Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/16
-
Limit Animal Tests in TSCA Reform Bill, 39 Democrats Say
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Dozens of House Democrats are asking that language to reduce animal testing be included in legislation the House and Senate are negotiating to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Chemical Safety Bill Stalls Over New Jersey Dispute on Animal Safety
May 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
A deal in Congress on a bill to overhaul regulation of dangerous chemicals that was championed by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg has hit a stumbling block: two New Jersey Democrats who fought to succeed him. -
Congress Passed Much-Needed Chemical Safety Bill
May 15, 2016 | The Tennessean
By Saritha Prabhu
In what seems like an earlier life, I majored in chemistry in college. I enjoyed the subject but as it sometimes happens, my life took a different direction and I became a writer. -
EPA Issues Direct Final New Use Rules for 55 Chemicals
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is set to publish on May 16 direct final significant new use rules for 55 chemicals. -
EPA Analyzes Solvent's Health Hazards
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to release on May 16 its draft toxicological review of a solvent called tert-butyl alcohol. The chemical can be made synthetically and used to make fuels, fuel additives and other chemicals. Tert-butyl alcohol also is found naturally in certain foods and alcoholic beverages. -
Walmart Grows the Chemical Footprint Movement
May 13, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Richard Liroff
Walmart announced in April that it has removed 95 percent of the 10 highest priority chemicals targeted by its pioneering Sustainable Chemistry Policy. -
(ACC Mentioned) Firm that Predicted Double-Digit Rate Hikes Not So Certain
May 16, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
When NERA Economic Consulting released modeling that showed the Clean Power Plan could cause double-digit electric rate increases, opponents of the rule seized on the figures as bulletproof evidence of their worst fears. -
Fracking's Air Pollution Puts Infants and Children at Risk of Developing Heart, Lung Problems: New Study
May 13, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Sharon Kelly
A newly published peer-reviewed study concludes that air pollution from fracking puts people's lungs, hearts, and immune systems at risk -- and that the health risks are particularly pointed for young children and infants. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Advocate Comments Thrash RMP Proposal
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Industry, public safety advocates, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and others shelled the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revision to its Risk Management Program (RMP) in comments submitted to the agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) Groups' Call For OMB To Reject EPA RMP Data Collection Could Slow Rule
May 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical manufacturers and water utilities are urging the White House to reject EPA's data request to support its proposed rule to overhaul its facility safety program, which if successful could significantly delay the revisions by forcing the agency to undertake lengthy new work on revising the information request that will underpin the rule. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Won't Review Waste Rule's Leak-Detection Provisions
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency denied a chemical industry request for reconsideration of leak-detection requirements established under national air toxics standards for off-site waste facilities. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rejects Reconsideration Of Waste Recovery Air Rule
May 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA is rejecting the chemical industry's request to reconsider equipment leak reduction provisions in the agency's national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for reducing air toxics from off-site waste and recovery operations, saying industry's “dissatisfaction” with the rule is not justification for revising it. -
EPA Threatened With Lawsuit Over Ozone Plan Deadlines
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Environmental organizations have threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it acts on state pollution plans for implementing the 2008 national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion. -
E&C Panel Set to Vote on Bill Stalling Ozone Rule
May 16, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
At a House subcommittee markup last week, Republicans were in lockstep agreement that states need plenty more time to meet U.S. EPA's new ozone standard. Democrats were equally adamant that no delay is warranted. -
A Much-Needed Step on Methane Emissions
May 13, 2016 | The New York TImes
By Robert B. Semple Jr.
President Obama’s strategy to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and position the United State as a leader in the worldwide effort to combat climate change consists of two main initiatives: rules mandating more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, which are already on the books; and new and undeniably overdue regulations aimed at greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. -
Greenwire's Reilly Discusses EPA's Next Steps on Existing-Source Methane Emissions
May 16, 2016 | E&E - TV
Following yesterday's release by U.S. EPA of a final rule on methane emissions from new sources, and a proposal on existing-source emissions, how will the agency proceed with its existing-source rule?
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Limit Animal Tests in TSCA Reform Bill, 39 Democrats Say
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Dozens of House Democrats are asking that language to reduce animal testing be included in legislation the House and Senate are negotiating to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act.
A group of 39 Democrats wrote a letter May 13 to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, asking him to support the Senate-approved legislative language designed to reduce the use of animal-based toxicity tests in chemical safety assessments.
Pallone's office did not reply to two phone calls and two e-mails May 13 from Bloomberg BNA.
The letter addressed ongoing House and Senate negotiations to reconcile their separate TSCA-reform bills: the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Originally numbered S. 697, the Senate bill passed as an amendment to H.R. 2576.
Negotiations to reconcile the bills continued May 13, aides in key House and Senate committees told Bloomberg BNA. Legislators repeatedly have said the talks are nearly complete (92 DEN A-1, 5/12/16).
The Senate bill would direct the Environmental Protection Agency, as it implements the new chemical safety law, to “minimize, to the extent practicable, the use of vertebrate animals in testing of chemical substances or mixtures.”
House Bill Silent
The Senate bill also would require the EPA, as it reviews the safety of chemicals, to consider data from sources including:
• existing toxicity studies;
• emerging types of toxicity tests such as computer-based toxicity predictions and automated cell-based toxicity assays;
• phased-in testing strategies;
• the formation of industry consortia that jointly conduct testing; and
• new types of tests as they are developed and found to be scientifically reliable and relevant.
The House bill is silent on animal testing issues.
The animal welfare language is among the outstanding issues not yet reconciled by House and Senate negotiators, the Humane Society said May 13.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89398294&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89398294&jd=89398294
-
Chemical Safety Bill Stalls Over New Jersey Dispute on Animal Safety
May 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
A deal in Congress on a bill to overhaul regulation of dangerous chemicals that was championed by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg has hit a stumbling block: two New Jersey Democrats who fought to succeed him.
At issue is the language in the Senate's version of the update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act that sets restrictions on the use of animals in testing the health risks of chemicals. That language has been credited to Sen. Cory Booker, but has drawn criticism from Rep. Frank Pallone in the conference committee, a position that raised eyebrows because of Pallone's history of supporting animal safety.Pallone, who was handily defeated by the former Newark Mayor Booker in a 2013 primary to replace Lautenberg, is now getting pressure from fellow House Democrats to change course on the provision in the TSCA bill.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is circulating a letter to Pallone signed by about three dozen House Democrats asking him to support "language offered by Senate negotiators that will reduce animal testing for chemical safety testing and place a priority on newer, more cost-effective, and reliable methods." There has been at least one round of substantialchanges to the original Senate language that was floated to the House in recent weeks.
Among supporters of the compromise, the House Democrats note, are Senate negotiators in both parties, the Environmental Working Group, Environmental Defense Fund, Consumer Specialty Products Association, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and The Humane Society of the United States.
“The only person standing in the way is Frank Pallone,” Humane Society of the United States President Wayne Pacelle told POLITICO. “It’s not enormous speculation to think that he’s trying to deny Booker credit for saving so many animals.”
One aide involved in the negotiations said Pallone's staff directly referenced the 2013 primary as a reason for focusing on the animal testing language that is Booker’s priority."It’s a shame, I do hope it gets resolved,” said Bonnie Lautenberg, the late senator's widow, who endorsed Pallone over Booker in the special election. “It’s upsetting to me because I was told the issue was solved, but it’s not settled.” she told POLITICO, referring to the animal testing language impasse.
Still, she doubted the impasse had anything to do with lingering bitterness tied to the primary. "Frank Pallone is too smart for that and Cory Booker is too smart for that,” she said.A spokesman for Pallone declined to comment. Asked Wednesday about the status of the TSCA talks, Pallone said there was no time frame for reaching a deal.
"It's going well, but I can't tell you anything else," he said. Sources Friday suggested a public announcement of a plan of some sort could be imminent.
Booker referred POLITICO to a spokeswoman, who did not respond to emails and a phone call seeking comment.Pallone, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, is one of the central TSCA negotiators. He raised the animal testing provisions early in the bicameral talks that began this spring despite his history for supporting the Humane Society’s mission. Pallone scored 89 out of 100 in the group’s voting scorecard last year and averaged more than 91 out of 100 in annual scorecards from the group dating back to 1999.
“Given how good Pallone has been through the years, it’s incomprehensible to me that he wouldn’t support it just on the merits,” Pacelle said. “And then the only thing I can think is some grudge or some anger at another party because I just don’t get it otherwise.”
The drama is the latest intraparty squabble among Democrats that has characterized the TSCA talks ever since Frank Lautenberg introduced a compromise plan with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) shortly before he died. Bonnie Lautenberg has said the chemical safety legislation was more important to her late husband's legacy than even his success at banning smoking in airplanes.
A leading House GOP negotiator, Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.), downplayed the notion that the animal testing language would be a major sticking point.
"Animal testing is not like the macro issue in TSCA. It's important [but] there's been a back and forth on many issues," he said.
But one Senate aide familiar with the negotiations said the dispute remained a problem. "This is not resolved," the aide said.
Shimkus, Pallone and Senate negotiators have made headway in recent weeks on resolving many of the major differences between the two chambers' bills on issues such as preemption of state toxic laws.
A deal between Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) announced a week ago included a resolution to Boxer's concerns over language that would pause state action on high-priority chemicals while EPA does a risk review.
Shimkus also said negotiators had made progress in crafting language on how to address new chemicals coming on the market, an issue that wasn't addressed in the House bill.Top negotiators in both chambers and parties have preached growing optimism in recent days.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who took over as Vitter's chief Democratic partner in the TSCA talks after Frank Lautenberg died, said a final deal could be reached any day now.
"We're getting close; we really are," he told reporters. "We've got everybody on the same wavelength."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/bitter-nj-primary-spills-over-into-chemical-talks-112759
-
Congress Passed Much-Needed Chemical Safety Bill
May 15, 2016 | The Tennessean
By Saritha Prabhu
In what seems like an earlier life, I majored in chemistry in college. I enjoyed the subject but as it sometimes happens, my life took a different direction and I became a writer.
But my chemistry days taught me, among other things, the extent to which everything in and around us has a basis in chemistry. What are our bodies but exquisitely balanced chemical factories (of sorts) under our skin? As science advances, we discover that our bodies, organ systems and mental faculties are sensitive to the chemicals we’re exposed to in our daily lives.
The topic at hand is the proliferation of man-made chemicals in our modern lives, many of them serving useful purposes but many also being harmful to our physical and mental health, and that especially of our children.
CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta wrote about this several years ago, about the more than 80,000 chemicals currently in commerce, and how only about 200 of them had been tested for their safety.
It’s not a sexy topic, but an essential one. The fact is our modern lives are about comfort and convenience, and this means that the every-day products we use, in order to be functional, are laced with chemicals of all kinds.
The list of these harmful chemicals is long but here are a few examples: Processed foods that contain chemical additives to preserve freshness, appearance and taste; sofas and car seats containing flame-retardant chemicals that can cause cancer; formaldehyde in some clothes and furniture that can cause cancer and asthma; the harmful chemical known as PFOA used in Teflon for non-stick pans; endocrine disruptors found in shampoo, cosmetics, plastics, food can linings, cash register receipts.
And I haven’t even mentioned the industrial pollutants in the air, soil and water in many parts of the country.
I don’t necessarily see this as a corporations-are-evil scenario, but as the price paid for living in our modern, industrial society. When you actually dig into the subject, you wonder why we are all not sicker than we are.
But the effects of chemicals can be all the more devastating on young children and fetuses. As former EPA chief, Lisa Jackson said at a congressional hearing a while back, “Everything from our cars to cell phones... are made with chemicals. A child born in America today will grow up exposed to more chemicals than any other generation in our history.”
As Gupta has added, “Babies in this country are born ‘pre-polluted’ ”.
The good news is that Congress approved a sweeping bipartisan chemical safety bill late last year called The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after the late New Jersey senator.
This legislation updates the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which was lax and didn’t require safety testing of chemicals.
The not-so-good news is the extent of the problem and how much advocacy and regulation needs yet to be done.
Dr. Gupta has pointed out a key difference between the approaches of the U.S. and the European Union in chemical safety: Our nation had a passive system for the last 40 years that simply assumed that chemicals are safe, and that put the burden of proving otherwise on watchdog groups and regulators, whereas the EU had a more precautionary approach — the companies were required to prove chemical safety.
He added that it hasn’t seemed to affect their industries’ bottom line.
The effects of our decades-long deregulatory and corporate-friendly approach to chemical safety has been costly, widespread and ultimately sad.
At least some part of our diabetes and obesity epidemics are due to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA and Phthalates present in our products; some of our children’s ADHD, asthma, early puberty and other ailments can be related to chemical exposure in food and products.
As Senator Lautenberg said a while back, the children, especially, in the U.S. had been “virtual guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment.” Hopefully, legislation passed in his name will change that.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/05/15/congress-passed-much-needed-chemical-safety-bill/84247256/
-
EPA Issues Direct Final New Use Rules for 55 Chemicals
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is set to publish on May 16 direct final significant new use rules for 55 chemicals.
The EPA has allowed the 55 chemicals to go into production, with protective measures outlined either in consent orders their manufacturers agreed to follow or in premanufacture notices (PMN) the original manufacturers submitted to the agency.
The significant new use rules, or SNURs, would adopt those conditions so they apply to other manufacturers that want to make the same chemicals.
The rules (RIN:2070-AB27) also may apply to companies that purchase the chemicals.
Any manufacture or use of the 55 chemicals that does not take into account the protective measures prescribed in the EPA's rules—use of personal protective equipment, for example—would be considered a new use and require notification to the EPA. That notice must be filed 90 days prior to the proposed new manufacturing or use of the chemical.
The rules are effective July 15, unless a party files an adverse comment or notifies the EPA of the party's intention to file an adverse comment by June 15.
If the agency receives adverse comments or a notice saying the party intends to file an adverse comment for one or more of the SNURs, the agency will withdraw that SNUR and reissue it as a proposed regulation.
Rules Would Apply to Imports, Exports
Companies that export any of the 55 chemicals also are subject to certain notification requirements as of July 15, the rule's effective date.
Importers are required to certify their imports comply with requirements of the SNURs.
Of the 55 chemicals, 10 raised sufficient health or environmental concerns that the EPA determined they might pose an unreasonable risk. It managed those possible risks through consent orders authorized under section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Of the 10 chemicals subject to Section 5(e) orders, four raised concerns because they were analogous to perfluorinated chemicals, most commonly perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which persists in the environment, can build up in the food chain and can cause lung and other toxic effects.
The consent orders for those four chemicals state that none may be used in any spray-applied consumer products.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89398280&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89398280&jd=89398280
-
EPA Analyzes Solvent's Health Hazards
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to release on May 16 its draft toxicological review of a solvent called tert-butyl alcohol. The chemical can be made synthetically and used to make fuels, fuel additives and other chemicals. Tert-butyl alcohol also is found naturally in certain foods and alcoholic beverages. The EPA's Integrated Risk Information System is releasing the draft toxicological review in advance of a June 29-30 public science meeting. Participants at that meeting will discuss science questions about how tert-butyl alcohol may cause certain tumors and harm the kidney. Information about the June meeting is available athttps://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-public-science-meeting-june-2016. The draft toxicological review is to be posted at https://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recent-additions on May 16, according to a prepublication Federal Register notice set to run that date.
-
Walmart Grows the Chemical Footprint Movement
May 13, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Richard Liroff
Walmart announced in April that it has removed 95 percent of the 10 highest priority chemicals targeted by its pioneering Sustainable Chemistry Policy. This is striking progress, as Walmart announced its goal to eliminate these chemicals just two years ago.
It is a reminder of the power of major retailers and manufacturers to reduce business and consumer risk and enhance public health through targeted chemical management.
Walmart characterized its activities as reflecting its commitment "to improving our chemical footprint." The embrace by America’s largest retailer of chemical footprinting language represents endorsement of an emerging, critically important sustainability concept.
Chemical footprinting can be defined as the process of assessing progress toward the use of safer chemicals and away from chemicals of high concern to human health or the environment. Investors in North America, Europe and Australia managing more than $2.3 trillion in assetspublicly support the Chemical Footprint Project, which has developed an assessment tool for analyzing and scoring corporate chemical footprints.
Investors are seeking a more effective way of comparing public companies on the extent to which they reduce chemical hazards and realize the business benefits of moving towards safer chemicals and materials; chemical footprinting analytics provide such a tool.
Investors’ aspirational goal is having chemical footprinting assessment and public disclosure become as widespread as now well-established carbon footprinting and more recent and growing water footprinting.
To promote it, investors have reached out to major commercial suppliers and aggregators of ESG (environmental, social, governance) data for investor analytics to add chemical footprint information to their repertoire.
As a general rule, current ESG data for chemicals tend to focus mainly on emissions, spills, reputational risks associated with chemical incidents, and fines, penalties and litigation. While important, such data mainly reflect "end of pipe" risk management failures.
They do not capture very well the risk reduction and other positive business benefits of front-end chemical selection and product design choices that can very efficiently eliminate potential sources of human health risk from chemical hazards in both common home, office and automotive products and in manufacturers’ discharges to the environment.
For many investors, how well companies manage their chemicals, as well as other environmental and social concerns, reflects how well companies are managed overall.
Concern for ESG is becoming increasingly mainstream in the U.S. For example, in 2015, BlackRock, the world’s largest investment management firm with $4.5 trillion assets under management, declared ESG "is not just about saving the planet or feeling good. We view ESG excellence as a mark of operational and management quality."
Driving the point home, BlackRock added, "It can be costly to underestimate environmental risks. Just ask BP’s equity and debt holders." Lumber Liquidators provides a more immediate chemical example. Its stock dropped roughly two-thirds, its CEO resigned and it faced an onslaught of litigation following public disclosures in 2015 of formaldehyde risks from its flooring products.Defining chemical footprinting
The term "toxic footprint," a precursor of "chemical footprint," initially was elaborated in a series of GreenBiz articles in 2009 on benchmarking corporate chemical policies and practices.
The term was created to foster enhanced disclosures about corporate management of this scientifically complex issue, but the downside quickly became apparent: No corporate staff would feel comfortable using the word "toxic" in public communications.
Nor did the term adequately capture the potential benefits of moving towards safer chemistry. Using instead more balanced "chemical footprint" language, shortly thereafter environmental non-profit Clean Production Action, research institute the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell and sustainability consultancy Pure Strategies launched the Chemical Footprint Project.
The Chemical Footprint Project evolved from a set of Principles for Safer Chemicals developed by Clean Production Action’s BizNGO group, businesses and NGOs working collaboratively to advance and disseminate safer chemicals policies and practices, and from the BizNGO Guide to Safer Chemicals. GreenBiz published what likely was the first article in the sustainable business media on "chemical footprinting" in 2013.
Project founders, to buttress their own extensive policy and scientific skill-sets, convened a steering committee that included retailers Target and Staples; health care providers Kaiser Permanente, Partners Health Care and Dignity Health; investor representatives Trillium Asset Management, Boston Common Asset Management and the Investor Environmental Health Network; and environmental nonprofits U.S. Green Building Council and Environmental Defense Fund.
Chemical footprinting is about much more than just identifying and eliminating hazardous chemicals. Chemical Footprint Project’s assessment tool focuses on four key elements:Management strategy: scope of chemical policies, incentives, integration of policies into business strategy and support for public policies for safer chemicalsChemical inventory: company knowledge of chemicals in products and supply chains and systems for managing chemical data and ensuring supplier complianceProgress measurement: goals, measurement of progress from a baseline, and assessment of chemical and design alternativesPublic disclosure: public disclosure of chemicals in products and manufacturing disclosure of Chemical Footprint Project participation and ranking, and third party verification of data provided to the project
The tool, accessible via online registration, includes 20 questions distributed across the four key elements, for which a maximum of 100 points are awarded by project reviewers.
The project worked with 11 companies to pilot the assessment tool and accompanying technical guidance for its completion. Even those companies that already have strong safer chemicals policies and practices found benefit from the structured analytic, including enabling gap analysis, facilitating conversations across "corporate silos," providing a systematic approach for evaluating chemicals and creating a standard for measuring performance in chemicals management.
One pilot company, GOJO Industries (best known for its Purell sanitizing products), subsequently incorporated in its 2020 sustainability goals a goal of halving its chemical footprint.
Walmart’s Sustainable Chemistry Policy has also been chronicled by GreenBiz. The company first focused on chemicals as one of the core elements of its broad sustainability initiative launched about 10 years ago. The policy has evolved substantially, drawing on an intensive stakeholder engagement process involving national consumer product brands, retailers, chemical manufacturers and environmental health advocates.
Walmart, in reporting progress under its Sustainable Chemistry Policy, incorporates core elements of chemical footprinting, although it has not formally participated in the Chemical Footprint Project.
These include, for example, identifying and ranking the hazards of chemicals in products, establishing goals for reducing chemical hazards and publicly tracking progress towards achieving them, promoting greater disclosure of the chemicals in products and fostering the collaborative work that can be essential to developing safer alternatives.
Walmart uses a commercially available program, UL’s WERCSmart platform, for tracking chemicals in formulated products and ranking the hazards of the chemicals in those products while still protecting suppliers’ proprietary information. The company is able to measure its progress quantitatively because such measures "will adequately inform us about our policy’s effectiveness in achieving our goals of increasing ingredient transparency and advancing the safer formulations of products."
Walmart recognizes the importance of deadlines and collaborative efforts to drive substitution of safer chemicals: "When suppliers are unable to remove HPCs, we ask them to develop time-bound action plans to reduce, restrict and eliminate usage as well as to engage in broad stakeholder initiatives to work toward industry-wide solutions."
The company has not yet publicly disclosed the identities of its high priority chemicals, although it reportedly will do so later in 2016. Once these identities are released, they can be an important driver for safer chemical use by other retailers and consumer brands.
Walmart is also driving chemical ingredient disclosure by its suppliers: "We also asked national brand suppliers … to list product ingredients on their own websites, giving access to this information in multiple locations, so customers can make more informed choices."
The retailer queried its suppliers about their online disclosure practices through its broader Sustainability Index platform. Of the 76 percent that responded, "78 percent reported that they disclose ingredients online for all their products according to a nationally recognized standard."
The Chemical Footprint Project will release its first report, a review of the chemical footprints of about 25 companies, later this month. These companies are voluntarily reporting to the project their chemical footprints via use of the project’s analytical tool, although this first report will just summarize aggregate scores and patterns, not disclose individual company scores.
CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) sent out its first carbon data request to companies in 2003, to which 235 companies replied. Now, reporting to CDP has become a core element of major corporations’ sustainability disclosures. Chemical footprinting can be much more complex than carbon reporting, but hopefully will become part of a "new normal" of corporate sustainability disclosures sooner rather than later.
This will be good for public health, the natural environment and businesses’ long-term well-being.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/walmart-grows-chemical-footprint-movement
-
(ACC Mentioned) Firm that Predicted Double-Digit Rate Hikes Not So Certain
May 16, 2016 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
When NERA Economic Consulting released modeling that showed the Clean Power Plan could cause double-digit electric rate increases, opponents of the rule seized on the figures as bulletproof evidence of their worst fears.
GOP lawmakers have referenced the study repeatedly, including in a special Senate hearing in West Virginia last year. And the coal lobby the firm conducted the work for, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, continues to cite the numbers in waging war against the rule.
Now a top member of the group that conducted the study is cautioning there is a lot of uncertainty in predicting costs.
"I think everything is speculative at this point," said Scott Bloomberg, a vice president at NERA.
In an interview after presenting the group's most recent modeling at a power-sector conference in Washington, D.C., Bloomberg stressed the uncertainty behind any economic analysis on the federal climate change rule. State decisions as well as assumptions about future natural gas and renewable power costs all play into the results, he said.
"The key is to understand the range," Bloomberg said. "If you hear just one number, you need to understand what the assumptions are."
The initial report was based on U.S. EPA's 2014 draft of the rule curbing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. NERA said that in one scenario, electric rates could rise 12 percent across all sectors.
In a follow-up released in November 2015, the firm saw electricity rate increases of between 11 and 14 percent. NERA estimated total costs at between $220 billion and $292 billion between 2022 and 2033.
While those two studies came with a number of caveats, they are rarely acknowledged in the political realm (ClimateWire, Nov. 30, 2015). Bloomberg is not discounting the figures but said he wants people to know they are highly dependent on certain inputs.
Bloomberg's advice for policymakers digesting modeling is especially key, as dozens of consulting firms, grid organizations and utilities are cranking out Clean Power Plan analyses around the country.First look by NERA excluded carbon trading
NERA's modeling on the draft rule in 2014 did not consider carbon-trading options states might pursue. The final rule more fully spelled out those options, and NERA did look at carbon trading in the November study. But modelers assumed states would pair off within the same six regions EPA has studied. NERA also looked mainly at what might happen if states capped emissions or used mass-based targets, rather than aiming for an average carbon rate.
In reality, the groups of states that could emerge as trading partners are almost unlimited. The combinations could have an impact on price, acknowledged Paul Bailey, senior vice president for federal affairs and policy with the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
"There is some degree of uncertainty around any cost projections right now," Bailey said, noting that no one knows how states might implement the Clean Power Plan.
Yet ACCCE stands by the numbers, he said, and added that some power providers are projecting even higher costs.
NERA in January published a third report on the Clean Power Plan, this time on behalf of various industry groups, including the American Forestry and Paper Association, American Chemistry Council, and American Iron & Steel Institute.
The more recent modeling does not aim to pin down costs in the same way as the previous studies. Instead, it compares how different state decisions about carbon trading might fare against one another. And it highlights how those decisions can change the range of costs states might see.
At the Electric Power Research Institute conference last week, EPRI and three utilities presented their own findings. And they all came with fine print.When 'game theory' trumps modeling
American Electric Power Co. is a 50 percent coal-dependent utility operating in 11 states from Texas to Virginia.
Scott Weaver, AEP's strategic policy analysis manager, said all the utility's states have an interest in economic modeling -- even those where officials have "put their pencils down" on planning.
But he added that "the best decisions are not necessarily based strictly on modeling, as game theory plays into effect in terms of the decisions between states."
"The power markets and the emissions trading markets are inherently linked, and therefore you really have to carefully evaluate the decisions you're making in light of what others may or may not do," Weaver said.
AEP's Appalachian Power Co. unit filed its annual integrated resource plan in Virginia on May 1 and made its "first attempt at quantifying impacts" of the final Clean Power Plan, Weaver said. The utility looked at both mass- and rate-based approaches in which the utility that serves 1 million customers in Virginia and West Virginia could either trade carbon or comply in isolation.
It found that compliance costs would range from $300 million to $600 million and that not trading carbon would raise costs by $200 million to $400 million and require closing additional coal plants, Weaver said. More interesting is the estimate that residential rates will increase just 2 to 5 percent by 2030.Electricity prices sensitive to trading
NERA's Bloomberg stressed that electricity prices will largely depend on three assumptions surrounding carbon trading.
For one, states must decide whether to cap emissions with a mass-based plan or adhere to an average rate of carbon for the entire power fleet with a rate-based plan.
Costs will also depend on how many states decide to trade with one another. If a green state like California will not sell carbon allowances to coal-heavy states like Montana, then prices could be much higher.
Finally, electricity rates are highly dependent on how state officials distribute carbon allowances. They can give them to utilities for free or auction them. If they auction them, they can decide whether to return the revenues to ratepayers to offset electricity price increases.
Bailey said utilities might project lower rates when they assume they get allowances for free.
"While that might be the case, we asked NERA to be more conservative about allocations versus auction because we believe that many states are likely to see an auction as a way to increase state revenues and offset budget deficits in states with deficits," Bailey said.
Bloomberg said the allowance question is "very much going to be political and could get very ugly based on what we saw at the national level in 2009," referencing failed legislation to implement a national cap-and-trade program.EPRI model widely used
If carbon allowance prices settle around $10 per metric ton, the allowance market could be worth $20 billion per year, Bloomberg added.
At the conference last week, it was clear utilities are concerned about how states might distribute allowances.
Boyd Vaughan, principal environmental specialist at Georgia-based Oglethorpe Power Corp., said his company could recoup large investments in new nuclear units by selling its share of clean energy credits.
While trading can reduce overall system costs, the combination of states involved can raise or lower those costs for particular states. To achieve the best rates for everyone, a trading system would need a healthy mix of allowance sellers and buyers, Bloomberg said.
At least 30 utilities in eight states are using a model developed by EPRI that can look at more of those mixes. They are expecting state reports in the coming months.
EPRI can use an adapted version of the U.S. Regional Economy, Greenhouse Gas and Energy Model to "model all states choosing any compliance pathway," including a national rate- or mass-based trading system, said the group's David Young.
So far, EPRI is seeing a "huge range in differences" as to how the carbon rule would affect states. "There are some states that are definitely on the glide path to comply with the Clean Power Plan. Other states are going to need to do quite a bit of work," he said.
While EPRI sees generally "very strong cost savings from participating in markets ... there are very reasonable concerns out there on counting on yet-to-be-formed markets for compliance," Young said.
This story also appears in ClimateWire.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060037267/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council
-
May 13, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Sharon Kelly
A newly published peer-reviewed study concludes that air pollution from fracking puts people's lungs, hearts, and immune systems at risk -- and that the health risks are particularly pointed for young children and infants.
The study -- the first to specifically focus on how shale oil and gas drilling affects children ability to breathe -- concludes that starting in the womb, children's developing respiratory systems are particularly at risk from five airborne pollutants associated with fracking and drilling.
"We conclude that exposure to ozone, [particulate matter], silica dust, benzene, and formaldehyde is linked to adverse respiratory health effects, particularly in infants and children," the researchers wrote in the study, titled "Potential Hazards of Air Pollutant Emissions from Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Operations on the Respiratory Health of Children and Infants" and published in Reviews on Environmental Health.
"While the rapid growth of this industry was undertaken without substantial public health research, there are now numerous publications clarifying health risks and, increasingly, health outcomes," they wrote, adding that since 2013, over 560 peer-reviewed studies on unconventional oil and gas extraction's impacts have been published, representing over 80 percent of the scientific literature on the topic. In other words, in the last few years, the risks from fracking have become much more heavily studied -- and the results show good reason to be concerned about how people's health is being affected.
Based on the risks associated with breathing air laced with the five most-studied pollutants, the researchers expressed concern about fracking near homes, day cares, and schools. "We recommend that at a minimum, one-mile setbacks should be established between drilling facilities and occupied dwellings such as schools, hospitals, and other dwellings where infants and children might spend a substantial amount of time," they wrote.
But state rules generally fall far short of that buffer zone. There is no national data available on how many schools or childcare facilities are now within a mile of a fracked well, in part because there are no federal regulations requiring the industry to track that data. Each individual state sets different rules controlling how far well pads must be from schools -- and those rules vary widely across the US.
All told, over 17 million Americans live within a mile of an active oil or gas well -- but the precise number of children within the one-mile zone nationwide has never been formally tallied, and not all of those wells are the unconventional oil and gas wells that the new study specifically focused on.
In Pennsylvania, the researchers noted, over 53,000 children under 10 live or attend school within a mile of a permitted fracked well. A separate mapping project, conducted by a group called Healthy Schools Pennsylvania, discovered more than 40 pipeline compressor stations -- notorious for spewing pollution into the air -- within a mile of the state's schools, and found that one school district that had over 40 oil or gas wells within a mile of its schools. In Pennsylvania alone, over 400 documented violations of state environmental laws occurred at wells located within one mile of a school or a day care, and 13 violations occurred at wells less than a mile away from a hospital.
And it's not just an East Coast issue. In four northern Colorado counties, researchers from the Western Resource Advocates found 32 schools within just 1,000 feet of a fracked well in 2012.
"Our research shows that the current setback distances between fracked gas wells and homes, schools, and health care centers are not enough to protect public health, especially children," Dr. Marsha Haley, an oncologist at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after she authored a different peer-reviewed study. That study, published on Feb. 19 in the National Institute of Environmental Health Services journal, concluded that current set-back standards not only put children's long-term health at risk from air emissions, but are also not strict enough to protect against risks from accidents and explosions.
Black and Latino parents may have particular reason to be concerned about the risks associated with oil and gas drilling and fracking, an investigative report by ThinkProgress in 2014 found.
"In California itself, 79 percent of the more than 350,000 kids who live within a mile of an oil and gas well are non-white, while 60 percent are Hispanic," reporter Emily Atkin wrote. "Coincidentally or not, some parents of Sequoia kids [in a town where 82 percent of residents are Hispanic] have complained of their kids suffering headaches, dizziness, and nausea. More alarming complaints have popped up as well, according to Juan Flores and Madeline Pano of the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, who both work closely with families in Shafter: A 12-year old student experiencing epileptic attacks; a nine-year-old student diagnosed with prostate cancer; an 11-year-old student who died from a mysterious illness that four hospitals could not diagnose."
"Community members are questioning, why are these things happening in this community?" Flores told ThinkProgress. "Why are kids getting sick?"
The new study, the most comprehensive review of the literature to date, comes on the heels of several in-depth looks at issues related to fracking and child health, including a December 2014 study linked fracking-related chemicals to infertility, low birth weights and impaired growth in the womb, as well as a litany of potential health problems after children are born.
"People really near unconventional oil and gas and fracking sites and those who work in the fracking industry have the right to know the chemicals that are being used that may pose health threats, especially to vulnerable populations like women and children," Ellen Webb, energy program associate at the Center for Environmental Health, told US News and World Report when her 2014 study was published. "Given the lack of study and understanding of all the chemicals that are being used, we can’t know the extent of the risks."
As troubling as the new study's results might be, they represent only the tip of the iceberg, since most of the chemicals used by the oil and gas industry for fracking remain gravely under-studied.
In part, that's because little health testing is generally required under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the main federal law that covers chemical safety -- including many chemicals used for fracking, a recent report by The Partnership for Policy Integrity found.
Out of 99 chemicals that researchers selected for review, only two had health studies available in the public docket (and in ten cases, companies claimed to have provided that information, but the health data was in fact missing or labeled confidential). Although the Environmental Protection Agency expressed concerns about potential health impacts in 88 cases, they only requested health studies for five of the chemicals -- and went on to approve virtually all of the chemicals for manufacture.
"Chemical companies and the EPA are basically conducting a chemical experiment on the general public," said Partnership for Policy Integrity Senior Counsel Dusty Horwitt.
And while there are efforts underway in Congress to revise the laws, those efforts fall far short of the mark, Mr. Horwitt said. "Chemical reform bills that have passed the House and Senate do not fix the problem." Horwitt added. "Congress and President Obama need to fix the law to ensure that chemicals are regulated with rigorous testing and openness so that citizens can be protected and informed."
Meanwhile, the risks specifically associated with fracking have begun to draw the attention of politicians at the national level.
"The toxic chemicals used in fracking are known to cause lung cancer and birth defects," presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wrote in an April 18 op-ed. "If we are serious about safe and clean drinking water and clean air, if we are serious about protecting the health of our children and families, and if we are serious about combating climate change, we need to phase out fracking nationwide."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36025-fracking-s-air-pollution-puts-infants-and-children-at-risk-of-developing-heart-lung-problems-new-study
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Advocate Comments Thrash RMP Proposal
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Industry, public safety advocates, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and others shelled the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revision to its Risk Management Program (RMP) in comments submitted to the agency.
Many safety advocates applauded the revision, dubbed the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act (RIN:2050-AG82), but harshly criticized what they deemed weak requirements for safer technology, chemical coverage, facility coverage and information sharing.
Industry lashed into the rulemaking for including safer technology language, that it said would unreasonably burden industry. Industry also criticized public disclosure mandates, which it argues will elevate the risk of terrorism.
Industry lashed into the rulemaking for including safer technology language, which it claimed could elevate the risk of terrorism by requiring audit disclosures.
The EPA closed the proposal's comment period as scheduled on May 13, despite aggressive calls for a 30–day extension (90 DEN A-7, 5/10/16).
The comment period closed soon after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a determination that arson caused the 2013 West, Texas, fertilizer explosion that prompted the RMP changes.
The West disaster, which killed 15 people including 12 first responders, precipitated a chemical security Executive Order directing the EPA to reexamine the risk management program.
2016 Finalization
Melissa Harrison, an EPA spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA May 13 the agency will review and consider all comments, and then shoot the proposal over to the Office of Management and Budget with hopes of publishing a final rule by the end of 2016.
The proposal requires facilities to conduct analysis of inherently safer technologies and industrial practices, while revising language on emergency preparedness, public access to information on the facilities and disaster response coordination.
Additional comments are likely to be made available in the coming days.
Safety Advocate Complaints
The Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters took to the street outside the EPA early on May 13 to protest provisions they allege don't go far enough in scaling back the threat of a chemical disaster.
“EPA's proposed rule fails to require any facilities to adopt safer technologies, nor would these assessments be made available to the general public,” the coalition said in a statement. “By assessing safer technologies without requiring facilities to adopt available safer alternatives, EPA is practically ensuring our nation will suffer another major, preventable chemical disaster in the near future.”
In comments, the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition member, pushed the agency to make several changes, including the expansion of facility coverage under the revision.
“EPA's proposal includes a [safer technology analysis] requirement only for paper, chemical, petroleum, and coal products manufacturing facilities,” the comment said. “The proposed rule would exempt about 87 percent of the all RMP facilities from conducting an assessment of safer alternatives. However, the use of alternative chemicals or technologies has been shown to be potentially economically and technologically feasible for 1,970 water and waste water treatment plants as well as for the 86 bleach manufacturing facilities in the RMP program.”
The union also urged EPA to cover ammonium nitrate in the revision. The West facility housed that chemical.
Industry, Municipality Gripes
The American Chemistry Council , a fierce opponent of the rulemaking, criticized the proposal's requirement to submit third-party compliance audit reports to local emergency planning committees and emergency response officials.
“The unintended consequence of this proposed change would be to increase chemical hazard risks by eliminating the benefits and knowledge sharing that occurs during the current audit process, and replacing them with a more adversarial enforcement inspection process,” said ACC in comments submitted at the end of the day May 13. “It also would create a roadmap for private party litigation, draining important resources from compliance. The third-party audit process is an all-in-one inspection, findings and corrective action process wholly governed by private parties and separate from EPA.”
Meanwhile, Tom Cochran, CEO of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the heads of the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities, commented that compliance would burden municipalities.
“We are concerned that the costs and impacts of a more prescriptive risk management program will fall disproportionately on smaller communities, compounding their challenges of complying with the new federal mandates,” the officials said. “These jurisdictions generally have small staffs who are already managing a wide range of issues. Larger communities will also be faced with increased reporting and activity burdens as first responders, emergency planners, and regulators of land use activities.”
Changes Prompted by West?
EPA's Harrison deflected a Bloomberg BNA question about whether the West, Texas, arson determination changes the agency's thinking on the proposal.
“The proposed RMP rule focuses on prevention and mitigation of chemical accidents,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “Regardless of cause, accident prevention measures still need to address potential consequences of a fire.”
Industry reported more than 1,500 RMP accidents and 58 deaths from 2004 to 2013, Harrison said.
Judah Prero, counsel at the Sidley Austin LLP environmental arm, told Bloomberg BNA the arson determination isn't likely to significantly change the proposal.
“I think for the most part it probably will have little effect,” Prero, who represents clients that will be affected by the proposal, said. “In the preamble to the proposal, EPA cites many more accidents than just the West incident.”
The agency may be amenable to some information sharing language and mandates, Prero said.
“Perhaps the West determination will give EPA pause to look at the public disclosure provisions that could result in a similar intentional act,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “They'll look at the pieces of data that they require to be released. For example, if you have an audit of all the different facility processes, and you potentially find deficiencies or potentially not, you have a laundry list there of what is checked. Someone who wanted to do something intentional could easily review that.”
The EPA could ultimately revise the disclosure language, but Prero said the agency will still likely fall short of bringing industry on board.
“It will help but at the end of the day, there's an entire package and I don't think it will win industry over,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89398286&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496517500&searchid=27598320&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Groups' Call For OMB To Reject EPA RMP Data Collection Could Slow Rule
May 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical manufacturers and water utilities are urging the White House to reject EPA's data request to support its proposed rule to overhaul its facility safety program, which if successful could significantly delay the revisions by forcing the agency to undertake lengthy new work on revising the information request that will underpin the rule.
EPA took comment through May 13 on its proposed update to its Clean Air Act risk management plan (RMP) program designed to reduce accidents at industrial facilities. But the agency is facing calls from lawmakers to grant more time for input on the proposal, as well as separate claims that the rule would be an unlawful unfunded mandate and that the finding of arson at a West, TX, industrial explosion undermines the justification for the rule.
The Feb. 25 proposed revisions to RMP would mandate certain facilities to consider safer chemicals or processes in hazard assessments; require third party audits after a reportable release to reduce risk of future accidents; and aim to improve coordination between facilities and local emergency planners.
Currently, the RMP program, established under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, requires companies to craft a plan to submit to EPA that outlines how the facility will reduce risks from releases.
As part of the proposed overhaul, EPA also submitted for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) approval an accompanying information collection request, which was posted to an online docket March 14. The ICR allows EPA to collect data to ensure facilities comply with the revised rule, and that informs state and local authorities emergency planning, the agency says -- but groups are now questioning the ICR.
In separate comments, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) say EPA failed to adequately justify the ICR and underestimates its burden on facilities. They say the ICR fails to meet Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements that data collection provide useful information which an agency can process in a timely fashion while also minimizing the burden on regulated entities.
“We recommend that OMB instruct EPA to revise the proposed collection to comply with the PRA and to re-estimate the burden following the PRA’s implementing regulations,” AWWA says. “EPA cannot demonstrate that this collection is the least burdensome approach to obtain the information with practical utility.”
Groups' Concerns
ACC, representing chemicals manufacturers covered by the RMP rule, are backing AWWA's call for OMB to reject the ICR, and also urging OMB to require EPA to re-issue the collection request concurrently with a similar document that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is preparing in support of its pending overhaul of its industrial facility Process Safety Management (PSM) program.
ACC argues that because RMP and PSM are each intended to prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances, regulated entities should have the chance to comment on both proposed rules and the revised ICRs at the same time to ensure public input considers the full context of the two rules that work in concert. Such an approach would also strengthen the OMB-facilitated inter-agency review of both rules, the group says.
“ACC strongly recommends that OMB should require EPA to submit a revised ICR concurrently with OSHA’s pending ICR for its [PSM] standard to ensure adequate interagency review and public comment, and minimize the potential for duplicative or inconsistent information collection and submission,” the group's comments say.
ACC estimates that OSHA may send a proposed rule revising PSM and an accompanying ICR to OMB for review later this year -- which would likely significantly delay EPA in finalizing its RMP ICR and overhaul.
EPA and OSHA are revising their facility accident prevention rules as part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's Aug. 1, 2013, Executive Order 13650 that seeks to strengthen the safety and security of the nation's industrial facilities by improving coordination and communication, and by modernizing policies, rules and standards.
Obama issued the order in the wake of the April 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people including first responders. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms announced May 11 that the fire that led to the explosion was intentionally set and not an accident.
Extension Request
In advance of the May 13 deadline for public input on the proposed RMP revisions, groups including industry, as well as city and county governments, and House and Senate lawmakers requested that EPA extend that deadline.
But EPA in letters and public statements has rejected calls for an extension, saying staff conducted extensive public outreach prior to issuing the proposal, and that the 60-day comment period is sufficient.
In a May 9 request for an extension, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities back earlier arguments from North Carolina public safety officials, that EPA failed to consult with local officials in developing the rule that imposes significant costs on local governments that serve as first responders.
“This is counter to EPA’s internal 'Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism' (Nov. 2008), which specifies that states and local governments must be consulted on rules if they impose substantial compliance costs, preempt state or local laws and/or have 'substantial direct effects on state and local governments,'” the municipal groups say.
In May 13 comments, the National Rural Water Association (NRWA) details municipalities' concern and notes that a significant percentage of facilities affected by the proposed requirements are community water facilities. Those facilities will face an increased regulatory burden resulting from new requirements for certain analysis, audits, and coordination with local emergency responders, the comments say.
NRWA says local governments already conduct many of those tasks, and argues that EPA's proposed revisions fail to clarify compliance standards for the many new requirements, including whether local governments or federal regulators have authority over facilities' risk management plans.
The proposal “changes the current dynamic where a local government’s design of the plan has primacy and allows for a new and ambiguous review by a regulator to define and determine compliance,” NRWA says. “This problem of subverting the locally preferred plan is compounded by the proposed rule’s ability to not only change the locally preferred option, but also pass the cost of the new plan to the local community.”
Safer Processes
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) in its comments is reiterating its long-standing calls for EPA to require facilities to use alternative chemicals and safer processes where feasible, and, for future RMP revisions that would expand the program to cover chemicals that may pose reactive hazards, such as ammonium nitrate.
CSB also backs EPA's proposed revisions that would require certain facilities to conduct third-party audits after accidents, and to investigate incidents that could have caused accidents.
But CSB urges EPA to expand the requirements by requiring certain facilities to conduct third-party audits every three years, and by defining what constitutes a near-accident rather than leaving it to the facilities' discretion.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/groups-call-omb-reject-epa-rmp-data-collection-could-slow-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Won't Review Waste Rule's Leak-Detection Provisions
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency denied a chemical industry request for reconsideration of leak-detection requirements established under national air toxics standards for off-site waste facilities.
The American Chemistry Council and Eastman Chemical Co. had asked the agency to reconsider a requirement that operators of facilities that handle waste, used oil and used solvents perform instrument-based monitoring for identifying equipment leaks in connectors rather than use sensory monitoring.
The chemical industry organizations said required use of EPA's Method 21 for instrument-based monitoring is not cost-effective and could not be expected to result in a significant decrease in emissions from off-site waste facilities.
In a notice scheduled for publication May 16, the EPA formally rejected reconsideration a joint petition filed by the ACC and Eastman Chemical. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy informed them of the decision in May 5 letters that were later posted online.
Requirements Set in 2015
The leak-detection requirements were established in a March 2015 rule (RIN:2060-AR47) that revised national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants at off-site waste and recovery operations, which are estimated to reduce hazardous emissions by 211 tons per year (80 Fed. Reg. 14,248; (53 DEN A-9, 3/19/15).
In the letters, McCarthy explained that the reconsideration request on leak-detection requirements did not meet the Clean Air Act's standard because the issue could have, and was, raised during the public comment period on the proposed version of the off-site waste rule.
Litigation Halted Since July
The EPA's notice will be published in the Federal Register on the same day the agency, as well as the American Chemistry Council and Eastman Chemical, are scheduled to file motions to proceed in litigation over the off-site waste rule.
The lawsuit has been held in abeyance since July 20, 2015, to allow for the EPA to consider the industry reconsideration request, which could affect the scope of the litigation and the issues before the court (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1146, 7/20/15).
The ACC said in a June 2015 court filing that it intend to challenge the rule's pressure relief device provisions, while Eastman Chemical said it intended to ask the court to consider whether issuance of the entire rule was illegal (121 DEN A-9, 6/24/15)
The EPA previously told the industry organizations in February that it will reconsider pressure relief device monitoring requirements established in the rule.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89398284&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496515500&searchid=27598320&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rejects Reconsideration Of Waste Recovery Air Rule
May 13, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA is rejecting the chemical industry's request to reconsider equipment leak reduction provisions in the agency's national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for reducing air toxics from off-site waste and recovery operations, saying industry's “dissatisfaction” with the rule is not justification for revising it.
The agency announced the rejection of industry's petition for reconsideration in a notice slated for publication in the May 16 Federal Register. The decision signals EPA will reconsider just one aspect -- pressure relief device (PRD) requirements -- of EPA's March 2015 NESHAP that regulates air toxics from waste management and recovery operations. The operations are part of a range of facilities that handle used oil, used solvent or waste, including hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, chemical plants and refineries.
The rule removes an emissions limit exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction; requires electronic reporting of performance test results; bars emissions releases from PRDs that are safety devices used to reduce pressure in containers when needed; and strengthens requirements for certain valves and lines, according to environmentalists who are intervenors in a lawsuit over the rule.
After EPA finalized the rule, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Eastman Chemical Company petitioned the agency last year requesting the agency reconsider two issues: equipment leak provisions for connectors and monitoring requirements for PRDs on portable containers. They argued it was "impracticable" for them to raise these objections during the rule's comment period.
While EPA in February agreed to reassess the PRD provision, the agency at the time indicated it was still weighing whether to grant the request on the leak provisions.
But the Register notice says the agency is now denying the request to reconsider the leak measure.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a May 5 letter explains that industry's petition fails to meet Clean Air Act criteria for reconsideration -- that a party objecting to a final rule must show it was either impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period for the rule or that the grounds for objecting arose after the public comment period ended but within the judicial review period.
McCarthy disputes the petitioners' contention that they met these criteria. "Eastman and ACC could have, and did, raise the objections presented in their petition during the public-comment period for the proposed rule," she says. The objections were "fully addressed by the EPA in the final [NESHAP Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations] rule preamble," she says.
"The petition demonstrates that Eastman and ACC continue to object to the connector monitoring requirements of the final rule," the letter says. "However, dissatisfaction with the outcome of the EPA's reasoned decision does not provide a basis for a petition for reconsideration."
The petitioners contend three flaws with the agency's equipment leak emission reductions. In the rule, EPA requires mandatory instrument-based leak detection requirements for connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service. Industry prefers sensory-based monitoring, and argues, among other alleged flaws, that EPA assumes that no emission reductions result from sensory-based connector monitoring.
McCarthy reiterates EPA's reasons for rejecting these claims by industry.
At press time, legal motions are due May 16 in stayed litigation over the rule. In the case, ACC v. EPA, ACC and Eastman are seeking judicial review of the rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, after agreeing to an extended deadline in order to give EPA more time to issue a determination on the petition for reconsideration, set May 16 as the deadline for parties to file motions to govern further proceedings in the case.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-rejects-reconsideration-waste-recovery-air-rule
-
EPA Threatened With Lawsuit Over Ozone Plan Deadlines
May 16, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Environmental organizations have threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it acts on state pollution plans for implementing the 2008 national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion.
The Center for Biological Diversity and other groups, in a May 12 notice of intent to sue, alleged EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy missed statutory deadlines to take action to address areas that do not have final, approved plans to reduce ozone pollution. The agency has missed deadlines to act on plans for 22 states and the District of Columbia, the groups said.
The environmental groups said they would prefer to resolve the issue without litigation but will file a lawsuit if the EPA does not come into compliance with its mandatory duties under the Clean Air Act within 60 days.
The notice of intent to sue covers missed deadlines for the EPA to act on areas that haven't submitted a required state implementation plan, including the San Joaquin Valley in California, New York, Baltimore, Chicago and Phoenix. The environmental groups also said they intend to sue the agency over a failure to take action on a number of submitted state plans that have not yet been approved, including plans that would cover Philadelphia, Denver, Los Angeles and St. Louis.
‘Obligation to the Public.'
“The EPA has an obligation to the public to ensure that regulations are approved in a timely way,” said Joe Minott, executive director and chief counsel at the Clean Air Council, in a May 12 statement. “The public has a right to rely on government following the law in order to properly protect public health.”
The areas that have not yet submitted a complete plan missed a July 20, 2015, statutory deadline, which was three years after nonattainment designations were made under the Bush-era ozone standards. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA six months after a missed deadline to issue a finding of failure to submit, which would trigger an obligation that the EPA issue a federal plan for addressing ozone pollution in those areas within two years.
The environmental groups identified 41 separate missing plans for which the EPA should have issued a finding of failure to submit by early 2016 but has not yet done so.
The notice of intent to sue also identified 21 submitted plans the EPA has not yet acted on. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take final action on plans that have been deemed to be administratively complete within one year, but the agency has failed to act on plans that were submitted as early as 2009, according to the environmental groups.
Robert Ukeiley, a Colorado-based attorney, filed the notice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health and the Clean Air Council.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89398268&vname=dennotallissues&fn=89398268&jd=89398268
-
E&C Panel Set to Vote on Bill Stalling Ozone Rule
May 16, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
At a House subcommittee markup last week, Republicans were in lockstep agreement that states need plenty more time to meet U.S. EPA's new ozone standard. Democrats were equally adamant that no delay is warranted. The bill under discussion passed by a 15-13 party-line vote (Greenwire, May 12).
Expect a similar dynamic to play out on a larger stage this week as the full Energy and Commerce Committee tackles H.R. 4775, which would push back implementation of the 70 parts per billion ozone benchmark by eight years, bar EPA from revisiting that standard until 2025 and allow manufacturers to seek preconstruction permits under the previous 75 ppb threshold for years to come.
The legislation would also rework the timetable for reviewing the ambient air quality standards for ozone, lead and four other "criteria pollutants" from once every five years to once every decade and allow EPA to take technological feasibility into account as a secondary factor.
"We believe this bill creates a path to improve air quality without harming job creation and economic growth," Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), the lead sponsor, said at last week's markup by the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
Democrats, however, denounced the measure as a giveaway to polluters that would undermine key tenets of the Clean Air Act.
If the bill is enacted, "air quality will suffer, public health will suffer, and we will throw away decades of progress," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the full committee's ranking member.
The bill is the latest in a series taken up by the committee in recent months to delay or weaken EPA air quality regulations. EPA has already signaled its opposition. While the legislation is almost assured of House passage, the odds of Senate approval are near nil.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant that can worsen emphysema symptoms and help trigger asthma attacks.
The 75 ppb standard dates back to 2008. In lowering it last October to 70 ppb, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy cited mounting scientific evidence on ozone's health effects. When fully implemented, the lower benchmark will prevent hundreds of premature deaths per year, EPA estimates, and stave off hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks.
But critics note that states are still putting the previous 75 ppb standard in place, with EPA only last year issuing implementation regulations. They also point out that EPA often fails to meet the five-year timetable for updating criteria pollutant standards.
Entwined with the polemics are starkly different views of the need to keep the Clean Air Act's current framework fully in place. The act, signed into law in 1970, was last amended in 1990. GOP lawmakers point to major improvements in air quality over the last four decades as evidence that EPA can ease off.
At last week's markup, for example, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) questioned whether the new ozone standard would lead to any public health benefit, while imposing "huge" compliance costs. Delaying implementation would instill "a little bit of sanity," Barton said.
Democrats underscore the importance of keeping health protections tied to the latest scientific research. Extending the review cycle "would put lives at risk," Pallone said, "not just for ozone, but for every criteria pollutant."
The committee will also mark up H.R. 4979 (see related story).
Schedule: The markup will begin Tuesday, May 17, at 5 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn for members' opening statements and resume Wednesday, May 18, at 10 a.m. in the same location.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/16/stories/1060037274
-
A Much-Needed Step on Methane Emissions
May 13, 2016 | The New York TImes
By Robert B. Semple Jr.
President Obama’s strategy to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and position the United State as a leader in the worldwide effort to combat climate change consists of two main initiatives: rules mandating more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, which are already on the books; and new and undeniably overdue regulations aimed at greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. These rules are not yet a done deal. A federal appeals court is expected to decide on their legality this summer in a case brought by an array of states and electric utilities.
The outcome of that case is a source of great anxiety in the White House and the scientific and environmental communities, but in the meantime, much to its credit, the administration has continued to press forward with other measures to reduce harmful emissions. The latest of these, announced Thursday, is a set of much-anticipated steps to regulate emissions of methane from new or modified oil and gas wells.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas second only to carbon dioxide in its ability to influence global temperatures. There is some confusion over exactly how powerful it actually is (it does not linger long in the atmosphere) and whether the methane leaks from wells and pipelines are large enough to nullify natural gas’s clear advantages over coal as a source of electric power (some academics say yes, the White House and other academics say no).
Even so, it is obviously important to get a grip on it, and to that end Mr. Obama has set a goal of reducing methane emissions by up to 45 percent by 2025 from 2012 levels. The new rules require oil and gas companies to capture methane that escapes in the drilling process and from storage tanks, pipeline and other equipment in the field. Oil and gas companies, already suffering from weaker prices for both fuels, have complained loudly that this is one more expense they do not need. The Environmental Protection Agency argues otherwise: The added cost of compliance will be more than made up by various savings, including income from the sale of the natural gas that otherwise would have escaped into the atmosphere.
These rules will be increasingly important as industry continues to make new discoveries using the controversial technology that has made the natural gas boom possible, known as hydraulic fracturing. What the rules do not do is cover the multitude of existing oil and gas wells, which as of now account for the vast bulk of methane emissions. The administration has promised to develop such rules in the months ahead; without them there is no chance that Mr. Obama’s goals can be met.
Industry says it is proceeding with voluntary measures that will solve the problem. This is a song we have heard before and and it is no more seductive now than it has ever been. Colorado has already cracked down on existing sources, and, it seems, no oil and gas company in Colorado has gone out of business. If Colorado can regulate existing wells without economic disruption, so can the federal government.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/a-much-needed-step-on-methane-emissions/?_r=0
-
Greenwire's Reilly Discusses EPA's Next Steps on Existing-Source Methane Emissions
May 16, 2016 | E&E - TV
Following yesterday's release by U.S. EPA of a final rule on methane emissions from new sources, and a proposal on existing-source emissions, how will the agency proceed with its existing-source rule? On today's The Cutting Edge, Greenwire reporter Amanda Reilly discusses the reaction to EPA's highly anticipated announcement and explains how the presidential election will affect the agency's next steps on existing sources.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. EPA released its final rule for regulating methane emissions from new sources yesterday. The agency also took a big step in regulating emissions from existing sources, but how far will the agency get on that rule before the president leaves office? Greenwire's Amanda Reilly joins me with all the details. Amanda, a much-anticipated release. What made it into the final rule on new source emissions?
Amanda Reilly: Well, the rule itself, as you know, targets methane emissions and volatile organic compounds, which are precursors to smog from new wells and modified sources from the oil and gas industry. EPA made several changes that environmentalists had asked for, including increasing the frequency of leak detection requirements for some types of equipment. EPA also eliminated this one provision. It had proposed to allow companies to do checks less frequently if a prior check had showed up clean, so EPA got rid of that. The agency also eliminated an exemption for low-producing wells. Those are wells that produce less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent a day. There are a lot of them in the industry. Environmentalists had argued that, you know, collectively they could be a big source of emissions, and they had asked EPA to get rid of that exemption, and the agency complied. EPA also made some changes that says we'll make the rule more flexible for oil and gas companies. Included that is -- they're allowing companies to use an alternative to sort of the standard lead detection repair equipment that's out there. So there's a little bit of give and take in the rule, but overall, environmentalists and the agency says the rule's a lot stronger from its -- from the proposal.
Monica Trauzzi: And so the agency also took this big step, as I mentioned at the top, on existing source methane emission. What is the realistic timeline we're looking at for things to get moving on that rule?
Amanda Reilly: Right, so what EPA did yesterday was it released a draft. It's called an information collection request. Sounds kind of boring, but it's sort of the first step for regulating existing sources. EPA's draft request is in two parts. One is a sort of broader request asking companies to submit basic information. Second drills down on some sections of the industry. It may require some field testing. EPA says it knows a lot about emissions from the industry already, but it doesn't know as much about sort of the technologies that are out there and the costs of them, so that's sort of what EPA is looking at here. It's a lot more substantial than prior information collection requests that EPA has issued. The first part likely will -- information from that will likely come in in the fall. For the second, more specific part, we probably won't see all the information until early next year. So this -- so we're probably not looking at a proposed rule, certainly not finalizing any rule before the Obama administration leaves office.
Monica Trauzzi: As you said, the first part in the fall, right around the presidential election. How will the presidential election impact what EPA does?
Amanda Reilly: Well, obviously there's a big gap between Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential contenders on environmental regulations, generally in climate change. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, if either of them are elected, will likely make reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry a top priority. In fact, just last week, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta said -- specifically said that at an event at Stanford University. On the other hand, Donald Trump has said that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese. He has also talked about maybe getting rid of EPA, definitely reducing regulation, so it's probably unlikely you see him really go after tackling methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
Monica Trauzzi: How do these regulations ultimately impact the oil and gas sector, and what were some of the reactions that you heard yesterday?
Amanda Reilly: Well, I guess the reactions were pretty much what you would have expected to hear. Sort of the overriding theme of industry objections is that, you know, EPA really doesn't understand the oil and gas industry and what's going on with emissions, and this is sort of a one-size-fits-all approach, but that really doesn't get into the nuances in the industry. They -- industry has long argued that the companies are reducing methane emissions voluntarily, that emissions are going down, and that regulations are unnecessary. EPA's recent inventory still found that the oil and gas sector was the No. 1 source of methane in the nation. Sort of what the impact on companies would be, obviously it's going to cost something to put in place leak detection and repair equipment. One source has said that, you know, this equipment itself can cost up to $100,000. EPA raised the expected costs of its -- from the proposal to the final rule. It now expects the final rule will cost about $530 million in 2025, but it says that that will be offset by climate benefits. I guess with both the new source rule and the information collection request, you'll definitely see some more reporting and sort of paperwork requirements too that companies will have to do. The, you know, industry is sort of -- is arguing that those paperwork requirements in and of itself will be very burdensome.
Monica Trauzzi: We'll end it right there. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you.
Amanda Reilly: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
[End of Audio]
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2130/transcript
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested