were to be struck down, which would remove the possibility of power plants being exposed to enforcement actions for regulatory violations. In addition, an environmental attorney involved in the litigation said that stakes remain for supporters of the MATS rule because even though power plants have already taken steps to comply, they would have no obligation to actually operate their pollution control equipment if the rule were struck down.
A coalition of states, led by Michigan, successfully litigated against the MATS rule, winning a 2015 Supreme Court decision that identified a legal flaw in the EPA's rulemaking process. The court, in a 5-4 decision issued in June 2015, found that the EPA erred when it did not consider cost in its threshold decision on whether it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 2015 BL 207163, 80 ERC 1577 (2015)).
The EPA April 25 published a supplemental finding (RIN 2060-AS76) in response to the Michigan v. EPA ruling, concluding that it is still “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act after factoring in cost considerations. Murray Energy Corp. has already filed a lawsuit challenging that finding with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and more lawsuits are expected by a June 24 filing deadline (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1127, 4/26/16; 80 DEN A-1, 4/26/16).
Chance to Rein in EPA
The MATS rule, which the EPA estimated to cost the power sector $9.6 billion per year, has remained in effect despite the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling. During that time, both the original April 2015 compliance deadline and an April 2016 deadline for plants that received a one-year extension have passed.
In addition to the new Murray Energy lawsuit over the supplemental finding, a coalition of states have asked the Supreme Court to step in and review the D.C. Circuit's practice of leaving regulations in place on remand while an agency works to address a legal flaw (Michigan v. EPA, U.S., No. 15-1152, 3/14/16).
When asked about the benefits of continuing to litigate, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that challenging the supplemental finding offers opponents of the MATS rule and other EPA regulations an opportunity to rein in the agency's authority.
Richard Alonso, a partner at Bracewell LLP, said the states that continue to litigate want it recognized that the EPA has limits on its authority in promulgating maximum achievable control technology standards under Section 112, which the agency promulgated for various industrial sectors, not just utilities.
“They want to keep EPA in check,” Alonso told Bloomberg BNA. “They're worried about the next regulations ... that's why they're still pursuing all of this.”
Attack on EPA's Reasoning
Daniel Riesel, a principal at Sive, Paget & Riesel P.C., agreed that the benefit of continuing to litigate would be to find faults in EPA's analytical process for issuing regulations. Riesel said that with the compliance deadlines passed and most regulated units in compliance, there would be limited benefits for the power sector if the rule were to be overturned.
“The only possible benefit would be to attack the functions and reasoning process inherent in the government's risk calculations,” Riesel told Bloomberg BNA.
One issue that opponents of the MATS rule are likely to challenge is the EPA's long-standing inclusion of “co-benefits” in the cost-benefit analyses prepared in support of major air rules. While the agency identified as much as $90 billion in benefits associated with MATS, only between $4 million and $6 million of those quantified benefits were attributed to reductions of pollutants directly regulated under the rule (52 DEN B-1, 3/17/16).
James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that opponents of the mercury standards also may want a chance to challenge “precisely how EPA considered costs” because the agency might take a similar approach in future rules. In addition, Rubin acknowledged that legal challenges to the MATS rule have taken on political significance as litigation has continued over the past several years.
“It would be surprising for opponents to drop a challenge now when they still see an opportunity to defeat one of the Obama EPA's most high-profile rules,” Rubin said.
Litigants Cite EPA Overreach
Opponents of the MATS rule have already cited the need to place limits on the EPA's authority as a driving force behind their requests for judicial review.
Seven states, including Colorado, Georgia and Nevada, told the Supreme Court in an April 15amicus brief that “aggressive agency actions” taken recently by the EPA and the Interior Department show the need for the Supreme Court to step in and place “clear limits” on agency authority.
The states, arguing in favor of the cert petition to review the D.C. Circuit's “remand without vacatur” of the MATS Rule, said the EPA and other federal agencies have repeatedly sought to force entities to comply with regulations despite “serious questions” on the validity of those rules.
The examples provided by the states include the Bureau of Land Management's regulation on hydraulic fracturing and the EPA's Clean Power Plant rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which the Supreme Court stayed in February. The state brief cites statements from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that the agency will “keep moving” on the Clean Power Plan. While some states have halted their implementation efforts, 14 states asked the EPA for guidance as they prepare to comply with the rule in spite of the stay (See related story).
Limited Practical Effects
While continued litigation offers opponents an opportunity to make ideological arguments about the EPA, the litigation is only expected to have limited practical effects on the power sector.
Murray Energy said in an April 26 statement that even the Supreme Court's 2015 Michigan v. EPAruling came “far too late” because the power industry was forced to comply in advance. American Electric Power, FirstEnergy Corp. and other utilities told Bloomberg BNA in April 2015 that the MATS rule's compliance deadline required them to make long-term investment decisions on pollution controls or to retire older plants, decisions that would not be affected by a court ruling to strike down the standards (71 DEN A-1, 4/14/15).
At this point, almost a year after the Supreme Court's decision, all regulated entities have had to take some action to move toward compliance with the mercury standards, Rubin of Dorsey & Whitney said. Rubin indicated that there would be limited benefits for utilities if litigation over the EPA's supplemental finding were to eventually result in vacatur of the MATS rule.
“For those plans that have been retro-fitted, re-fired or retired, it may not matter if the rule is ultimately invalidated in a year or two, especially if the economics of gas continue to disfavor older coal-fired generation,” Rubin said.
Alonso of Bracewell agreed that continued litigation over the mercury standards will have a limited effect on most power plants.
“From a practical standpoint, all of these legal maneuvers don't really impact anybody in the industry,” Alonso told Bloomberg BNA. “Industry is well on its way to compliance.”
Enforcement Implications Possible
Both Rubin and Alonso highlighted that a small subset of power plants could significantly benefit from vacatur of the MATS rule. Alonso said there are “a handful” of plants that need relief from aspects of the regulation, but suggested that the EPA could likely work those issues out on a case-by-case basis.
While the industry has already spent billions to comply with the MATS Rule and shut down some plants, Thomas Lorenzen, a partner with Crowell & Moring LLP, said there still are some implications for the power sector beyond the possible precedential effects of a court ruling on future EPA rules.
Lorenzen said that while the compliance deadline has passed for existing units, the issue of whether the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards remain in place is still relevant for any newly constructed power plants going forward. In addition, there is also the issue of enforceability for the power sector, Lorenzen said.
“A rule that is invalidated is no longer enforceable,” he said.
That issue of enforceability is one of concern for environmental and public health groups that helped defend the MATS rule in court.
Sean Donahue, an attorney who represented the Environmental Defense Fund in litigation over the MATS rule, told Bloomberg BNA that if the regulation were to eventually be struck down, the power sector would have no continuing federal obligations to control for mercury and other “really insidious” air pollutants. Donahue noted that some states have their own state-level standards, but said power plants in states with no standards could save money by shutting off their pollution controls if the MATS rule were to be vacated, which would result in large increases in emissions.
“Even though companies have already made their capital investments to comply, they would not be required to operate this equipment, there is cost to that.” Donahue said. “We continue to think the public health stakes are really high.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425935&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425935&jd=88425935
-
Lawmakers Mandate Tests Before Methane Leak Site Can Reopen
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Anne C. Mulkern
The California Assembly approved legislation today to require rigorous safety tests before Southern California Gas Co. can reopen a natural gas storage site that leaked this year.
The chamber approved S.B. 380 from Sen. Fran Pavley (D) on a 68-1 vote. The dissenting vote came from Assemblywoman Beth Gaines (R).
The testing at Aliso Canyon in Los Angeles County will involve a protocol developed by U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory scientists.
The leak, which spanned four months, forced the relocation of more than 8,000 families and spewed nearly 100,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere, Pavley's office said. The effect was equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas pollution of 572,000 cars.
"My constituents, including some who have not yet returned to their homes out of fear for their family's safety, want to know that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure their safety and to allow life in their community to finally return to normal," Pavley said. "S.B. 380 provides that assurance."
The Senate unanimously approved the legislation in January. That chamber must now concur with Assembly amendments before sending it to the governor.
As urgent legislation, the bill requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of the Legislature to pass. If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it would take effect immediately.
The legislation comes as state and federal agencies wrestle with how to prevent rolling blackouts this summer because of the closure of Aliso Canyon, a major source of gas for "peaker" plants when electricity demand surges.
State leaders warn there's the possibility of at least 14 days of blackouts this summer and nine more this winter (Greenwire, April 6).
The bill directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to evaluate the amount of gas necessary at Aliso Canyon to meet energy needs and protect ratepayers, while also taking safety into account, Pavley's office said.
In addition, the bill directs the CPUC to open a proceeding by July 1, 2017, to evaluate the feasibility of minimizing the use of or shutting down the facility over time.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/04/28/stories/1060036444
-
Texas Methane Leaks are a Problem—for California
Apr 28, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tim O'Connor
Aliso Canyon was a big methane release, especially in Los Angeles, but in the grand scheme of methane released every day by the nation’s oil and gas industry, it was a blip. And recent footage from Texas, coupled with a new study of over 8,000 oil and gas wells gives a glimpse at the kind of leaks that are happening outside of California’s borders – leaks that have huge implications for the state.
The Texas infrared footage shows a cloud of methane leaking from a pump jack in an oil field in Texas’ Permian Basin. While these smaller leaks may not be as egregious as the one at Aliso Canyon, they often go undetected and unaddressed, adding up to a large amount of pollution. And as these leaks happen in Texas – with little plans to stop them – the climate footprint of the gas supply system continues to increase.
So what does this have to do with California? California imports nearly 90 percent of its natural gas from regions across western North America, with a large portion coming from Texas production areas like the Permian and Anadarko basins. To put it another way: when it comes to the climate, what happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas. So even while progress is happening to cut oil and gas pollution in the Golden State, there is still a lot of work to be done to make sure imported gas isn’t responsible for significant climate damage before it gets here.
Texas-sized methane problem
To put this problem into perspective, Texas releases nearly 10 times the methane emissions that leaked from Aliso Canyon into the air, every year. And as the nation’s leading methane polluter, Texas contributes about a third of the country’s total methane emissions. That’s a huge amount of climate damage, because methane is 84 times as powerful as carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is emitted.
Taking into account new scientific research, those emissions are likely even higher. The latest data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that, nationwide, industry’s methane emissions are 34 percenthigher than previously thought. It’s an issue that’s of particular concern in Texas, where a recent study found methane levels in the state’s Barnett Shale may be up to 90 percent higher than earlier EPA estimates.
While California and other leading gas producing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania are making progress to address methane pollution, there’s no such effort happening in Texas. Methane pollution is also a wasted energy problem. Because natural gas essentially is methane, pumping it or burning it into the air is no different than throwing money away.
California’s legal duty
As we wrote (here), California’s Global Warming Law, AB 32, includes the responsibility to reduce methane emissions from the natural gas it uses, even if those emissions occur outside of state lines. AB 32 requires the state board to minimize leakage of greenhouse gases to achieve climate pollution goals, and under the law, the very definition of leakage is “a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases within the state that is offset by an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases outside the state.”
Over the last several decades, California has benefited from the use of natural gas for power generation and more recently, as a transportation fuel. However, recent analyses have shown that leakage of methane within the natural gas value chain can seriously undermine the climate benefit of using natural gas. So, while natural gas may be cutting in-state emissions, methane leaks from pipes and equipment that produce and transport gas into California from other states can nearly cancel out that benefit.
In addition to AB 32 requirements, other regulations (the Natural Gas Act – AB 1257) specifically address the need to reduce all methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, requiring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to keep natural gas a low-emission resource and consider its role in meeting greenhouse gas targets. The law specifically requires CARB to evaluate environmental impacts of emissions reduction strategies using science-based analysis. Following on, AB 1496 (Thurmond) from 2015, requires CARB to develop the climate footprint analysis necessary to understand the role of imported gas in undermining the state’s climate progress.
State and federal efforts
California is on a good path toward addressing its own methane pollution problems, recently introducing some of the most stringent standards in the nation for methane emissions from oil and gas production, and also issuing emergency rules for natural gas storage in the wake of the Aliso Canyon disaster. But if California is to truly address the climate damage that comes from its natural gas use, it has to play an active role in efforts by other states and the federal government.
For example, by working with the Western Governors’ Association, California can work with states like Colorado to ensure others across the Western United States implement state-level rules to reduce methane during production, and cut down on methane pollution created along the supply chain that provides much of California’s fuel.
At the federal level, California can take a leading role by helping support robust regulations on oil and gas development currently being considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management, and actively support stronger pipeline standards and economic incentives at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to address methane emissions from interstate pipelines.
And at home, California can look to efforts like the recently released strategy to reduce Short Lived Climate Pollutants that identifies the need to develop solutions to imported natural gas leakage, and SB 1441 that is currently working its way through the state legislature. These efforts recognize there are things California can do to push market signals for leakage reduction upstream – thereby reducing emissions in places like Texas without taking money out of Californians’ wallets.
California is taking a stand against methane pollution, but when top producers like Texas don’t, the only answer is strong federal rules, innovative state solutions, and regional cooperation that ensure all oil and gas producers take steps to cut their emissions.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/04/28/texas-methane-leaks-are-a-problem-for-california/
-
The Legacy of Deepwater Horizon
Apr 29, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Andrew Sharpless
Six years ago, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing eleven workers onboard and opening an oil well that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. The spill ultimately released over 200 million gallons of oil into the ocean. Although the oil has mostly been cleaned up off the beaches, the worst of the spill is not over for the Gulf and its inhabitants. It’s an ongoing disaster that should serve as a clear reminder of offshore drilling should be taken off of the “all of the above” menu for how we get our energy going forward.
The real story of the spill’s impact on the Gulf has been coming out and it does not have a happy ending. More than 50,000 people were involved in the clean-up efforts – and as a result were exposed to chemicals that can severely damage lung tissue. It has been estimated that the loss of productivity from Gulf of Mexico fisheries will cost the economy $8.7 billion by 2020. More than 22,000 jobs were lost.
And the animals in the Gulf have faced severe consequences. As detailed in an Oceana report released this month – “Time for Action: Six Years after Deepwater Horizon” – mortality rates for common bottlenose dolphins living in Louisiana’s Barataria Bay were eight percent higher than other dolphin populations, and their reproductive success was 63 percent lower. Other studies have detailed increased heart failure in juvenile bluefin and yellowfin tunas, reduced swimming ability in juvenile mahi-mahi and damaged gill tissue in killifish. As many as 800,000 birds may have been killed by the spill. The pollution also killed endangered sea turtles – 75 percent of the sea turtles found dead after the spill were Kemp’s ridley turtles, the smallest and most endangered sea turtle species in the world.
Coastal communities around the world are paying attention to what happened in the Gulf and are – as result – making very different choices.
In Belize, not long after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, it was discovered that the government had made massive oil exploration concessions throughout Belizean waters, including areas inside natural monuments, marine reserves and national parks. Offshore drilling in Belize would threaten the country’s seven World Heritage Sites and the Belizean Barrier Reef, part of the second largest reef system in the world. In 2011, Oceana co-founded the Belize Coalition to Save Our National Heritage – an alliance that included 40 different groups. The Coalition collected and delivered 18,000 signatures to the Governor General’s office calling for a referendum on offshore drilling and exploration. When its petition was denied, the coalition instead organized an election of their own. The resultant “People’s Referendum” brought out more than 30,000 Belizeans, and 95 percent of them opposed offshore drilling. Unable to ignore public pressure, the government announced last December that it intended to impose a permanent ban on offshore oil exploration along the Belizean barrier reef system and within the country's seven World Heritage Sites.
The Canary Islands are a Spanish archipelago off the coast of northwestern Africa. The famous beaches and fascinating volcanic landscapes form the basis of a tourism industry that brings as many as 12 million people to the islands every year, accounting for nearly a third of the islands’ GDP. When citizens of the Canary Islands learned that Repsol, an energy company, was conducting a deep-water survey, they were adamantly against it. A poll organized by the local government showed three quarters of the population opposed offshore drilling activity, which posed a threat to local ecosystems, dolphin populations and their tourism industry. Although the Spanish national government supported the oil company, the local communities had made their voices heard. In January of this year, Repsol abandoned its plans for oil and gas exploration.
And in the U.S., the Obama administration recently protected the Southeast from offshore oil drilling. Just last month, the administration withdrew its proposal to include regions of the Atlantic Ocean in the Department of the Interior’s 5-year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2017-2022) for offshore oil exploration and drilling leases. The decision was in response to the massive grassroots opposition from residents of coastal communities along the Atlantic coast. Once again, the people who knew their communities, environment and livelihoods could suffer the worst consequences of an oil spill stood up and opposed offshore drilling activity.
Coastal communities are rejecting offshore oil drilling because the risks are not worth it. There are other alternatives - like offshore wind energy - that can create more jobs and generate more energy than offshore oil drilling. We need an energy policy that reflects the collective wisdom of these coastal communities.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that the anniversary of the largest oil spill in American history should fall so close to our Earth Day celebrations, but the contrast between these events illustrates two possible paths forward. We can continue to pursue fossil fuels with reckless abandon and face the potentially catastrophic consequences, or we can follow the lead of the men and women of coastal towns around the world who envision a more sustainable energy future that protects our economies, livelihoods and oceans.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/278117-the-legacy-of-deepwater-horizon
-
Justices to Decide if Stringent Law Applies to Crude-by-Rail Port
Apr 28, 2016 | BNA Daily Environmental Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The Washington state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether permitting of a proposed crude-by-rail terminal on the Pacific Coast is subject to the stringent environmental provisions of the state's Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA) (Quinault Indian Nation v. City of Hoquiam, Wash., No. 92552-6, 4/26/16).
The case emanates from challenges by a coalition of environmental groups and a tribe with treaty fisheries encompassing Grays Harbor, where Westway Terminal Co. LLC proposes to expand its bulk liquid storage facility. Westway would receive crude oil unit trains hauling up to 751.8 million gallons a year and load the oil onto ocean-going vessels.
The issue before the justices is an artifact of an earlier stage in the case when Earthjustice attorneys representing the coalition successfully overturned decisions by the city of Hoquiam and the state Department of Ecology that the Westway project—and another, now defunct, crude-by rail proposal by Imperium Terminal Services Inc.—didn't require an environmental impact statement (197 DEN A-17, 10/10/13).
While plaintiffs prevailed before the state Shorelines Hearing Board in forcing an environmental impact statement to be conducted, the board found that the application of ORMA was limited to activities directly engaged in resource exploration and extraction and didn't apply to the projects. The Court of Appeals upheld the hearings board in a ruling that “skipped the language of the statute entirely,” the plaintiffs said in the petition to the Supreme Court.
‘Stripped of Meaning.'
The petition asserts that the appellate court erred when it ruled, based on regulatory language alone, that shipping oil over coastal waters did meet the regulatory definitions of “ocean uses” or “ocean transportation” and added restrictive language saying the projects were not a “primary” ocean use because the oil shipping has terrestrial components.
“By ignoring the statutory language and narrowing the regulatory definitions, the Court of Appeals stripped ORMA of meaning,” the petition said.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles told Bloomberg BNA in an April 28 telephone interview: “If ORMA applies, the standards that these projects must comply with are much more strict. For example, ORMA calls out Grays Harbor in particular as a water body of statewide concern and significance and these projects should not be allowed to go forward if they would harm those places.”
The Department of Ecology website said the final environmental impact statement may be released as soon as this spring, but could be delayed.
Boyles said it is likely that a decision from the Supreme Court will happen after the impact statement is released. “We will try to delay the issuance of permits; but we could end up having to reopen things,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=88425922&vname=dennotallissues&fn=88425922&jd=88425922
-
California High-Speed Rail Authority Obtains Radio Spectrum for PTC
Apr 28, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has received final approval to acquire the radio spectrum it needs to operate positive train control (PTC) and other communication systems for its trains, authority officials announced yesterday.
The agreement with Access 700 LLC, a subsidiary of Access Spectrum LLC, for 44 frequencies covering the lower section of California is critical for the development of PTC and other systems that will monitor train conditions and diagnostics to operate security systems along the future high-speed rail line, authority officials said in a press release.
The authority purchased Access Spectrum's Upper 700 MHz A Block spectrum because the signal is clear, not susceptible to interference and not shared with other users. As only authorized parties will have access to these frequencies, they are ideal for secure communication between trains, officials said.
"By obtaining exclusive rights to this spectrum, we will be able to ensure a secure communications network for future high-speed rail operations across California,” said Frank Vacca, the authority's chief program manager.
The U.S. government is requiring existing railroads to implement PTC by the end of 2020 at the latest. The deadline is an extension of the government's initial deadline, which required railroads to have PTC systems operating by the end of 2015. The first deadline was extended after the railroad industry indicated it couldn't be ready in time. Among railroads' reasons for missing the first deadline was the difficulty in obtaining the radio spectrum necessary to operate PTC systems.
"We recognize how difficult it can be to secure unencumbered, exclusive, licensed spectrum covering geography as diverse as the state of California," said Michael Gottdenker, Access Spectrum's chairman and chief executive officer. "We are confident that the authority will put this vital asset to good use."
In February, the authority's board approved the agreement to purchase the 44 frequencies at $0.70/MHz-pop. The agreement received final approval from the Federal Communications Commission this month. The authority has also entered into an agreement to purchase radio spectrum rights to 43 frequencies in upper California from BPC Spectrum LLC, according to the press release.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/California-High-Speed-Rail-Authority-obtains-radio-spectrum-for-PTC--48092
-
(ACC Mentioned) New GOP Bill Would Roll Back Ozone Standard
Apr 29, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and five other Republicans introduced legislation yesterday to roll back implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard and overhaul the broader system for updating air quality benchmarks.
The bill, S. 2882, is a companion to Texas Republican Rep. Pete Olson's H.R. 4775 introduced in response to arguments from businesses and elected officials that the new 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard is impossible to meet in some areas.
In the face of a "never-ending stream" of Obama administration mandates, "this bill will provide more certainty to states, cut down compliance costs and help save much-needed jobs," Capito said in a statement.
The measure, whose House version has already drawn stiff opposition from acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe and congressional Democrats, would delay nonatttainment designations under the new standard from next year until 2025 (Greenwire, April 14).
It would also stretch out the mandatory review timetable of standards for ozone and five other major air pollutants from once every five years to once every decade and require EPA to study the impact of emissions originating from overseas.
Ground-level ozone, the chief ingredient in smog, stems from the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Besides irritating lung passageways, it can help trigger asthma attacks and worsen emphysema symptoms.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lowered the ambient air quality threshold from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in October 2015, citing the need to protect public health.
The new rule is now the subject of competing lawsuits by business groups that argue EPA should have left the standard alone and environmental and public health organizations that say the scientific evidence warrants lowering it to 60 ppb.
Parties filed the first round of briefs in the case last week (Greenwire, April 25). Two of the groups in the business camp yesterday applauded introduction of the Senate bill.
Like its House counterpart, the Senate measure offers "a balanced approach that ensures continued air quality improvements, while giving states and manufacturers the flexibility necessary to limit some of the economic growth restrictions that exist under the current regulation," Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote in a blog post.
In a statement, the American Chemistry Council singled out a provision that would leave the previous permitting requirements in effect until EPA decides on nonattainment areas under the new standard.
"These and other reforms will provide greater regulatory certainty for state air-quality agencies and businesses alike," the chemical industry trade group said in the statement.
The measure's initial co-sponsors are Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona, John Cornyn of Texas, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana. The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Inhofe chairs. As of late yesterday, the committee had not formally scheduled any action on the legislation.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/29/stories/1060036470
-
EPA Ozone Rule Looms Large in Swing State
Apr 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Denver area is playing a starring role in the national fight over President Obama’s new ozone pollution rule, with potential implications for a crucial Senate race.
The energy industry and other opponents of the ozone rule argue that the Mile High City will suffer serve economic damage from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation, which is meant to reduce smog.
They see fertile ground for their cause in Colorado, a presidential swing state where Sen. Michael Bennet is considered the most vulnerable Senate Democrat running for reelection this year.
The rule’s supporters note that Denver has repeatedly failed to meet national air quality standards over the years, and say its reputation for polluted air presents an opportunity to make the case for government regulation.
But the Center for Regulatory Solutions, an industry group that’s been at the forefront of the fight against the ozone rule, has repeatedly highlighted and targeted Denver in its campaigns, characterizing the advocacy as amplifying local opposition.
“Moving the standard down to where the far left wants it to be has received significant pushback in Colorado,” said Matt Dempsey, spokesman for the Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS).
“That’s why you see such strong pushback from state, local and county officials, and elected representatives, because they have been on top of this issue.”
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute (API) and others have also focused significant efforts on Denver, both to pressure local leaders to oppose the rule and to show national leaders the area’s pain.
The EPA’s rule from last year lowered the acceptable amount of ozone in ambient air to 70 parts per billion, from the 75 parts per billion set in 2008. Ozone is the main component in smog, and is linked to respiratory ailments like asthma.
Areas that exceed the standard have to come up with ways to clean their air. That usually means reducing the pollutants from fossil fuel burning that turn into ozone, something that could hurt the energy industry and sectors that rely on energy.
In December, the EPA said Denver is unlikely to meet the new standard by 2025, the only area outside of California to get the honor. In its annual report on air pollution released in April, the American Lung Association, which supports the EPA’s rule, ranked the Denver area as the 8th worst for ozone in the country, saying its air improved since last year, but is still worse than two decades ago.
Due to its manufacturing base, the oil and gas boom, population growth and other factors, Denver produces many of the pollutants that become ozone. But owing to the Rocky Mountains, wind patterns and similar factors, the city has had difficulty cleaning its air.
“There are a number of drivers for ozone in the air, and so far we haven’t gotten a handle on how to ratchet that back and come into compliance with even the old standards, or even the new standard,” said Justin Pidot, an environmental law professor at the University of Denver. “So that causes handwringing.”
Business interests see those factors as working in their favor as they oppose the rule.
“If you’re a manufacturer in Colorado, and you’re looking to expand your product line or open a new facility, and you have to comply with a federal standard that is unattainable, in that part of the country, you can’t get your project done,” said Greg Bertelsen, senior director for energy policy at NAM. “You’re really hamstrung.”
NAM and API are both suing the EPA in federal court to have the regulation overturned, and lobbying Congress to change or reverse it.
Bennet and Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) are key targets for business groups in the ozone fight. Both are moderate Democrats who’ve spoken out with concerns about the rule, and the rule’s opponents have highlighted their comments as breaking with Obama.
Bennet told The Hill that the EPA needs to recognize how much of Colorado’s pollution is blown in from other states or countries.
“We need a rule that is going to work for Colorado, and recognizes that a lot of these issues in our air aren’t coming from Colorado, it’s not produced in Colorado,” he said. “So we’re going to have to get a rule that actually works.”
Asked if the rule that the EPA put out works, Bennet said, “well, we’re examining it.”
Shortly before the rule was made final last year, Bennet said at an oil industry event that he was “deeply concerned about it.”
Hickenlooper said in March that “it would be a great idea” if the ozone standard were suspended.
But he’s also defended the rule. “Clean air is too important to Colorado to become a partisan issue,” he said. “I am convinced as much as I ever have been that this is in the self-interest of the state.”
Bennet has made a name for himself as a moderate on energy and environmental policy, in part by supporting the Keystone XL pipeline. But the ozone rule could still hurt him if his eventual GOP opponent uses it to tie him to Obama’s regulatory agenda.
“If played correctly, some political points can be made here for sure, but how salient this particular issue will be compared to the nationalized politics that has driven down-ballot politics in recent presidential election years, that's hard to forecast,” said Kyle Saunders, a political science professor at Colorado State University.
There are currently five Republicans vying to face Bennet, and none have made ozone a major point of their campaign yet.
Public health and environmental advocates say the energy industry has it all wrong with its Denver strategy.
“The polluters may well be looking at Colorado as their Alamo, the place to take their last stand,” said Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado. “Because once a clean air policy or regulation is moving forward in Colorado, which is a purple state politically and has a heavy and significant fossil fuel industry presence, it’s kind of game over elsewhere.”
Maysmith, who grew up in Denver and has numerous stories going back years about the city’s thick, brown air, labeled the efforts to highlight Democratic opposition as “grasping at straws.”
“I think they’re overplaying their hand. I think you might even detect a whiff of desperation in them doing that,” Maysmith said. Hickenlooper, who was within 4 percentage points of losing the 2014 election, has repeatedly said he wants Colorado to have “the cleanest air in the nation.”
Paul Billings, head of advocacy for the American Lung Association, said the energy sector is probably fighting the ozone rule so much because it knows it’s a major part of the problem.
“What we’re seeing is that the additional emissions from oil and gas operations — fugitive emissions, additional emissions associated with the diesel from vehicle traffic — all these things are contributing to the ozone problem,” he said.
“It’s a manmade problem that needs manmade solutions, cleaning up these sources and working to drive down pollution levels.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278100-obama-rule-looms-large-in-swing-state
-
Ten States, Industry Groups Urge Appellate Court to Vacate EPA's Tighter Ozone Standard
Apr 28, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Ten states and several industry organizations, including the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), have filed petitions in federal appellate court challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Last October, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level ozone, from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb (see Daily GPI, Oct. 1, 2015). It also strengthened the secondary ozone standard to 70 ppb and extended the ozone monitoring season for 32 states and the District of Columbia. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is required to review the standards every five years; it was last set to 75 ppb in 2008.
But in a legal brief filed last Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 10 states -- Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin -- argue that the EPA's approach to background ozone levels caused by uncontrollable sources violates the CAA.
Specifically, they argue that the EPA "violated the CAA by failing to address adequately the peak effect of uncontrollable emissions on peak days," and by "impermissibly adopting non-textual limitation on its own authority." The states also said EPA's "promised enforcement relief measures are impractical and misuse portions of the CAA intended for exceptional rather than routine events."
The states also argued that the EPA's methods would lead to a NAAQS review process that would lack an "intelligible principle," and that the agency's reliance on a single clinical study -- also known as the Schelegle study, which was conducted in 2009 -- to justify a new NAAQS is "arbitrary and capricious."
"EPA's hastily-crafted ozone NAAQS imposes an unachievable standard, divorced from the scientific realities of background ozone," the states said. "The agency's only response is to promise a partial accommodation that the statute limits in both applicability and degree of relief. This model of rulemaking does not accord with the CAA, which demands that NAAQS be achievable."
API, IPAA and other industrial groups -- including the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers -- filed a separate, similar brief last Friday.
"This court should vacate the revised NAAQS and remand them to EPA for consideration of their achievability in light of background ozone concentrations and establishment of NAAQS at a level that is achievable given background concentrations; consideration of the adverse economic, social, and energy impacts of the standards; and a reasoned explanation for any change in EPA's conclusions from the scientific effects evidence," the industrial groups said.
Several environmental groups also filed briefs last Friday challenging the EPA, but for different reasons. The groups -- the Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. -- argue that the EPA acted unlawfully when it adopted "an ozone health standard that allows multiple days each year where ozone air pollution exceeds levels that EPA itself found cause adverse health effects," among other reasons.
Under the CAA, states must meet the new 70 ppb limit between 2020 and 2037, based on ozone levels in the area.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106226-ten-states-industry-groups-urge-appellate-court-to-vacate-epas-tighter-ozone-standard
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested