Preview Newsletter

AM ACC 5/13/2016

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Safety Dance: Keeping Chemical Regulations from Burdening the Industry
May 13, 2016 | BedTimes Magazine
By Gary James

The International Sleep Products Association scored several major victories on the chemical regulation front last year, protecting the sleep products industry from onerous new rules in several states, including California, Connecticut and Minnesota.
(ACC Mentioned) House Lawmakers Tentatively Back TSCA Reform Deal on State Preemption
May 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

Top House lawmakers are offering tentative support for a Senate-crafted deal that aims to advance Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation by resolving a debate over preempting new state chemical requirements with language that appears to give states...
EPA Advisors Weigh Chemical Prioritization Tools Ahead of TSCA Reform
May 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA's Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) is eyeing whether it should craft recommendations on how the agency can use high throughput screening and other new toxicity testing methods in prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment...
Nanoscale Rule Proposal Said to Threaten Innovation
May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to require companies to notify the agency 135 days before they make or process a new form of an existing nanoscale chemical threatens innovation, according to the American Coatings Association.
Time For Cleaning Products To Come Clean on Ingredients
May 12, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller

Are there cancer-causing chemicals in your cleaning products? You wouldn’t know, because the majority of cleaners don’t fully disclose their ingredients on the label or online.
Tents Expose Campers to Toxic Flame Retardants
May 12, 2016 | Newsmax
By Emily Netburn

Millions of Americans who go camping to experience nature and the Great Outdoors may be putting themselves at risk from man-made chemical flame retardants used in the manufacture of tents, a new study suggests.

Energy News

Senate Gives Final Approval to Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon

The Senate today cleared its fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill, the chamber’s first appropriations measure of the season.
In Conference, Senate Energy Bill Must Drop Worst Provisions, Keep Best
May 13, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Radha Adhar

Late last month, the Senate did what nobody thought was possible: pass an energy bill capturing votes from both sides of the aisle while keeping out most of the extreme anti-environmental policies sought by the Republican majority.
GOP Takes Aim at New Methane Regs
May 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly

Republicans in the House and Senate today vowed to battle U.S. EPA's new suite of rules targeting methane emissions as part of a larger war against Obama administration regulations.
Greens: Methane Rules on Existing Drilling Rigs Should Come Next
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

Environmentalists are pushing regulators to institute methane controls on existing oil and gas drilling sites now that they have finalized regulations on new drillers.
Three Ways Methane Standards Can Help the Oil and Gas Sector Rebuild
May 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ben Ratner

A massive wave of market and societal forces is changing the oil and gas industry. Low commodity prices are driving out weaker players with excessive debt, and forcing those that remain to become leaner and more efficient.
EPA Help on Clean Power Plan Is Legal, Cruden Says
May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

The Environment Protection Agency's ongoing assistance to states with Clean Power Plan implementation is likely fully compliant with the law, John Cruden, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said May 12.
US Gas Production Dips to Lowest Since December 28: Bentek Data
May 13, 2016 | Platts
By Jonathan Robinson

That said, over the last year the number of drilling rigs across the US has declined by over 54% to 475 as of May 1, according to Bentek data.
Your Clean, Livable World in 2030
May 12, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Margie Alt

From climate change to questions about the global supply of food and water, environmental crises confront the next generation of world leaders with great urgency.
Alberta Fire Spares Oil and Chemical Industries
May 12, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo

The massive wildfire that destroyed parts of the Northern Alberta oil town of Fort McMurray last week disrupted the region’s oil sands sector but had minimal impact on the province’s chemical industry farther south.

Chemical Security News

Industry Officials Say West, TX, Arson Finding Undermines EPA RMP Plan
May 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds

Chemical and other industry officials say the Justice Department's (DOJ) finding that arson caused the fatal West, TX, fertilizer facility explosion undermines EPA's plan to force stricter risk prevention planning at chemical plants, because the agency justified the regulation...
EPA Must Do More to Secure Chemical Facility Safety for Fenceline Communities
May 12, 2016 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Pallavi Phartiyal

This week marks the close of the public comment period for a little-known yet important proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program (RMP), aimed to improve the safety and security of over 12,000 facilities that use or store...

Transportation News

UN Panel Updates Transportation of Dangerous Goods Rules
May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk

This week a United Nations committee approved a series of new regulatory amendments aimed at clarifying standards regarding the transportation of dangerous goods.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) House Subpanel Clears Ozone, Nuclear Bills
May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio and Rebecca Kern

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved a pair of bills that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone air standards and foster research and development for advanced nuclear energy technologies.
Pershing Optimistic Paris Climate Deal Will Enter into Force This Year
May 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia

Jonathan Pershing, the State Department's special envoy for climate change, said today that he is increasingly optimistic that the Paris climate change agreement will enter into force this year, a move that would be a big victory for President Barack Obama before...
EPA to Ax RCRA, CERCLA Exemptions From Air Standards
May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lars-Eric Hedberg

The Environmental Protection Agency May 12 proposed to remove the exemption for site cleanup activities conducted under two federal hazardous waste statutes from the emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Safety Dance: Keeping Chemical Regulations from Burdening the Industry

May 13, 2016 | BedTimes Magazine

By Gary James

The International Sleep Products Association scored several major victories on the chemical regulation front last year, protecting the sleep products industry from onerous new rules in several states, including California, Connecticut and Minnesota. But 2016 also promises to be an active year as the federal government, state legislators and even elected officials on a more local level consider new measures aimed at restricting the use of chemicals they deem to be hazardous.
While few—if any—of the chemicals under discussion for regulation are used in sleep products, there’s a real danger that the list of banned chemicals could be expanded in the future, generating new requirements for suppliers, manufacturers and possibly retailers to test, label and disclose chemicals to prove that products are safe. At the same time, the fact that chemicals, in general, are under increased scrutiny from policymakers is putting the subject in a brighter spotlight, leading to more media coverage. And, as a result, new concerns and fears about the safety of household products of all types are being raised in the minds of consumers. Complicating the situation is the ease with which misinformation can be shared via the web—a Wild West-like frontier where fact and fiction can be hard to differentiate and can appear to carry equal credibility.
FR Fallacies
“There’s a ton of misinformation out there,” says Bobby Bush, senior vice president of foam technology at HSM in Hickory, North Carolina, now part of Elite Comfort Solutions. “Over the years, the media have convinced the public that all foam—for all purposes—has fire retardant in it. Reporters simply aren’t doing their homework and, as a result, they have created the mistaken impression that bed producers still use FR chemicals that were effectively banned by the Environmental Protection Agency for use in foam on Jan. 1, 2005.”
Some individual mattress companies also use the web as a platform for making misleading “green” claims, magnifying the difficulty consumers face when trying to research the subject of mattress safety, according to ISPA. To help address the situation, ISPA created a “Mattress Fire Safety Facts” document that lays out key issues related to flame retardants and mattress safety. The document, posted on the ISPA website (www.sleepproducts.org), explains that U.S. mattress manufacturers meet flammability standards using barriers that are sewn into products during manufacture, as opposed to FR-treated foams.
“They do not spray or soak the finished mattress in any fire retardant chemical of any kind,” the FAQ states, tackling head-on one of the most widespread myths about the FR properties of mattresses. The fact sheet adds that today’s manufacturers do not incorporate fire retardant chemicals into mattress foams and that manufacturers are not required to use such chemicals to pass federal mattress flammability standards—16 CFR Part 1632 and 16 CFR Part 1633.
“ISPA has recently seen an uptick in media reports regarding the use of flame retardants in mattresses, including whether mattresses contain FR-treated foams to meet the Part 1633 standard,” says Ryan Trainer, ISPA president. “Unfortunately, the information presented in the media or discussed by policymakers is often inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. To assist ISPA members in responding to potential press and customer inquiries, we have created this new document that explains in simple terms how the industry meets its legal obligations to sell mattresses that comply with Part 1633.”
Current FR approaches
To meet the requirements of 16 CFR Part 1633, U.S. bedding producers use a woven, nonwoven or knitted fabric in the form of either a panel or sock to create a flame-resistant barrier between a heat source and the foam—a mattress’ most substantial fuel load. That barrier material is designed to enclose the comfort layers inside a mattress and provide protection in one of two ways: 1) by preventing heat from an open-flame ignition source, such as a match or lighter, from penetrating through to the foam or 2) by blocking oxygen from reaching the fuel load.
Many sleep products manufacturers use barriers made from fibers that have silicon or another chemical embedded in them during the fiber extrusion process that give them inherent FR properties. In a few cases, producers may use barriers with flame-retardant modacrylic (or modified acrylic) fibers containing embedded antimony trioxide, but these types of fabrics are more commonly seen in draperies, curtains and scatter rugs.
Another option is topically treated rayon or other fibers, where safe chemicals with proven flame-
retardant properties—such as diammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate (which also are used in food products)—are applied. Some luxury mattresses include wool, a natural fiber with inherent FR properties, to meet federal flammability standards.
According to Trainer, none of the chemicals used in mattress fire barriers “has any of the purported health issues associated with the FR chemicals that may have been used in some foams, but that hasn’t stopped some groups from targeting mattresses in their legislative efforts. ISPA spent a lot of last year explaining the differences between what we use and what the activists want banned, lobbying to minimize the impact of broad, poorly conceived anti-FR bills on the mattress industry and trying to keep the legislative efforts to regulate us more from spreading to other states.
“We have a good story to tell, but we are concerned about unnecessary new testing, labeling and certification rules regarding chemicals that just aren’t being used in mattresses and will simply increase manufacturing costs for no consumer benefit. Hopefully, reforming the federal Toxic Substances Control Act will discourage states from considering or enacting new state laws to regulate the industry.”
Enacted in 1976, the TSCA is the primary law governing the safety of chemical products, providing the EPA with authority to review and regulate chemicals in commerce. In 2015, both houses of the U.S. Congress voted to overhaul the law for the first time in 40 years, and now the House and Senate are working to reconcile differences between their approaches.
“If updates to TSCA become law, it should reduce some of the confusion that exists in the marketplace, where individual states have been pressured to create their own chemical management laws based on the claims of activists rather than scientific conclusions,” says Chris Hudgins, ISPA’s vice president of government relations and policy. “No matter what happens during the legislative process, TSCA reforms are expected to have some degree of pre-emption, even if it’s not as strong as we’d like, so that states at least would have to pause their own regulatory efforts if the EPA decides to act on a particular chemical. Right now, each state is doing its own thing.”
The state picture
Seven states have laws on the books regulating the use of hazardous chemicals in consumer products—California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. In addition, more than a dozen states, plus the District of Columbia, are considering measures to restrict chemical use. The laws typically require states to identify “hazardous substances” and recommend maximum permitted levels, while imposing testing, labeling, reporting and use requirements on particular chemicals of concern, including FR chemicals, such as tris phosphate (TDCPP). Washington’s law, used as a model by some other states, lists 66 chemicals as hazardous.
Some state laws apply only to children’s products—generally defined as products intended for use by children 12 and younger. Other states have broader authority to require reporting and impose restrictions on a wide range of products. Two states—California and Maine—require alternatives assessments, in which a manufacturer may be obligated to study and assess the use of alternative chemicals in their products.
“The way these laws are written, regulatory bodies have a lot of latitude to expand the scope of their rulemaking—from children’s products to adult products, or from a few select chemicals to entire classes of chemicals,” Hudgins says. “As a result, these laws continue to change, with amendments, new legislation and expanded regulations constantly being considered.”
In Minnesota, for example, ISPA succeeded last year in getting mattresses removed from a new law that regulates certain flame retardants. Originally, the law would have banned all mattresses containing antimony in amounts greater than 100 parts per million. Separately, the law required the state to conduct a study regarding applicable flammability standards and laws for mattresses and other products. ISPA provided input to the Minnesota Department of Health as it developed that study, which was publicly released in February.
“The report takes no position on whether further legislation is needed to regulate flame retardants in mattresses,” Hudgins says. “Nevertheless, legislation has been introduced this year to regulate flame retardants in mattresses—in essence, reviving the provisions of the original bill that were dropped prior to passage and enactment last year.”
As in other states, the pressure for such changes is being driven by environmental groups working in tandem with the local firefighters union, Hudgins says, adding that ISPA will continue to work with Minnesota to protect mattress manufacturers from being hurt by such legislation.
ISPA also had success in Connecticut and several other states, amending or defeating bills that would have regulated certain chemicals that have limited use in mattress FR barriers. “In Connecticut, we secured amendments that eliminated antimony from the scope of the bill,” Hudgins says. However, the bill as amended did not pass the Connecticut legislature before the session ended in 2015. Two similar versions of the bill have been re-introduced this year but, at this point, neither targets chemicals currently used in mattresses.
Another legislative victory came in mid-2015 when ISPA persuaded the author of an FR labeling bill pending in the California legislature to exempt from its scope mattresses that meet federal flammability requirements. As originally introduced, the bill would have required manufacturers of a “foam crib mattress” and other juvenile products (which could have included at least twin mattresses marketed to children) to label their products and state whether or not the product contains flame retardants. The bill was patterned after a California law enacted in 2014 that requires similar labeling for upholstered furniture. As amended, the bill would have excluded mattresses that meet 16 CFR Part 1632 and 16 CFR Part 1633. The amended bill did not pass in 2015 and, at this point, appears unlikely to be enacted in 2016 either.
“Not only do these successes protect mattress manufacturers from costly new requirements today, they also help establish the precedent that mattresses should be exempt from these types of future regulatory requirements,” Trainer says.
In late 2015, Vermont finalized regulations to implement a 2014 law that requires manufacturers of children’s products, including mattresses intended for use by children 12 and younger, to notify that state regarding the use of certain chemicals in their products. Hudgins says the initial list of chemicals that require reporting does not include those typically used in bedding, but the state is allowed to add to the list in the future.
Vermont’s law is modeled on similar requirements contained in the Children’s Safe Products Act enacted by Washington legislators in 2008. That law authorized the state to regulate numerous chemicals used in children’s products, including “products(s) designed or intended by the manufacturer…to facilitate sleep, relaxation.” Manufacturers of such products must report to state authorities the use of any chemicals on the list. Filing requirements for the “bedding” category, which includes mattresses, began in 2014. Like Vermont, the list of chemicals that require reporting in Washington does not involve chemicals typically used in bedding at this time. The implementing regulations set deadlines for specific categories of companies based on gross sales, with the largest marketers of products, such as Wal-Mart, having the earliest deadlines.
Local initiatives
In New York, the pressure to expand chemical regulation has spread from the state legislature down to the local level. Four counties—Albany, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester—recently banned the sale of children’s products that contain antimony, benzene, lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium or cobalt. Eric and Monroe counties are considering similar bans. Children’s products are defined as consumer products designed or intended for children 12 and younger and could include mattresses. In late January, the New York City Council held a hearing on an ordinance to ban children’s products that contain those seven chemicals, as well as formaldehyde.
According to Hudgins, several industries have challenged the new county laws, which are scheduled to take effect this year. “It is unclear at this point how these counties intend to enforce these laws,” he says. “The real goal of these local efforts is to keep the issue in front of the public and create more pressure on state regulators to act.”
To keep on top of these local initiatives and the many other actions being considered across the nation, ISPA partners with other trade associations and legal experts. The association also uses tracking software to stay on top of legislative developments at the state level.
Activity in Washington
The push to impose new restrictions on chemical use extends from state capitals to the halls of Washington, D.C., where—in addition to lawmakers’ reform of the TSCA—individual regulatory bodies are being pressured to get more involved in this issue.
In 2015, several consumer, medical and environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to initiate a rulemaking on flame retardants in mattresses, upholstered furniture, children’s products and electronic casings. The petition asks the CPSC to ban any of these products if they contain “any nonpolymeric, additive organohalogen flame retardant.” In response, ISPA submitted comments to the CPSC stating that mattresses produced in the United States do not contain additive organohalogen flame retardants and, thus, should not be subject to such a ban. As a matter of policy, ISPA also opposed proscriptive product-design requirements and banning entire families of chemicals without assessing individual chemicals and conducting a proper risk assessment analysis.
“Whenever these issues come up, we try to help officials understand that, if our products don’t have these chemicals, we shouldn’t have to face new testing, labeling and documenting obligations to prove that our products are safe,” Hudgins says.
Also under review by the CPSC is a proposed rule issued by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel in late 2014 that would permanently ban five phthalates in any amount greater than 0.1% from children’s toys and child care products. The proposed ban covers DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP and DCHP while leaving in place the CPSC’s original ban on DEHP, BBP and DBP. Based on guidelines in place with regard to currently banned phthalates, the new rules could apply to certain mattresses and sleep surfaces designed for use by children age 3 or younger that are covered in vinyl or other plasticized materials.
On another front, the EPA last year added three categories of flame retardants—including brominated phthalates, the chlorinated phosphate esters group and tetrabromo bisphenol A and related chemicals—to its Toxic Substances Control Act Work Plan, asking for public comment on each of the groups. Based on input from industry members, ISPA understands that U.S. mattress manufacturers do not use materials that contain chemicals falling under the new FR categories EPA has identified.
The bottom line
According to ISPA officials and major industry suppliers, most chemicals cited in the bills and measures being considered by federal, state and local governmental bodies “are not used in sleep products at all,” Hudgins says. “And, in the few cases where the industry does use a chemical of concern, such as antimony, we’ve worked together with policymakers to keep the thresholds at a level that is both safe for the public and workable for the industry.”
Still, the very fact that chemicals are in the news more frequently is creating challenges for the industry. “The media, and many consumers, tend to assume that all chemicals are bad and that if chemicals are used in the production of bedding, that health is at risk,” Hudgins says. “There’s a general misunderstanding that if a bed contains any chemicals, something needs to be done.”
In some cases, Hudgins says, today’s laws are being written to say a product cannot contain any level of a particular chemical, even if there’s no evidence to prove that trace amounts pose a risk. “With improved testing equipment that can identify even infinitesimal levels of chemicals, it can be impossible to show that a product has absolutely ‘zero’ of something.”
In addition to setting excessively low compliance thresholds, some new laws at the state level also are giving regulatory bodies expanded authority to pursue their own agendas. “Washington state, Vermont and California have all granted very broad authority at the department level for environmental regulators to initiate new rulemaking and expand the scope of regulation to include new chemicals, groups of companies and products. That’s a challenge, because the goal line is constantly moving,” Hudgins says.
Hudgins adds that while ISPA has been successful in its efforts to exempt the industry from burdensome regulations so far, “this issue is going to attract more and more attention from policymakers. The scope of what they’re regulating is certain to grow.”
Although flame retardants are not typically added to mattress foam because the vast majority of sleep product manufacturers meet federal FR requirements using fabric barriers rather than chemical applications, the polyurethane foam industry continues to face an uphill battle when it comes to educating legislators and regulators about why mattress foam should be exempt from proposed chemical bans.
“In a few of the state initiatives designed to regulate the use of flame retardant additives in home furnishings, mattresses have sometimes been included in draft bills,” says Bob Luedeka, executive director of the Polyurethane Foam Association, based in Loudon, Tennessee. “It takes constant vigilance, but our industry—working together with other associations such as ISPA—has been successful in educating lawmakers so that mattresses can be excluded from such regulations.”
Also posing an ongoing challenge for the industry is the vast amount of inaccurate information circulated on the web and through the media on the subject of mattress safety, Luedeka says.
“Since the development of the internet and social media platforms as popular, if not dominant, resources for researching home furnishings purchases, there has been a great deal of information posted related to mattresses,” Luedeka says. “While much of the information is useful and beneficial to consumers, some posted and published opinions and critiques contain inaccurate or misleading information that may cause consumers unnecessary concern about items they may be considering for purchase.”
Many bedding producers and suppliers have been trying to counter these myths by providing information about sleep product construction on their own websites and in product literature. The Sleep Products Safety Council, part of the International Sleep Products Association, also offers resources that address topics related to mattress safety. The CertiPUR-US website (http://certipur.us) is a helpful source for foam-
specific information. (See story on page 72.)
“Unfortunately, given the frequency of questions and the fact that misinformation posted online is often re-posted to form a growing body of ‘evidence’ that never seems to go away, it may be necessary to make a more concerted effort to help set the record straight,” Luedeka says. “While consumer questions are currently being addressed by companies and individual trade associations, it may be valuable to add the authoritative voice of a coalition of industry stakeholders.”
To this end, the PFA and ISPA are beginning discussions to examine and evaluate ways that common questions and concerns could be addressed as a collaborative effort. “A joint effort might provide a more effective means of correcting inaccuracies and providing scientifically supported answers to key questions, adding another level of comfort to the bed-buying experience,” Luedeka says.
In the meantime, Luedeka encourages bedding producers to keep a close eye on service inquires related to mattress safety. For their part, retailers should pay attention to shoppers’ questions that come up during sales conversations at the store level. He advises companies to systematically monitor and categorize this activity and to develop answers to the most frequently asked questions that can be posted online and used by retail sales associates.
In addition, mattress manufacturers should monitor whether consumers are submitting safety complaints about their products to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. By registering at www.saferproducts.gov, a CPSC website, a manufacturer will receive notice from the CPSC of a consumer complaint and be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the matter during a 10-business day response period before possible publication.
The process of educating the public and government officials about the ins and outs of polyurethane foam can be challenging. For example, consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent proposal to impose new rules on certain adhesives and coatings used in consumer products, which may contain unreacted TDI. The proposed rules contained vague language that could have been misinterpreted to apply to finished polyurethane foams used in mattresses—even though the TDI in those foams is completely reacted, not available for potential exposure and not considered a hazard. ISPA, working with other industry groups, including the PFA and the American Chemistry Council, is seeking EPA clarification that the proposed rule was not intended to apply to mattress foams.
http://bedtimesmagazine.com/2016/05/safety-dance/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) House Lawmakers Tentatively Back TSCA Reform Deal on State Preemption

May 12, 2016 | InsideEPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

Top House lawmakers are offering tentative support for a Senate-crafted deal that aims to advance Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation by resolving a debate over preempting new state chemical requirements with language that appears to give states an additional year to regulate some substances before EPA could preempt them.
The language is, however, unlikely to win support from at least some environmental groups. According to an informed source, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families -- a coalition of environmental groups advocating for broad TSCA reform -- is warning members that the compromise language “would force states to delay protections on toxic chemicals for up to four years,” creating a greater time frame for exposure to hazardous chemicals.
In a May 12 interview with Inside EPA, House Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) said the deal would “give states time to get caught up” if they begin looking at a chemical for possible new regulation before EPA launches a safety review of a chemical under new TSCA authority.
“As far as I understand it, I'm supportive” said Shimkus of the deal struck between Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
In response to a question about the concerns raised by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, Shimkus pointed out that the compromise is the result of lengthy negotiations between Boxer and Inhofe. “If you can't trust Sen. Boxer to support and be protective of public health, I don't know who you trust,” he said.
The deal announced May 6 is seen as a significant step forward toward final reconciliation of the Senate-approved TSCA reform bill S. 697 and the narrower House-approved measure H.R. 2576. Whether, and how, the bills should preempt existing and future state chemicals programs has stymied prior attempts at TSCA reform, and Boxer had previously threatened to block the Senate bill if its preemption was too sweeping.
Lawmakers' Support
Shimkus and other House lawmakers, however, told Inside EPA on the sidelines of a May 12 House Energy & Commerce Committee energy panel markup of unrelated legislation that the Inhofe-Boxer deal -- which House members at press time were still reviewing -- is a sign that a final compromise on TSCA reform is possible.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chair of the full House energy committee, said, “we're confident we can resolve it” with a compromise bill reconciling the House and Senate reform bills. He added that preemption is among the pieces being discussed, adding that “the goal is a bipartisan bill through a bicameral process.”
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX), said of the language “I'm inclined to support it,” adding that he is “glad they worked out the issue with California,” referring to concerns raised by Boxer and others that overly broad preemption programs could negate the progress California has made through its Proposition 65 and green chemistry programs. Green said there was some concern among other states that they may want to pursue similar programs.
Shimkus said lawmakers are still discussing “tweaking of language” in the House and Senate bills, duplicative phrases, and struggling with terminology in trying to reconcile the legislation, as they are “dogs and cats” because the House bill is significantly more limited and narrow than the Senate bill.
It is unclear when a final bill will be made publicly available and scheduled for a vote in the House, as Shimkus said that while they would like to schedule a vote for as early as next week, they have not committed to one of at least two options being discussed for advancing a bill, one of which may allow for a vote sooner than the other. Any compromise legislation would still need to clear votes in both the House and Senate.
Shimkus said lawmakers met to discuss options for moving the legislation on May 12 prior to the markup, and stressed that he did not think the process is likely to stretch into the next couple of months.
Compromise Language
The compromise language has already won cautious praise from major stakeholders, with the American Chemistry Council saying in response to Boxer and Inhofe's May 6 announcement that the agreement builds upon the work of Vitter, Udall, and Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) and others and “paves the way for final passage,” and “we greatly appreciate the commitment and hard work of the Senators and their staffs.”
Separately, Dr. Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist, said, “We welcome the announcement that Senators Inhofe and Boxer have found common ground on chemical safety reform legislation. We look forward to seeing the details and are more hopeful than ever that Congress will be able to move quickly to pass comprehensive, health-protective reform legislation and send it to the president’s desk.”
But some industry sources say that significant questions remain on how an agreement might affect a host of key policies in the bill including state preemption, the scope of EPA risk assessments, and more.
Leaders on EPW and the House energy panel have for months been in informal talks to resolve the differences between the two TSCA bills -- the Senate bill introduced by David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), and the House measure introduced by Shimkus.
Inhofe and Boxer on May 6 announced their compromise on “key sticking points,” which Shimkus said is aimed at addressing Boxer's concerns about California and other states that may be looking at regulating a chemical when EPA designates it for a safety review.
Under the S. 697 bill as it is currently drafted, preemption of new state laws and administrative requirements would take effect beginning when EPA publishes and defines the scope of a safety assessment and safety determination of a high-priority substance, and end when either the deadline of three years expires or the safety determination is published.
However, the House bill, H.R. 2576, took a narrower approach and only preempts new state restrictions when EPA uses its TSCA authority to restrict the same substance under section 6.
According to Shimkus' description, the compromise appears to resolve the issue by giving states one year to either finalize or abandon already-pending chemical requirements once EPA announces its intent to review and potentially regulate a substance.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-lawmakers-tentatively-back-tsca-reform-deal-state-preemption

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Advisors Weigh Chemical Prioritization Tools Ahead of TSCA Reform

May 13, 2016 | InsideEPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

EPA's Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) is eyeing whether it should craft recommendations on how the agency can use high throughput screening and other new toxicity testing methods in prioritization of chemicals for risk assessment, reviews that could be bolstered by pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform.
“A key part of TSCA seems to be prioritizing,” said Kristina Thayer, of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, during a May 11 virtual meeting of the CSAC. She asked whether EPA “envisions” that the committee could be asked to weigh in on prioritization tools.
In response, EPA's Jeffrey Morris, deputy program director in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said “It's a good question, I don't have a good answer right now.”
But he suggested that EPA could consider asking the panel for advice on prioritization given that Congress is working toward passage of a final compromise TSCA reform bill.
“One aspect of reform is the need for us to look at prioritization,” and certain scientific issues might be something for the panel to take up, such as “how we might bring Tox21 into prioritization,” Morris said.
A second CSAC member added that the panel could look at uncertainties related to prioritization tools and how high-throughput screening methodologies could be used.
CSAC is a panel of experts that “provides independent scientific advice and recommendations to the EPA on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under” TSCA, according to EPA's website.
Chemicals prioritization is covered in part by TSCA reform legislation approved by the Senate, S. 697, which -- among many other provisions -- would require EPA to disclosure the information it uses to make prioritization decisions when reviewing chemicals.
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on May 6 announced a compromise on TSCA reform that they say should help lead to a final compromise to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-approved TSCA bill H.R. 2576.
TSCA Reform
Lawmakers trying to reconcile the House and Senate TSCA bills have struggled with questions such as whether the legislation should block state chemicals programs, and other provisions.
Both bills would rework the 1976 TSCA and give EPA much broader authority to regulate existing chemicals that are already in the marketplace, eliminating hurdles the current law places on such rules that have hindered the agency's efforts to restrict some high-profile chemicals -- including its failed 1991 attempt to ban asbestos.
But they differ greatly on how to treat states' restrictions on chemicals that were previously not subject to federal TSCA regulations but which EPA later asserts authority over. S. 697 would "grandfather," or preserve, states' existing chemicals laws as of its passage, but any such restrictions enacted after TSCA reform is implemented would be preempted as soon as EPA defines and publishes the scope of a safety assessment and safety determination under its TSCA section 6 authority to review existing chemicals' risks.
However, H.R. 2576, took a narrower approach and only preempts new state restrictions when EPA uses its TSCA authority to restrict the same substance. It would also include a grandfathering clause similar to the Senate bill, and would preserve state toxic tort claims even after EPA takes final action on regulating a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with the new federal requirement.
The difference between the bills' preemption language, and Boxer's strident opposition to broad preemption, has led many observers to label that issue as the biggest obstacle to crafting a consensus bill.
But an industry source tells Inside EPA that the deal senators reached appears to include placing a hold on states taking action to regulate “high-priority” chemicals while EPA performs a risk assessment of the substances.
Boxer had long raised concerns about a regulatory gap if EPA failed to act under a revised TSCA bill to assess and regulate a chemical, yet states would be powerless to impose their own rules due to preemption language in both versions of the bill.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advisors-weigh-chemical-prioritization-tools-ahead-tsca-reform

Return to headline | Return to top
Nanoscale Rule Proposal Said to Threaten Innovation

May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to require companies to notify the agency 135 days before they make or process a new form of an existing nanoscale chemical threatens innovation, according to the American Coatings Association.
“Opportunities to further enhance the properties of coatings, find radically new functionality, conserve resources and reduce solvent emissions will become severely burdensome or completely missed with the implementation of the reporting program as it is currently written,” the American Coatings Association (ACA) said in a position paper issued May 10.
The ACA paper highlights benefits of coatings made with nanoengineered chemicals, studies such as one that found the final products—when sanded or sawed—produced no more nanomaterial-containing dust than would conventional coatings and problems the agency's regulatory proposal would cause coatings manufacturers.
The association, which represents manufacturers of paints, car finishes and other coatings, issued the four-page paper in light of a data collection rule the EPA proposed on April 6, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 18,330; 58 DEN A-4, 3/26/15).
The EPA proposed rule (RIN:2070–AJ54):
• would define nanoscale materials;
• would establish a one-time reporting obligation for nanoscale materials during which companies would provide the EPA physical form, size, shape and other data about their nanoscale chemical if the manufacturer or processor already had the information; and
• would establish a 135 day notification requirement triggered by manufacturers or processors use of a new, discreet form of a nanoscale chemical.
270-Day Wait
In combination with other requirements, the 135 day notification mandate would mean companies would have to wait 270 days before they could fully commercialize a new nanomaterial, the coatings association said.
The four-page statement is the most recent industry volley against a proposed rule that many different industry sectors say would impose unnecessary obligations and exceeds the agency's regulatory authority.
The coatings association issued the position paper now because the EPA has said it plans to issue a final data collection rule later this year, Stephen Wieroniey, ACA's director of occupational health and product safety, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail May 12.
The NanoManufacturing Association, of which ACA is a member, met with EPA officials in February, according to a March 16 letter that association posted online.
Clarification of Rule
Jim Alwood, a program manager in the EPA's Chemical Control Division who coordinates nanotechnology issues under the Toxic Substances Control Act, said in March that the agency will address in any final rule concerns voiced by companies about the 135 day notification and other possible requirements. He discussed the rule at the 2016 Global Chemical Regulations Conference.
Alwood did not say whether the agency would eliminate the 135-day notification requirement, change it or address industry concerns in some other way.
The agency will clarify several terms used in the proposed rule, Alwood said.
He referred to terms such as “unique and novel characteristics or properties” and “trace amounts,” which were described as vague by many organizations that commented on the proposal.

The final rule will request available data about nanoscale chemicals, Alwood said. “The rule does not require anyone to generate data.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89345126&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89345126&jd=89345126

Return to headline | Return to top
Time For Cleaning Products To Come Clean on Ingredients

May 12, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

By Samara Geller

Are there cancer-causing chemicals in your cleaning products? You wouldn’t know, because the majority of cleaners don’t fully disclose their ingredients on the label or online.
Today (May12), Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., reintroduced legislation that would require manufacturers of cleaning products to label their ingredients on packaging and product websites. The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2016 would strip away the secrecy that shrouds the chemicals used to make most cleaners.
EWG has been working for years to close the labeling loophole that allows ingredients in cleaning products – including some that are potentially harmful – to remain undisclosed.
Last year, EWG joined with the Breast Cancer Fund to co-sponsor legislation in the California Assembly to require manufacturers of most household and commercial cleaning products to disclose their ingredients on the labels and online. The bill was defeated early this year, but we greatly raised public awareness of this critical issue and made a compelling case for safety over secrecy.
A new EWG analysis of more than 400 cleaning products released last month showed only about a quarter of them adequately disclose their ingredients. Many companies use vague terms, such as “preservative” or “colorant,” instead of listing the specific chemicals they use. More than two-thirds of products list only “perfume” or “fragrance,” terms that can mask potentially harmful, persistent chemicals such asgalaxolide, a skin irritant and possible hormone disruptor that’s highly toxic to aquatic life.
Moreover, most cleaning products contain ingredients that can cause harmful respiratory effects. They include common antibacterial agents such as sodium hypochlorite (chlorine bleach) and quaternary ammonium compounds, or “quats.”
Rep. Israel’s bill would direct the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue regulations to standardize ingredient lists and enforce the act. It also calls for a public process allowing consumers to file a petition with the Commission if they suspect that a product doesn’t comply with the law. In addition, manufacturers would be required to provide supplemental information, including each ingredient’s Chemical Abstract Service identification number and function, on product websites.
The Right to Know Act would also alert consumers to incidental ingredients used to make the cleaner, including contaminants that may be introduced in production or may form over a product’s shelf life. These can include carcinogens such as 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, which have been routinely detected and reported in a variety of cleaning products. Frequent exposure to formaldehyde and some other chemicals can cause asthma in healthy people.
Passing the bill would be a major victory for the public.
In the meantime, EWG’s interactive Guide to Healthy Cleaning provides detailed information on more than 2,500 products to empower consumers to make safer choices and prod industry to formulate products with safer ingredients and raise the bar on transparency.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/time-cleaning-products-come-clean-ingredients

Return to headline | Return to top
Tents Expose Campers to Toxic Flame Retardants

May 12, 2016 | Newsmax

By Emily Netburn

Millions of Americans who go camping to experience nature and the Great Outdoors may be putting themselves at risk from man-made chemical flame retardants used in the manufacture of tents, a new study suggests.

Such chemicals are used in camping materials to keep tents from catching fire should they come in close contact with an open flame. But new research, led by Duke University professor and environmental health specialist Heather M. Stapleton, found that such flame retardants are released into the air within a tent, posing a potential health risk to campers who inhale them.

Some studies have linked flame retardants to reproductive and developmental problems.
The Duke study aimed to see just how harmful these chemicals could be. The researchers tested the air inside 15 different tents and found it contained varying levels of chemicals, depending on the brand.

The researchers noted that though the amount of flame retardant chemicals was below scientifically acceptable levels of 5 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, concentrations of the chemicals can still be hazardous to adults, and are especially dangerous to children, who weigh much less.

Researchers also found a significant amount of flame retardant chemicals on the hands 20 volunteers who set up tents at campsites as part of the study.
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-News/flame-retardant-tent-risks/2016/05/12/id/728580/

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Senate Gives Final Approval to Energy and Water Spending Bill

May 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darius Dixon

The Senate today cleared its fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill, the chamber’s first appropriations measure of the season.
The $37.5 billion bill to fund the Energy Department, Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, passed 90-8. The bill also signs off on budgets for FERC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's the first energy and water measure to be approved on the Senate floor outside of an omnibus in several years.
Despite being temporarily derailed as Democrats rebelled over an amendment related to Iran, Sen.Lamar Alexander, who chairs energy and water appropriations, said it had been “a very good process.”
There had been “a couple of bumps,” Alexander said Wednesday, “but this is the United States Senate. We know bumps.”
Attention now moves to the House, where a companion measure that emerged from committee last month comes in $93 million below the Senate’s version. The House energy and water spending measure also includes several controversial provisions not in the Senate bill, including California drought language from the state's Republicans, as well as funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project.
House spending measures could start coming to the floor next week.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the upper chamber would next debate two appropriations bill jointly: Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
In Conference, Senate Energy Bill Must Drop Worst Provisions, Keep Best

May 13, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Radha Adhar

Late last month, the Senate did what nobody thought was possible: pass an energy bill capturing votes from both sides of the aisle while keeping out most of the extreme anti-environmental policies sought by the Republican majority. That result is testament to the strong bi-partisan cooperation of Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA).
The bill includes several important provisions, including those to extend the bi-partisan Land and Water Conservation Fund and tweak energy markets to prioritize some aspects of clean energy. It would substantially increase energy efficiency, and authorizes investments in a broad spectrum of clean energy research. The bill also prioritizes training the next generation of energy workers so that we continue to grow jobs and the American clean energy economy.
Despite the inclusion of these important policies, the bill includes a number of highly problematic provisions. It would boost dirty fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear projects while advancing a controversial biomass policy which undermines the President’s Clean Power Plan and U.S. climate progress. That’s why the current version does not have the support of the nation's leading clean air, clean water and conservation groups, including the Sierra Club.
When the Senate bill goes to a conference committee to reconcile differences with the House versions, these bad provisions must come out while the good ones stay in. If that happens then this energy bill will support clean energy solutions that are creating jobs and growing the economy today instead of the dirty, dangerous fuels of the past.
So it’s important to recognize the worst offenders in the Senate bill -- the provisions which would set our energy and climate progress back. Top among them is a controversial biomass policy which undermines both the President’s Clean Power Plan and U.S. climate progress. This provision unilaterally declares -- in the face of the actual science -- that burning our forests is “carbon neutral” when in fact it results in deforestation, a leading cause of the climate crisis. Additionally, the bill includes a separate provision to expedite the approval of major new gas export infrastructure, and places roadblocks in the way of local communities who are often adamantly opposed to housing that sort of polluting facility in their neighborhoods. Perhaps most disappointingly is a provision that targets the current law that ensures federal buildings be fossil fuel free by 2030; in a twist that could only be dreamed up in Congress, the Senate bill would repeal this innovative climate policy right after the United States just signed on to the global climate accord agreed to in Paris. Finally, the bill increases federal spending on dangerous nuclear projects and, perhaps most ominously, in methane hydrates -- a new class of dirty fossil fuel reserves the industry is salivating over and which, if exploited, would mean ‘game over’ for the climate.
Obviously the Senate bill needs improvement--and if you think that’s bad, the worse news is that the House energy bill is so extreme in pushing fossil fuels that adding any of its provisions to the Senate bill would immediately kill what is already an incredibly fragile deal.
For example, one provision creating “National Energy Security Corridors” is actually nothing but a cynical attempt to create an administrative backdoor to allow for the rubberstamp approval of gas pipelines and affiliated infrastructure, without any environmental review or the inclusion of environmental safeguards necessary to protect our public lands.
The hydropower provisions of the House bill constitute an unprecedented imposition of a one-size-fits-all approach to hydropower licensing on states that comes at the expense of the families, businesses, and wildlife that depend on healthy river systems. This new hydropower regime would undercut state authority to regulate water quality, strip natural resource agencies of their authority to protect taxpayers interests, and establish an unfunded mandate for state management of dam safety.
Overall, the House bill contains a number of provisions that put a thumb on the scale in favor of dirty, fossil-fueled electricity generation to the detriment of clean energy, while totally ignoring the progress being made domestically and internationally toward cutting carbon pollution and integrating clean energy resources affordably and reliably. The bill does not include any meaningful language to advance clean and renewable energy, and the energy efficiency title would actually result in a net increase in electricity consumption and carbon emissions.
In sum, while on the one hand it’s clear that the House bill has nothing positive to add when the chambers come together to negotiate, it’s equally clear that the Senate must take a much closer look at their own legislation and take out the most problematic provisions before what is now just a bill becomes law.
Radha Adhar is a Sierra Club federal policy representative in Washington, D.C.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/279650-in-conference-senate-energy-bill-must-drop-worst

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Takes Aim at New Methane Regs

May 12, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Reilly

Republicans in the House and Senate today vowed to battle U.S. EPA's new suite of rules targeting methane emissions as part of a larger war against Obama administration regulations.
Several Republican committee leaders issued harshly critical statements on the rules, which are meant to curb emissions of the potent greenhouse gas from new oil and gas operations. Mirroring industry objections, GOP critics said the agency's rules would hurt the industry and provide negligible benefits.
"The EPA has become a rogue agency trying to implement costly and unnecessary regulations," said House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who has criticized both administration rules and science in the area of climate change.
EPA's rules represent the first Clean Air Act regulations that directly limit methane emissions. They also target smog-forming volatile organic compounds.
The centerpiece of the suite of regulations are New Source Performance Standards that require companies that construct new or significantly modify old oil and gas operations to detect and repair leaks (Greenwire, May 12).
In a joint statement, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said the new rules would "add significant burdens and costs to an already highly regulated industry."
"We will continue to review the legality and merits behind EPA's regulatory bonanza, and the potential impacts on consumers," the trio vowed.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) called the rules part of a "hostile takeover of our nation's energy production."
Another GOP critic of President Obama, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), also pledged to conduct oversight of the new rules. Vitter, who chairs the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, charged that EPA did not properly comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires federal agencies to study the impacts of rules on small businesses.
"I intend to hold EPA accountable for their failed compliance with the law before this methane rule is implemented," he said.
EPA today also kicked off the process for regulating methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations with the release of a two-part data collection activity.
"EPA's actions are politically driven, unnecessary," Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said, "and geared solely toward getting these regulations out the door before President Obama leaves office."
It appears unlikely, however, that EPA will complete the existing-source rule before the end of the Obama administration next January (Greenwire, May 12).
Democrats predictably welcomed both the new-source rules and the movement toward regulating existing operations.
"If you care about having clean air to breathe and averting the worst impacts of climate change, you have to care about curbing methane emissions," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said. "The EPA announcement ... is a significant step toward meeting our commitments under the Paris climate agreement, cutting pollution and winning the war against climate change."
In Paris in December, 195 nations agreed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Methane, according to EPA, is a greenhouse gas that's more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The Obama administration has pledged that the United States will reduce emissions of methane between 40 and 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025.
James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney and former Department of Justice attorney, today predicted that the methane rules would draw "particular focus" in the broader climate debate given the stay that the Supreme Court put on EPA's Clean Power Plan in February. The Clean Power Plan targets carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
"While focusing on new operations and equipment, EPA has made it clear it has existing operations squarely within its regulatory sights, though it's only now proposing to issue information requests," Rubin said in a statement. "Final regulations of existing sources, a far broader category, will inevitably await a new administration and will be hotly debated."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/12/stories/1060037169

Return to headline | Return to top
Greens: Methane Rules on Existing Drilling Rigs Should Come Next

May 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

Environmentalists are pushing regulators to institute methane controls on existing oil and gas drilling sites now that they have finalized regulations on new drillers.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday finalized rules on methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas drilling sites.
Agency officials also kicked off the process of writing rules for existing drillers, which account for up to 10 million tons of methane emissions each year.
“This is the biggest part of the problem,” said Jeremy Symons, the Associate Vice President for Climate Political Affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund. “The job isn’t done and more needs to be done in the months and years ahead.”
Andres Restrepo, a lawyer for the Sierra Club, said the EPA has a legal obligation to write existing well regulations after it implements the new well rules.
“It’s important to understand that today’s action is critical but it’s part of a larger legal structure that covers the entire suite of sources, both new and existing in the oil and gas industry,” he said.
Writing rules for existing wells will take a long time. The EPA is asking drillers to provide regulators with technical and cost information about how to cut down on methane leaks.
That information gathering process will take place this fall, and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthysaid the agency won’t have a final rule done until next year, after President Obama leaves office.
“We’re going to move as quickly as we can to get the most comprehensive record we can available to us that the next administration to rely on,” she said on Thursday.
Issuing rules for existing wells is critical for President Obama’s methane goals, which are a major part of the administration’s overall climate change agenda. The EPA announced this spring that it would eventually regulate methane at existing drilling sites, and Canadian officials said they would do the same in their oil and gas sector.
“Today’s the first step, and it triggers that additional action,” Restrepo said. “We’re going to continue to drive forward and encourage EPA as it continues on in that process to regulate existing sources.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279748-greens-methane-rules-on-existing-drilling-rigs-should-come-next

Return to headline | Return to top
Three Ways Methane Standards Can Help the Oil and Gas Sector Rebuild

May 13, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Ben Ratner

A massive wave of market and societal forces is changing the oil and gas industry. Low commodity prices are driving out weaker players with excessive debt, and forcing those that remain to become leaner and more efficient. As climate change effects worsen and countries move to fulfill their commitments from the Paris climate agreement, public scrutiny of oil and natural gas and their impacts only intensifies.
The question is not will industry change to meet these challenges — it’s how. It’s about what opportunities can propel industry to come back stronger out of the depths of the commodity slide, as a leaner, cleaner industry standing on firm ground that it can play a meaningful role as societies work to transition to lower-carbon economies.
While natural gas remains a fact of life, and switching from coal to natural gas has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions, scientific research has demonstrated that potent methane emissions from the oil and gas system are undermining that climate benefit. The latest U.S. inventory shows over 9 million metric tons of oil and gas methane emissions, packing the same climate impact over a 20 year timeframe as over 200 coal-fired power plants. That’s a lot of methane no matter how you slice it.
Methane standards like the rule announced today by EPA can aid industry, for three reasons:
(Re)build public trust
According to the 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer survey – a gauge of public trust in the business world, spanning 33,000 people in 28 countries – the energy sector is among the least trusted sectors in the business world, ranked above only financial services and pharmaceuticals. As with any industry, trust can be rebuilt, but it’s going to take fresh effort from operators to curb emissions sector-wide, communicated in an open, consistent and verifiable way.
We know that there are some better actors in the oil and gas sector, but performance across the industry varies widely. Consumers only see the bad actors getting headlines, so when leaks or accidents occur, that’s all they have to form an opinion about how industry is performing. The EPA methane rule announced today is an important step toward leveling the playing field across the industry and setting a new status quo for responsible production.
There’s strong public support for measures like today’s rule that will bring emissions down – according to a poll conducted last fall by the American Lung Association, two-thirds of voters favor strong national limits on methane. Because EPA’s rule sets a new floor on what companies must do to contain emissions from new wells and other sources, it can inspire public confidence that operators are working to solve the problem.
Affordable solutions readily available, keep product in the pipes
The success of a similar rule that took effect last year – Colorado’s Regulation 7 requiring best practices for reducing methane emissions – is a clear indicator that companies are seeing benefits from identifying and fixing methane leaks, which represent lost product and revenue in addition to potent climate pollution. In a report released by the Center for Methane Emissions Solutions, eight out of ten oil and gas companies found that in the long run, their compliance costs have been low, they have broken even or they have profited from the required inspections.
Colorado’s rule is increasing workers’ attention to detail and prompting them to find 2 to 3 methane leaks per inspection, most of which can be fixed in just a few days.
Since the federal rules are in many ways comparable to what Colorado put in place, the Colorado success story is evidence that operators will be able to achieve similar benefits and comply with the national standards cost-effectively.
Driving innovation
Colorado is a powerful example of how well-crafted rules can create business value, and operators achieved those outcomes using today’s proven leak detection solutions. With new innovations on the horizon, the already-manageable costs of minimizing leaks will go down even further.
Collaborations like the Methane Detectors Challenge, which EDF leads with a diverse set of industry, academic and NGO partners, are catalyzing new advances in methane detection technology to cut more emissions at less cost. The new systems emerging from the Challenge and the broader marketplace will automate the leak detection process and help operators identify leaks faster, bringing down labor costs and reducing product waste and pollution even more.
Importantly, the EPA rule values the promise of technology innovation and establishes a process for the agency to permit use of emerging technology for reducing fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations. This encouragement sends an immediate demand signal to the marketplace to accelerate innovation of alternative emission monitoring approaches, such as continuous detection systems, which can help industry boost efficiency while delivering greater emission reductions.
A triple-win for industry
Public opinion is firmly behind taking action to curb emissions, and as we’ve seen in Colorado, operators are benefiting from minimizing how much product is lost. Today’s rule will help the sector as a whole chart a more sustainable path – one that builds more value for themselves and investors, reduces risk, and starts the process of rebuilding public trust that both business and policymakers are working to solve the oil and gas methane problem.
http://business.edf.org/blog/2016/05/12/three-ways-methane-standards-can-help-the-oil-and-gas-sector-rebuild/

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Help on Clean Power Plan Is Legal, Cruden Says

May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

The Environment Protection Agency's ongoing assistance to states with Clean Power Plan implementation is likely fully compliant with the law, John Cruden, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said May 12.
The assistance, which EPA says is in response to voluntary requests from states, doesn't violate the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to stay the rule because states are not enjoined, Cruden said at an enforcement seminar hosted by Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP. States are legally able to prepare for implementation, he said.
“The United States is enjoined from implementing the Clean Power Plan, and we're not doing that,” Cruden said. “But I actually think we're in complete compliance. As you would imagine, that would matter to us that we're in compliance with what the Supreme Court says.”
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions limits for the existing fleet of power plants, which would be administered by state regulators.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recently told Congress her agency is working with roughly 25 states (56 DEN A-1, 3/23/16).
Oral Arguments Coming in June
The Supreme Court stayed the case in early February before litigants gave oral arguments (27 DEN A-1, 2/10/16).
Oral argument is set for June 2 and could spill into June 3 as well, Cruden (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, oral arguments 6/2/16).
Clean Power Plan opponents are pushing for two days of arguments (84 DEN A-1, 5/2/16).
DOJ Worker Rights Push
Cruden touched on a wide range of priorities moving forward for the remainder of the Obama administration. He touted his agency's litigation against Volkswagen and pledged to incorporate worker safety more into his division's work.
Every corporation has a point-person for environment, health and safety, and the Justice Department should mirror that fusion, Cruden said.
“Companies that don't treat their employees well might not treat the environment well; that might be true, or vice versa,” he said. “We have seen some of those instances. We have brought cases environmentally where you could see the worker safety part, but we didn't have jurisdiction over that.”
Those comments echoed remarks Cruden made to Bloomberg BNA in April (65 DEN B-1, 4/5/16).
He cautioned that the Justice Department is just now wading into the transition, but said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently transferred its criminal division to the department. The Labor and Justice departments are now ramping up information sharing, Cruden added.

“We're in the process of training their investigators,” he said. “So when their investigators go out on a site, they don't have environmental jurisdiction, but they can raise their hand.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89345144&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89345144&jd=89345144

Return to headline | Return to top
US Gas Production Dips to Lowest Since December 28: Bentek Data

May 13, 2016 | Platts

By Jonathan Robinson

US dry natural gas production fell to 70.4 Bcf Tuesday, marking its lowest level since late December as drilling activity in associated gas production continues to decline, according to Bentek data.

Production remained below 71 Bcf/d on Wednesday and Thursday, only the third such instance so far this year, according to the data from Bentek, an analytics unit of Platts. US output was last seen below Tuesday's level on December 28.

After reaching an all-time high of 73.8 Bcf/d on February 28, US gas production has been on a steady decline as weak prices continue to take a toll on producer margins.

So far, prices at the benchmark Henry Hub point have averaged $2.00/MMBtu, down nearly 28% from an average price of $2.76/MMBtu over the same period in 2015.
As US gas prices stabilize at new lows, drilling activity has slowed dramatically. In April, producers drilled 837 new wells, down 48.4% from the same month last year.

SOUTHWEST SEES STEEPEST DECLINE IN ACTIVITY
The steepest decline in drilling activity over the past year has been in the southwestern plains, where associated gas production is taking a backseat to crude output, which pays better margins for producers.

The slowdown in activity has been most notable in the Anadarko and Eagle Ford shale plays, located primarily in Texas and Oklahoma, but also covering portions of Kansas and Colorado.

In April, the Anadarko Basin saw a 63.1% year-over-year decline in activity, with 55 new wells drilled, compared with 149 drilled in April 2015.

The Eagle Ford has seen a similarly steep decline in activity, with new wells drilled last month totaling 104, a 56.8% decline from April 2015 when 241 wells were drilled.

In the Northeast, initial production rates on dry gas wells have continued to climb, encouraging producers to continue bringing new wells online.

Still, drilling activity across the region has also declined over the past year with 86 wells drilled last month, compared with 133 in April 2015.

US RIG COUNT ALSO ON STEADY DECLINE

The declining number of rigs seen across the US over the last year remains an important but secondary factor in accounting for the recent production slowdown.

As drilling rigs have continued to make production-efficiency gains, a single rig today is capable of drilling more wells than a single rig could have just one year ago.

That said, over the last year the number of drilling rigs across the US has declined by over 54% to 475 as of May 1, according to Bentek data.

The steepest decline in the rig count over the past 12 months was seen in the Williston Basin, stretching across portions of North and South Dakota, Montana and into southern Canada.

There, the number of rigs has declined by nearly 70% to 26 as of May 1.

The Eagle Ford play has seen a near-65% decline in its rig count to 39.

The Northeast has seen its rig count decline 61% over the last year.
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/houston/us-gas-production-dips-to-lowest-since-december-26443138

Return to headline | Return to top
Your Clean, Livable World in 2030

May 12, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Margie Alt

From climate change to questions about the global supply of food and water, environmental crises confront the next generation of world leaders with great urgency. How these future government, corporate and community leaders—including all those attending the One Young World Environment Summit—respond to these challenges will shape the health and livability of our planet in 2030 and beyond.
By 2030, I’ll be looking at retirement, and counting on today’s young leaders to chart a course to a sustainable future. Here’s how we’ll know if they’ve gotten us on the right track.
We’ll be well down the path to 100 percent renewable energy. To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, not to mention prevent dangerous air pollution, we must transition entirely to clean, renewable energy by mid-century, and cut global warming emissions by more than 80 percent in the U.S. alone. That means in 15 years, nearly everything should be powered by electricity, including our cars, trains and other forms of transport. Right now in the United States, wind, solar and other forms of clean energy account for about 10 percent of our electricity; by the year 2030, they should be far above 50 percent.
Getting there means prioritizing energy savings, and swiftly deploying renewable energy sources, especially solar and wind. It means building no new fossil fuel plants or infrastructure, and keeping the vast bulk of our coal, oil and gas reserves in the ground.
We’ll be conserving water and ensuring communities worldwide have clean water to drink. Much has changed since I was in grade school, but the concept of the water cycle surely has not: For hundreds of millions of years, a finite amount of fresh, potable water has cycled through rivers, streams and aquifers, into the atmosphere and back down to the ground. But while the world’s supply of freshwater has remained constant, its population has not. It’s grown exponentially, setting up increasing competition over clean water for drinking, bathing and cooking.
To ensure clean water for the citizens of the world, we must stop as much pollution as possible at its source, phasing out polluting factory farms and toxic mining, minimizing pollution discharges, limiting development near our water supplies, and preventing runoff pollution with restored wetlands and green roofs. We must conserve and use water more efficiently. And we must repair failing infrastructure; in 15 years there’ll be no excuse for corroded pipes that threaten the health of our kids.
We’ll be scaling down the production and use of plastics and toxic chemicals, and keeping what we do use out of our oceans and waterways. According to the Ocean Conservancy, if current rates continue, by 2025, the ocean could contain one ton of plastic for every three tons of finfish. Plastic bags, six-pack rings and the like are strangling marine life and poisoning the global supply of seafood. By reducing use and production of plastics we will make a dent in the problem. And by better managing the waste we do create in the five countries now most responsible for the problem, we could cut plastic litter going into our oceans by 50 percent by 2020.
We’ll also need a precautionary approach to toxic chemicals such as BPA, banning proven carcinogens and assiduously testing the impact of new chemicals on human health, wildlife, and the environment before deploying them widely.
We’ll be producing and harvesting food in a way that helps the environment, not hurts it. We’ll be phasing out factory farms, producing and eating less meat overall, and incentivizing locally, sustainably grown foods in schools and communities. We’ll have ended the use of dangerous pesticides like neonicotinoids, which are contributing to massive bee die-offs. And we’ll be better managing the world’s supply of seafood, implementing proven management strategies to increase the global fish catch by up to 15 percent from current levels.
The list may seem daunting, especially given my generation’s failure to effectively confront these problems so far. Yet government leaders, major corporations and non-profits across the world are beginning to prove these solutions viable. And 18 to 30 year olds are already off to a strong start: they’re more concerned about the environment than any other generation, and they’re already driving less and pushing their institutions, like college campuses, to deploy clean energy and divest from fossil fuels.
We’re moving toward the clean, sustainable world future children deserve in 2030. It will be up to young leaders to maintain and accelerate the pace.
Margie Alt is the executive director for Environment America and the Environment America Research & Policy Center.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/279503-your-clean-livable-world-in-2030

Return to headline | Return to top
Alberta Fire Spares Oil and Chemical Industries

May 12, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Alexander H. Tullo

The massive wildfire that destroyed parts of the Northern Alberta oil town of Fort McMurray last week disrupted the region’s oil sands sector but had minimal impact on the province’s chemical industry farther south.
As of Wednesday, May 12, the Fort McMurray fire, still active and spreading, had consumed 2,300 km2, an area about half the size of Delaware. The Alberta government issued a mandatory evacuation order for 80,000 residents. Despite extensive damage—about 10% of the area’s building stock, or 2,400 structures, burned—no one was reported to be killed in the blaze.
Fort McMurray is home to Canada’s oil sands, which are mined in enormous open pits and processed into bitumen and synthetic crude oil. As the flames grew, oil sands firms shut down operations and evacuated workers as precautionary measures.
According to the energy information service Platts, some 820,000 barrels per day of production, about one-fifth of Canada’s total oil output, was curtailed because of the fires.
Fire threatened the southern end of Suncor’s mining operations in Wood Buffalo but was beaten back. “Over the weekend, several hundred people, including first responders, contractors, and Suncor essential personnel, protected our oil sands operations,” Suncor CEO Steve Williams said on May 8. “We’re now in a position that when it is safe to restart, we can do so quickly.” The company was producing about 300,000 bbl per day before the fire.
Early last week, some companies were already moving to restore production. Shell restarted its Albian operations on May 9. The same day, Syncrude had to discourage employees from reporting to work because it wasn’t yet ready to reopen.
Alberta’s chemical industry is far from Fort McMurray and is based mostly on the region’s natural gas rather than its oil. Dow Chemical, about four hours south by car in Fort Saskatchewan, experienced no disruptions but was monitoring the situation.
Nova Chemicals, six hours south in Joffre, reported a small, indirect influence from the fire. “Ethylene production rates at Joffre have been reduced slightly” because of lower consumer consumption, a spokesperson said.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i20/Alberta-fire-spares-oil-chemical.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Industry Officials Say West, TX, Arson Finding Undermines EPA RMP Plan

May 12, 2016 | InsideEPA

By Dave Reynolds

Chemical and other industry officials say the Justice Department's (DOJ) finding that arson caused the fatal West, TX, fertilizer facility explosion undermines EPA's plan to force stricter risk prevention planning at chemical plants, because the agency justified the regulation in part on claiming inadequate accident controls at the West facility.
EPA is taking comment through May 13 on its proposed update to Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, an effort required under President Obama's Executive Order (E.O.) 13650. Obama issued the order Aug. 1, 2013 in response to the April 17 explosion in West that killed 15 people including first responders. But the agency is facing pressure from lawmakers and others to grant more time for input.
Just ahead of the comment deadline, DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) announced May 11 that the fire that led to the explosion was intentionally set and not an accident.
EPA has cited the West disaster as one of several examples of major accidents at industrial facilities that justify its February proposal to strengthen its accident prevention program. The proposed rule would require that certain industry sectors analyze whether alternative chemicals or processes would improve safety; conduct third party audits after reportable releases; and disclose additional data to emergency planners upon request.
Industry officials have said that many of the updates are unnecessary given companies' own steps to reduce accidents and the subsequent risks of environmental impacts and other harms.
Several industry sources now say that ATF deeming the West incident a criminal act backs their long-standing arguments that facilities that follow industry best management practices and existing regulations are not a threat, and that the RMP update is not necessary.
“We have consistently held that if you follow best practices that you're going to be safe,” a source with the explosives industry said, adding that EPA should re-evaluate its proposal in light of the recent finding.
Sources with the agricultural and chemical sectors also say the West incident never pointed to shortcomings in EPA's existing RMP rules, and that the fire was intentionally set only adds emphasis to the point.
“It's certainly highlighting the extent to which this rule is a set of solutions in search of a problem,” a chemical industry source says.
The agriculture industry source says that nothing in EPA's RMP proposal could prevent an arson incident like that in West. Even when facilities are following existing accident prevention rules, “if somebody has ill intent, and they're dedicated, it's difficult to prevent” crimes from occurring.
EPA's Proposal
However, the industry representatives generally agree with each other that it is unlikely that EPA will change course after learning the West fire has been ruled a crime.
The agricultural industry source notes that the agency has refused recent industry requests to extend its current comment period on the rule, and appears to have rushed a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) of the proposal's costs to small businesses.
House and Senate lawmakers have recently backed that concern. In separate letters to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy this month, lawmakers from both chambers have called for a 30-day extension of the comment deadline, and suggested the agency has given short shrift to rulemaking procedures.
Most recently, in a May 11 letter, nine senators, including Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) requested a deadline extension. They argue that EPA allowed insufficient time to meet a Regulatory Flexibility Act requirement to consider the SBAR's recommendations, prior to forwarding the proposal for White House review.
The senators' letter also backs industry arguments that the proposed RMP revisions are unnecessary. “Indeed, a thorough process that considers stakeholder input is all the more critical because several components of EPA's proposal appear to be unsound and lacking of a legitimate enhancement to safety.”
EPA's proposed rule revising RMP is part of a broad federal effort to implement Obama's E.O. seeking to strengthen the safety and security of the nation's industrial facilities through improved communication and coordination, as well as revised policies, rules and standards.
The RMP program, authorized by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, currently requires companies to craft a plan to submit to the agency that outlines how they will reduce risks from releases at their facilities.
Industrial Accidents
EPA has repeatedly pointed to the West explosion in planning to revise the RMP, though the agency's Feb. 25 proposed rule cites numerous other serious incidents at industrial facilities as justification for stronger oversight.
Specifically, EPA in the text of the proposal cites a 2005 explosion at a BP Refinery in Texas City, TX, that killed 15 people, a 2010 explosion and fire at the Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes, WA, that killed seven, and a 2012 fire at a Chevron Refinery in Richmond, CA, that endangered 19 workers and created a large plume of highly hazardous chemicals that prompted nearly 15,000 nearby residents to seek medical treatment, among others.
The chemical industry source says that moving forward EPA will likely focus more on those other incidents in justifying the rule -- and EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus in March told Inside EPA that the agency is unlikely to make any major changes to the rule between the proposal and the final version.
Stanislaus said that prior to issuing the proposal EPA offered numerous opportunities for public input on how to craft a rule. He also argued that agency staff had struck reasonable compromise on significant issues, such as requiring that certain facilities consider safer processes without requiring their use.
A source who worked with the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters that in 2012 petitioned EPA to use Clean Air Act authority to require facilities to use alternative chemicals and safer processes where feasible, argues that the recent finding that an arsonist sparked the West disaster does not diminish the need for stronger oversight of facility safety.
The incident still demonstrates that first responders need better access to facility information to fight fires, and should use alternative chemicals that pose less risk of an accident that could endanger nearby communities.
The West disaster remains “a good example of why we need to have more information in the hands of community members and first responders,” the source says. “I don't see how [ATF's ruling] changes anything.”
Information Sharing
Another industry official says that EPA may still point to the West incident in supporting its proposed new requirements for improved communication between facilities and emergency planning groups, including first responders.
“I think you will see the agency's messaging being, that while it may have been a criminal act, [West] highlighted, in their mind, some gaps” in the existing regulation. As examples, the source cited provisions requiring for emergency response exercises at facilities that have had serious incidents.
Still, the source argued EPA's proposal includes numerous other requirements that are less directly reflected in West given that it was arson and not an industrial accident.
Although industry officials say the West arson is unlikely to prompt EPA to soften its RMP rule, one source notes that the arson highlights concerns about information sharing under the proposal.
In a May 3 letter, Republican attorneys general (AGs) for Texas and Louisiana argued that EPA's proposed overhaul is unlawful, and argued that proposed requirements for improving information sharing could raise security concerns.
“We all are cognizant of the potential threat that a chemical facility may face by someone with nefarious motivations,” the AGs' said in the letter. “Yet, under the proposed RMP changes, EPA is mandating release of and easy access to information such as audit reports, exercise schedules and summaries, and emergency response details, the release of which does nothing to prevent accidents or reduce potential harm, but likely increases the vulnerability of multiple facilities.”
In an email to Inside EPA, an industry source notes the AGs' concerns, adding they are especially relevant in light of ATF's recent determination that the West disaster was the result of a crime.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-officials-say-west-tx-arson-finding-undermines-epa-rmp-plan

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Must Do More to Secure Chemical Facility Safety for Fenceline Communities

May 12, 2016 | Union of Concerned Scientists

By Pallavi Phartiyal

This week marks the close of the public comment period for a little-known yet important proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program (RMP), aimed to improve the safety and security of over 12,000 facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals nationwide (see map). As is true for many other polluting industries, these facilities tend to be disproportionately localized in communities of color and low-income communities. EPA data show that there have been more than 1,500 accidents at RMP facilities, about 500 of which had off-site impacts. These accidents were responsible for nearly 60 deaths, requiring medical treatment for some 17,000 people, forcing almost 500,000 people to evacuate or shelter-in-place, and causing more than $2 billion in property damages.
The proposed improvements by EPA have been almost 2.5 years in the making, since the April 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, Texas that killed 15 people and prompted President Obama to issue Executive Order (EO) 13650 for “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.” At UCS, we have been advocating for a strong update to the RMP rule in protecting communities from chemical accidents and disasters. We’ve informed the agency’s proposal through our early input, meetings,presentations, coalition participation, and community survey. More importantly, we’ve channeled the concerns and support for a strong RMP rule from 730 scientists and more than 17,000 concerned individuals directly to the agency.
UCS priorities for EPA’s RMP rule
Today, we submitted our public comment to EPA’s proposal in which we ask the agency to finalize an RMP rule that reduces the risk of toxic chemical release by emphasizing prevention, expanding use of safer chemicals and technologies and the scope of chemicals covered, and improving public access to information and emergency planning. I sat down with our senior fellow, Ron White, to take a deeper dive into our comments and the significance of the rule for communities. Read along:
Why does the public comment period matter?
The public comment period is an opportunity for fenceline communities who are most at risk from chemical facility accidents to advocate for the strongest and most effective revisions to the RMP rule. Also it provides public interest organizations, technical experts and agencies such as the federal Chemical Safety Board with the opportunity to provide information that EPA should consider in finalizing RMP regulations.
What does the rule mean for communities near chemical facilities?
The proposed rule includes requirements that have the potential to improve public health and safety protections for some communities, such as:
·         The highest-risk facilities covered under the RMP program would be required to investigate the underlying cause of accidents that had, or could have had, a catastrophic release of a toxic chemical. Further, in a proposed improvement, EPA may require facilities to submit audits performed by an independent third party.
·         Facilities in the chemical, paper and petroleum-coal products manufacturing industries would be required to conduct a safer technology and alternatives analysis (STAA) to evaluate the feasibility of any safer technology identified.
·         Owners or operators of all high-risk facilities would be required to ensure that their emergency contact information for first responders is accurate and complete, and coordinate with the local emergency response committees (LEPCs) at least once a year to ensure that resources and capabilities are in place to respond to an accidental release. Some of these facilities would be required to conduct field exercises every five years and a simulation exercise annually. Facilities that have an accident would also have to conduct a full field exercise within a year of the accident.
·         Some of the highest risk facilities would be required, upon request, to provide local emergency response agencies with information on compliance audits; emergency response exercises; accident history and investigation reports; and any safer technologies planned or implemented at the facility. The proposed rule would also require all facilities to hold a public meeting for the local community within a specified timeframe after an accident.
How can the proposed rule be strengthened and why are these changes so important?
EPA’s proposal could be greatly strengthened by requiring all highest-risk RMP facilities to conduct STAAs, prioritizing facilities in sectors such as wastewater treatment and bleach manufacturing, where safer technologies have been well established. EPA should require that STAA be available to the interested public and that safer alternatives identified through assessment be implemented.
The agency should emphasize prevention by expanding the scope of chemicals covered by the RMP program to include dangerous chemicals such as ammonium nitrate, which killed and injured people in West, Texas in 2013. Plus, more health-protective guidelines should be used in assessing the amount of chemicals used or stored by facilities and for assessing the impacts of a worst-case accident.
Last but not least, EPA should ensure public access to information on chemical hazards, their health impacts, summaries of STAAs, and emergency response information via a centralized EPA website rather than a patchwork of facility websites, public libraries or government offices.
When would chemical plant safety begin to look different on the ground as a result of this revised rule?
The proposed rule is not expected to be effective until the middle of next year. This prolonged timeline places it at a risk of not getting finalized if chemical facility safety is not a priority for the incoming administration. Thus it’s essential that the rule be finalized before the end of the current administration. Further, with the exception of the improved emergency response coordination requirements, which would be implemented one year after the rule is effective; all other proposed improvements will not be seen on the ground until 2021.
Time for EPA to strengthen public health protections

UCS joins thousands of concerned individuals, environmental justice and public health advocates, and scientists and medical professionals, in demanding that the EPA put public health and safety protections first in finalizing a strong and effective chemical safety rule.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/pallavi-phartiyal/epa-must-do-more-to-secure-chemical-facility-safety-for-fenceline-communities

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

UN Panel Updates Transportation of Dangerous Goods Rules

May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Bryce Baschuk

This week a United Nations committee approved a series of new regulatory amendments aimed at clarifying standards regarding the transportation of dangerous goods.
During a meeting of the UN Economic Council for Europe (UNECE) Working Party 15 on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, international negotiators updated their standards regarding the transportation of vehicles using lithium batteries and cells.
The panel also adopted a final resolution regarding technical limits on the amount of alternative combustible fuels—like liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)—that could be used as fuel for vehicles carrying dangerous goods.
The new standards apply to 48 countries in Europe, Central Asia and Northern Africa. Though the working party's efforts won't directly affect the U.S., they could have an indirect effect on how such standards are harmonized in the U.S.
There are some technical differences between U.S. and European Union regulations regarding safety provisions that can act as barriers to the free movement of goods, the chairman of Working Party 15, JosAlberto Franco, told Bloomberg BNA.
New Amendments
Participants at the Geneva meeting amended the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) with new rules as to how old vehicles with lithium battery components—like farm equipment—could be transported via other road vehicles.
The goal of the amendment, which was proposed by Switzerland, is to address certain environmental and safety concerns about the possibility of fire or battery leakage from lithium batteries in transport.
Members also approved a German proposal to amend annexes A and B of the ADR regarding quantity limits of the use of LNG, CNG and LPG as fuel for carrying dangerous goods.
The German proposal aims to prevent the leakage of such fuels and sets new capacity limits at 1,080 kilograms for LNG and CNG and 2,250 liters for LPG. The amendment also contains exemptions for those vehicles not engaged in the transportation of dangerous goods.
The panel also approved a number of other amendments, including the classification of goods and labeling for multimodal transportation.
Next Steps
The amended texts will be sent to the UN General Secretariat in New York to undergo a six-month review process whereby countries may express their concerns.
If no more than five countries oppose the amended regulations, the UN then will formally adopt them and they will then enter into force in January 2017.
“Our work is a continuous responsibility,” Franco told Bloomberg BNA. “It will never be finished because new problems and new comprehensions of existing problems creates a continuous process.”

The next official meeting of Working Party 15 will be held in November in Geneva.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89345138&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89345138&jd=89345138

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) House Subpanel Clears Ozone, Nuclear Bills

May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Patrick Ambrosio and Rebecca Kern

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved a pair of bills that would delay implementation of the 2015 ozone air standards and foster research and development for advanced nuclear energy technologies.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power May 12 approved H.R. 4775, a bill that would extend the Environmental Protection Agency's process for revising national ambient air quality standards and made various other changes.
The measure also includes a provision that would delay implementation of the current ozone standards of 70 parts per billion by eight years. The bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), was approved on a vote of 15-13 over the objections of Democratic members of the panel.
The subcommittee also approved a bill (H.R. 4979) that would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop a memorandum of understanding with the Energy Department on advanced nuclear reactor technology to ensure that the commission has enough knowledge to evaluate licensing and permit applications for new advanced reactors. That bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), was passed on a voice vote.
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said in a May 12 statement that both bills would help foster economic growth. H.R. 4775 would prevent “unnecessary economic damage” that the EPA's 2015 ozone rule would cause, while H.R. 4979 would help promote a marketplace for innovative nuclear technology, Whitfield said.
Approval by the Energy and Power Subcommittee clears the bills for consideration by the full committee.
Democrats Oppose ‘Radical' Ozone Bill
While H.R. 4979 was approved easily, Olson's ozone bill was criticized by several Democrats on the subcommittee, including Reps. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
“Here's a wake-up call for everyone: this bill, H.R. 4775, is a radical attempt to gut the Clean Air Act,” Castor said during the markup.
Olson, during May 11 opening statements, said his bill aims to offer states additional time to implement the less-stringent 2008 ozone standards of 75 ppb, which are “challenging enough” to meet. Extending the deadline for states to make recommendations for areas that fail to meet the 2015 standards by eight years would allow states to fully implement the 2008 standards first, Olson said.
In addition to pushing back the attainment designations until 2025, Olson's legislation would make what he described as “overdue reforms” to the 46-year-old process for reviewing and retaining national standards for ozone, particulate matter and other pollutants. Those provisions include:
• extending the current five-year review cycle for reviewing national ambient air quality standards to 10 years;
• requiring the EPA to consider technological feasibility and adverse economic effects associated with attainment strategies in future reviews; and
• requiring the EPA to issue implementing rules and guidance alongside any revised national standard.
Barton Disagrees With Democrats' Claims
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) disagreed with contentions by his Democratic colleagues that H.R. 4775 would significantly weaken environmental protection under the Clean Air Act.
“The bill doesn't gut the Clean Air Act,” Barton said. “It brings a little bit of sanity to it, gives a little more time to implement it.”
H.R. 4775 is supported by the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and hundreds of other industry associations, as well as 60 conservative organizations (90 DEN A-14, 5/10/16).
Various national public health organizations, including the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, sent a May 10 letter to the subcommittee urging members to vote against H.R. 4775. The provisions would “permanently weaken” the Clean Air Act's core mission of protecting the public from known health effects of exposure to air pollution, the groups said.
Nuclear Bill Also Advances
H.R. 4979, the other bill advanced by the subcommittee, would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure it has enough knowledge to evaluate licenses, permits and design certifications for these advanced reactors, which are considered to be safer, yield lower radiological waste and are more thermally efficient than reactors on the market today.
The bill also would direct the NRC to submit an advanced reactor regulatory framework to Congress within 270 days. The NRC would have to consider its options for licensing advanced reactors using existing NRC regulations, a new regulatory framework altogether or a combination of the two.
The NRC has said it expects to receive the first commercial application for an advanced small modular reactor design certification from NuScale Power later this year (27 DEN B-11, 2/10/16).
Advantages of Advanced Reactors
Advanced reactors make improvements in safety features, reliability, resistance to proliferation and increased thermal efficiency, according to the bill.

Pallone said during an opening statement that there were “a few small issues that may need to be worked out before full committee consideration,” but, overall he called the bill “a commonsense way for the federal government to support the advanced nuclear power industry.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89345137&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89345137&jd=89345137

Return to headline | Return to top
Pershing Optimistic Paris Climate Deal Will Enter into Force This Year

May 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Andrew Restuccia

Jonathan Pershing, the State Department's special envoy for climate change, said today that he is increasingly optimistic that the Paris climate change agreement will enter into force this year, a move that would be a big victory for President Barack Obama before he leaves the White House.
"I think it's going much faster than we had anticipated when we did the negotiation," Pershing told reporters. "I think prior to the New York meeting I would have been skeptical about this year. Following the New York meeting, I no longer think it's an implausible scenario. I think it's quite plausible that we can get there."
Last month, more than 170 countries signed the Paris deal during a ceremony at the United Nations in New York. In addition, about 35 countries representing nearly 50 percent of global emissions either formally joined the agreement during the ceremony or pledged to join this year.
The Paris deal will enter into force 30 days after 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions formally join the agreement.
While the European Union likely won't join before 2017, Pershing noted that other major emitters like Russia or Brazil could lift the climate pact above 55 percent threshold by joining this year.
Pershing said Monday's United Nations meeting in Bonn, Germany, is a crucial step toward implementing the Paris deal. The meeting will mark the first formal UN session since last year's Paris negotiations. The timing of entry into force will be a major focus of the meeting.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA to Ax RCRA, CERCLA Exemptions From Air Standards

May 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Lars-Eric Hedberg

The Environmental Protection Agency May 12 proposed to remove the exemption for site cleanup activities conducted under two federal hazardous waste statutes from the emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.
The proposed rule (RIN:2060-AN36), which will be published in the Federal Register May 13, would amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation Rule to include activities taken under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as well as RCRA corrective actions or orders.
The amended rule would apply to site activities that involve the removal and treatment of hazardous substances from soil or groundwater or the removal of the substances themselves, as well as to equipment used in the cleanup of hazardous substances that could release these substances into the atmosphere as hazardous air pollutants, according to documents released by the EPA.
Additionally, the agency has proposed removing the requirement that site remediations be co-located with at least one other stationary source already regulated by another NESHAP.
It proposes “to require standalone site remediations, with the potential to emit 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year for a combination of HAPs, to comply with the rule.”
Comments are due June 27, and interested parties may request a public hearing.
“This proposal is an important step to having protections in communities where the sites are located,” Nick Morales, an associate attorney at Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA May 12. “We are looking forward to EPA swiftly finalizing the rule.”
Impetus for Amendment
The EPA released the original site remediation rule, found at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGGG, in October 2003.
The Sierra Club, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety filed a petition for reconsideration under Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act two months later, as well as a petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under Section 307(b)(1). They argued that the agency lacked the authority to create the exemption and had a duty to set standards for each listed hazardous air pollutant.
The court held the action in abeyance in January 2004, and settlement discussion continued.
Although the EPA promulgated amendments to the rule in November 2006, it did respond to the issues in the petition for reconsideration. The agency, however, granted reconsideration in March 2015.
Under a settlement agreement, the EPA will take final action on the exemption by Nov. 30 and on the need to establish emission standards for heavy metal hazardous air pollutants when it issues the final risk and technology review for the source category at issue.
Industries, Facilities Subject to Rule
According to an EPA fact sheet, organic liquid storage terminals, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, military facilities and manufacturing facilities using organic materials are likely to be subject to the proposed rule.
Moreover, the agency estimates there are 286 source facilities subject to the current rule, and about 70 additional major source facilities would come within the reach of the proposed rule.
Sources constructed on or after the date of the proposed amendments must be in compliance on the later of the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, according to the EPA. Existing facilities conducting remediation activities that are currently not subject to the rule, but will be subject to the amended rule, would be required to comply within 18 months of the final rule.
No Reductions Expected
The EPA noted, however, that it doesn't expect the amended rule to reduce hazardous air pollutant emissions from facilities newly subjected to the rule.
“Based on current data, the EPA does not anticipate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission reductions from these additional facilities,” EPA wrote in the fact sheet. “However, the removal of these exemptions ensures that remediation activities conducted at major source facilities under the authorities of RCRA and CERCLA will now be subject to the required emission levels for HAP and work practice standards in the rule.”
Morales said he isn't sure what EPA's basis is for this statement but that he would expect it to have an important benefit.

“In 2003, the EPA said all of the sites under CERLCA and RCRA didn't need to meet the emissions limits in the rule,” he said. “It was a huge problem that the CERCLA and RCRA processes didn't include limits on hazardous air pollutant emissions during site remediation. If EPA finalizes this proposal, then that would bring all of these sites under the requirements of the rule.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89345135&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89345135&jd=89345135

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested