Preview Newsletter

PM ACC 5/25/2016

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

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) FDA Considering Ban on Common Food Packaging Chemicals
May 25, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comments on a petition created by 10 NGOs asking the agency to reconsider the safety of additives commonly used in food packaging materials.
(ACC Mentioned) US House Passes TSCA Update
May 25, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a final version of a bill (HR 2576) that would update the Toxic Substances Control Act May 24 on a 403-12 roll call vote.
United States Poised to Approve Major Chemical Safety Overhaul
May 25, 2016 | Science Magazine
By Puneet Kollipara

As early as today, the U.S. Senate is expected to approve a major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law—marking one of the last steps in a decades-long reform effort.
The Government Isn’t Protecting You from Dangerous Chemicals. Congress Must Fix That.
May 24, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS are in countless products, but the government’s system to ensure they are safe is broken, and has been for decades. The past few years showed why fixing it has been so hard: As some members of Congress attempted to negotiate bipartisan reforms,
Honor Frank Lautenberg by Protecting Our Kids
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Bonnie Lautenberg

When I was a kid growing up on Long Island, we used to run through the mist behind a man in his little truck, spraying DDT all over our lawns and trees. Given all we know now, it’s hard to believe that we were allowed to do that. Though the fog of toxic chemicals that surround...
Why the Historic Deal to Expand US Chemical Regulation Matters
May 25, 2016 | Nature
By Jeff Tollefson

The US Congress is poised to overhaul the law that governs the introduction and use of chemicals, in one of the most significant changes to the country's environmental regulation in decades. The update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) comes...
Restricting State Action on Dangerous Chemicals Unfair Trade-off for Better Safety Rules
May 25, 2016 | Bangor Daily News
By Editorial Board

Congress is nearing completion of a rewrite of the nation’s chemical regulations. The long overdue update takes important steps forward in giving the Environmental Protection Agency needed authority to regulate the tens of thousands of chemicals...
Shimkus Sponsors Toxic Substances Management Overhaul
May 25, 2016 | The X Radio
By Greg Sapp

Legislation introduced by Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-15) to update the way the United States assesses and manages the risks posed by chemicals and the products that contain them passed the House Tuesday.
Welch on His Support for Bill Overhauling EPA's Toxic Chemical Regulation
May 25, 2016 | Vermont Public Radio
By Bob Kinzel

The U.S. House has given its strong bi-partisan support to legislation that overhauls a 40-year-old law that regulates toxic chemicals. The proposal will bring more than 64,000 chemicals under the review of the Environmental Protection Agency.
US Hazcom Ccompliance Challenges Ahead, Survey Finds
May 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer

Half of affected companies in the US have yet to meet the Osha hazard communication Standard (Hazcom) compliance requirements, according to a survey conducted by software firm Actio. The deadline for compliance is 1 June.
Making Strides on Companies’ Chemical Footprints
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Boma Brown-West

As we’ve written here before, public commitment is one of the essential pillars of leadership on safer chemicals. When a company leads on public commitment, that means communicating not just its initial goal-setting, but its full safer chemicals journey, publicly and honestly.
Post-Menopausal Women 'More Sensitive to PBDEs'
May 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch

Post-menopausal women appear to be particularly sensitive to thyroid effects, induced by exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, according to a US study.
Gauging the Health Risk of Lead in Lipstick
May 25, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Deirdre Lockwood

Mouse study suggests that average use of lip products may not pose major health risks from lead exposure, but heavy users could exceed limits.

Energy News

W.Va. AG Morrisey Says Rule Driving Changes in Energy Market Despite Stay
May 25, 2016 | E&E TV

Following last week's surprise move by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to postpone Clean Power Plan arguments to September, and before the full panel, parties involved in the case have spent the week assessing shifts...
States Say EPA Wrong on Mercury Rule
May 25, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender

A coalition of states is telling the Supreme Court that U.S. EPA is making flawed legal arguments about its rule to slash power plants' mercury emissions.
Trump Courts Energy Industry
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry and Timothy Cama

Donald Trump is seeking to make inroads with the fossil fuel industry as he moves into the general election.
This Texas Fight Shows Just How Conflicted We Still are About ‘Clean Coal’
May 25, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey

On the path to a low-carbon economy, most experts agree that a variety of strategies will be needed, from the dramatic expansion of wind and solar power to electrification or better biofuels for cars and planes. Some technologies remain more controversial than others, however.
Bakken Still Premium Shale Play, But Global, Geographic Impacts Remain
May 25, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

The low-price correction period in the oil/natural gas sector may have helped the Bakken transition from a high-priced shale play to one of lower prices and greater value, according to Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC).

Chemical Security News

Coherent Cyber Response Plans Elude State Agencies
May 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

State governments aren't equipped to handle a major cyber emergency such as a coordinated attack on electric utilities or water treatment plants, a panel of homeland security authorities told lawmakers yesterday.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Building Material Human Hazard and Exposure Assessment Announced as New LEED Pilot Credit
May 25, 2016 | For Construction Pros

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has announced a new LEED pilot credit—Building Material Human Hazard & Exposure Assessment, which encourages project teams and manufacturers to assess human health related exposure scenarios for products...
White House to Push Companies for More Disclosure on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
May 25, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Bradley Olson

The White House is set to propose a new rule Wednesday that would push companies with federal contracts to publicly disclose more information about their impact on climate change, their efforts to address the issue, and how a warmer planet could impact business operations.
House Panel Advances Interior, EPA Spending Bill
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

A House Appropriations Committee subpanel on Wednesday approved a $32.1 billion spending bill for the Interior Department and environmental programs.
State Claims Cap and Trade is a Bargain for Suing Businesses
May 25, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn

California regulators defended their landmark cap-and-trade program yesterday in a closely watched case that could interfere with the state's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Why Can't Congress Stop the EPA's Assault on Private Property Rights?
May 25, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Former Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas)

Karl Marx wrote that, "The theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Waters of the United States" regulation may not be the abolishment of private property rights...

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

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) FDA Considering Ban on Common Food Packaging Chemicals

May 25, 2016 | Chem.Info

By Meagan Parrish

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comments on a petition created by 10 NGOs asking the agency to reconsider the safety of additives commonly used in food packaging materials.
The 30 chemicals in question are ortho-phthalates, which have been linked to a variety of health concerns including reproductive, developmental and endocrine-related problems.
In April, a study emerged showing that people who consumed fast food had higher levels of phthalates in their system — a revelation that has given environmental NGOs more ammunition to press for a possible ban on the chemicals in certain cases.
In particular, the NGOs are asking the FDA to review the safety of ortho-phthalates when used in a rangeof food contact materials such as polymeric coatings, cellophane, slimicides, defoaming agents, certain resins, rubbers, paper products and more.
Despite the intensifying scrutiny of phthalates and the fact that they can leach through materials and into food, the FDA may opt to maintain its long-standing approval of the use of phthalates in food packaging materials.
In a statement made after the FDA announced it would review the safety of phthalates, the American Chemistry Council expressed confidence that the FDA won’t press ahead with a ban on phthalates.
“[Phthalates] have been reviewed and studied by numerous government scientific agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide. Their conclusions have been essentially the same each time: that the phthalates in the marketplace today do not pose a risk to human health at typical real-life exposure levels,” the ACC stated. “As FDA moves forward with the standard process of review, we are confident that they will continue to rely on the best available science to address the petition.”
The FDA will continue taking public comments on ortho-phthalates until July 19.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/05/fda-considering-ban-common-food-packaging-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) US House Passes TSCA Update

May 25, 2016 | Plastics News

By Gayle S. Putrich

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a final version of a bill (HR 2576) that would update the Toxic Substances Control Act May 24 on a 403-12 roll call vote.
The move edges ever closer to reforming the much-maligned 1970s-era law governing the manufacture, transportation and regulation of chemicals in the United States. The bill must now get final approval from the Senate before heading to the president’s desk for Barack Obama’s signature.
For decades since its enactment, the only thing anyone could agree on regarding TSCA was that it wasn’t working; the House vote marks the beginning of the end of decades of work to change that.
“This bill represents a balanced and thoughtful compromise that makes long needed improvements to an outdated and ineffective law,” said John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Environment and the Economy Subcommittee chairman and one of the leaders in the TSCA reform effort. “It’s the culmination of a multi-year, multi-Congress effort and marks the first consequential update of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 40 years. I thank everyone who worked hard to get us to where we are today. It’s imperative that we get this bill signed into law without delay.”
Though there is rare, overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill, nine Democrats and three Republicans still voted against it.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) led the opposition on the floor amid concerns that the reforms would weaken existing significant new use rules, weaken state government’s abilities to act on a chemical once the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun its analysis, limit reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts and open other regulatory loopholes “that undermine the public health and environmental protection goals of TSCA.”
Industry has strongly supported the bill in its most recent iteration.
“U.S. manufacturers and America’s consumers can take heart that a 21st century approach to managing chemicals is just steps away,” said American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley in a Tuesday press release.
The bill is expected to be signed into law before the Memorial Day break.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160525/BLOG11/160529907/us-house-passes-tsca-update

Return to headline | Return to top
United States Poised to Approve Major Chemical Safety Overhaul

May 25, 2016 | Science Magazine

By Puneet Kollipara

As early as today, the U.S. Senate is expected to approve a major overhaul of the nation’s primary chemical safety law—marking one of the last steps in a decades-long reform effort. The House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly approved the rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs how industrial chemicals are tested and regulated. After Senate passage, the legislation would move to President Barack Obama for signing. The White House has indicated Obama will sign the bill into law.
The measure—H.R. 2576, named for the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ), a longtime TSCA reform champion—is perhaps the most far-reaching and influential environmental statute passed by Congress since the body updated the Clean Air Act in 1990.The measure aims to make chemical safety reviews more science-based, and includes provisions designed to reduce the use of animals in chemical testing and promote the study of so-called cancer clusters.
“The end result … is a vast improvement over current law,” said Representative John Shimkus (R–IL), who co-sponsored the House bill, on the House floor yesterday. The bill, he added, is “a careful compromise that’s good for consumers, good for jobs, and good for the environment.”
“While this is a compromise bill, it is a long overdue step forward in protecting families and communities from toxic chemicals,” said Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D–NJ), top Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, on the House floor yesterday.
Numerous fixes
Both environmentalists and industry have long agreed that TSCA, originally passed in 1976, has numerous flaws. It includes legal barriers, for example, that essentially prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from acquiring toxicity data on chemicals and imposing new restrictions on them—even on highly toxic substances such as asbestos. Critics say the current legislation also favors economic concerns over scientific findings, and has led to thousands of chemicals entering the market without adequate health and safety oversight.
The reform bill seeks to fix a number of these flaws. It aims to make chemical safety reviews purely science-based, by eliminating a longtime requirement that EPA weigh regulatory costs in the safety-review process. It also repeals a longtime requirement that EPA select the “least burdensome” method of regulating a toxic substance. And the bill would require EPA to deem a new chemical safe before it could enter the marketplace; under current law, a chemical can enter the marketplace unless EPA deems it unsafe within a certain time period.
The bill would also make it easier for EPA to order chemical companies to generate any toxicity data that the agency needs to inform its reviews; under current law, EPA can only order this data by going through a lengthy rulemaking process that often ends up mired in litigation. And the bill would require EPA to take tougher action on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs), and ensure that chemicals are safe for vulnerable groups such as infants, seniors, and chemical workers.
Animal protection and animal rights groups hailed another provision that aims to reduce EPA and chemical companies’ use of animal-based toxicity testing methods. It would task EPA with using nonanimal-based methods “to the extent practicable,” and the agency would have to devise a plan to research, develop, and eventually use more nonanimal methods—including computational modeling, high-throughput screening, and cell-culture testing.
The bill also includes a measure known as “Trevor’s law” that encourages federal agencies to study “cancer clusters”—areas that appear to have unusually high numbers of cancer cases that may be linked to a shared environmental cause. The Society of Toxicology, although praising the bill, expressed some concern about including the cancer-cluster measure and other topic- or chemical-specific language in the bill. Doing so “detracts from the wider range of priority chemical-specific or analytical issues that, as toxicologists, we address every day,” society President John Morris said in a 23 May letter.
Rocky history
The TSCA reform bill is the result of years of negotiations involving lawmakers in both parties and a wide range of stakeholders. Many previous efforts to overhaul TSCA failed after lawmakers couldn’t strike a consensus among competing interest groups, such as chemical companies and environmental groups. The current effort succeeded, however, despite the toxic political climate in Washington and a government divided between a Democratic-held White House and Republican-held Congress.
To arrive at the current bill, the House and Senate first approved their own bipartisan—but widely different—versions of TSCA reform. Then, lawmakers spent months negotiating a compromise between the chambers.
It wasn’t clear for instance, whether the animal testing provisions—which were in the Senate bill, but not the House’s—would ultimately survive. “But the fact that we are now going to severely restrict the unnecessary cruelty to animals is something that I’m very proud that the leadership helped preserve,” Senator Cory Booker (D–NJ), a proponent of the language, told reporters outside the Capitol on 19 May in announcing his support of the bill.
A much bigger sticking point was concern, voiced by many liberal Democrats and environmental groups, that the legislation would weaken states’ ability to issue their own chemical regulations. Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), the top Democrat on the Senate environment panel, had argued especially forcefully against language in the Senate bill that would have kept existing state chemical regulations on the books, but reduced the states’ ability to issue new regulations in the future.
But Boxer ultimately supported the final compromise. The final bill is far from perfect on that issue, but it’s better than current law, she said in announcing she would support the reform measure. “What a battle that was,” she said. “Well, we no longer have that battle.”
Not all lawmakers were won over. Yesterday, as the House voted 403 to 12 to approve the reform measure, Representative Paul Tonko (D–NY) cited the state preemption provisions as one reason he was voting against the bill. He was one of just nine House Democrats to oppose the bill; three House Republicans also voted against it.
The reform measure led to splits among interest groups. Some environmental and health groups, such as the Breast Cancer Fund, have opposed it, while still others, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, were noncommittal. But many industry groups andsome environmental groups support the final product.
And Senator Bernie Sanders (D–VT), who is seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, sees both good and bad in the bill, but said that the preemption language would prevent his state from “going above and beyond” federal levels of action. “That makes no sense … federal chemical regulations should be a floor, not a ceiling,” Sanders said in a statement, without indicating whether he will ultimately support the reform measure.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/united-states-poised-approve-major-chemical-safety-overhaul

Return to headline | Return to top
The Government Isn’t Protecting You from Dangerous Chemicals. Congress Must Fix That.

May 24, 2016 | Washington Post

By Editorial Board

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS are in countless products, but the government’s system to ensure they are safe is broken, and has been for decades. The past few years showed why fixing it has been so hard: As some members of Congress attempted to negotiate bipartisan reforms, others made the perfect — or the perfectly political — the enemy of the good.
This impasse looks as though it’s about to end, at long last, as Congressconsiders a bipartisan chemical safety reform bill this week. On its merits, theFrank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act should pass by acclamation.
Under current law, the Environmental Protection Agency is hobbled in all sorts of dangerous ways. The agency cannot subject chemicals to safety testing without evidence that they are potentially risky — which is hard to obtain without testing. Consequently, the EPA has managed to examine a mere 200 chemicals since 1976, though thousands are produced and sold every year.
The bill would subject all chemicals already on the market to some level of review, with the EPA prioritizing the chemicals it sees as the riskiest —formaldehyde and flame retardants would probably make the list. Chemical manufacturers could ask the agency to analyze a chemical out of turn, as long as they fund the review. The EPA would have to find new chemicals safe before they entered the market, and the agency would have more power to order testing. If the EPA found that a chemical posed an unreasonable risk, its options would range from added warnings to outright bans.
This would be a massive improvement on the status quo. But opposition has crystallized over the role of states, some of which, such as California, have imposed tough chemical regulations in the absence of strong federal rules. The bill would allow existing state regulations to stay on the books. But going forward, federal action would preempt state efforts to impose new restrictions. This would keep the rules generally consistent from state to state, but some activists and members of Congress want maximum latitude for states to regulate as they choose.
If the critics prevail, they will kill a good bill. The legislation would significantly improve chemical rules for every American and prevent an increasingly expensive and inconsistent patchwork of regulations. It would give states flexibility to request a waiver from the EPA to avoid federal preemption if they have good reason to impose state-level rules. Over the past few weeks, the bill’s negotiators have adjusted several portions of the bill to make them more acceptable to the critics. If there is any naysaying when it comes up for its final vote, it should be little more than token opposition.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-government-isnt-protecting-you-from-dangerous-chemicals-congress-must-fix-that/2016/05/24/4415780e-2121-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Honor Frank Lautenberg by Protecting Our Kids

May 25, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Bonnie Lautenberg

When I was a kid growing up on Long Island, we used to run through the mist behind a man in his little truck, spraying DDT all over our lawns and trees. Given all we know now, it’s hard to believe that we were allowed to do that. Though the fog of toxic chemicals that surround us today may be less visible, chemical exposures continue to threaten the health of our kids and grandkids, and will until we fix America’s broken chemical safety law.

My late husband Frank Lautenberg’s greatest passion during his service in the U.S. Senate was protecting the health and wellbeing of America’s children. Whether it was second-hand smoke or toxic chemicals, he fought to defend our most vulnerable citizens.

Frank’s last battle in the Senate was a decade-long effort to pass legislation to fix the outmoded Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It was a very personal fight for both of us, as parents and grandparents. We knew that no family could be protected unless the government had the legal authority and resources it needed. Thankfully, we are now closer than ever to achieving the kind of commonsense reform that Frank tried to accomplish throughout his career, right up to the last days of his life.

I know Frank would have been proud last week as I stood with a bipartisan group of his former colleagues – including some of the leading environmental champions in the Senate – to announce a deal to finally fix our broken system. And I am proud that this landmark bill, the most important environmental legislation in a generation, has been named in Frank’s honor: The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.

As a Senator, passing legislation to ensure chemical safety meant everything to Frank. He told me it was even more critical to protecting public health than his signature accomplishment, banning smoking on airplanes. He was troubled by the fact that, under TSCA, tens of thousands of chemicals are allowed to stay on the market despite no evidence that they are safe.

What’s more, the current system allows hundreds of new chemicals to enter the market every year and be used in our homes, offices, and workplaces every day – without any requirement that they first be found safe. The tragic result of this lax system is that dangerous or untested chemicals can be found everywhere from our cleaning products to our couches and clothes.

After Frank passed away, Senator Tom Udall stepped up to carry Frank’s legacy forward. Senator Udall is every bit the dedicated environmentalist that Frank was, and he took up the issue with the same zeal. I’m so grateful for Tom’s work, and for the support of progressive leaders, including Cory Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley. They’ve worked closely withDavid Vitter and Jim Inhofe, who have shown how the Senate is at its best when people with very real differences come together to find common ground. To me, it is like part of Frank is still there in the United States Senate, working to enact this bill into law.

Frank always had high regard for Frank Pallone, who took the helm for the Democrats on the House side. He was able to work with John Shimkus to navigate complicated political terrain and pass a bill with overwhelming support.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the White House, and leading environmental groups like Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife Federation have called the bill a significant improvement over the current system.

The Lautenberg Act is not only about Frank’s legacy. It’s about all our children and grandchildren across the country—exposed to the invisible fog of untested and unregulated chemicals. It is time for Congress to take action. It’s what the American people deserve – and what Frank fought so hard to achieve.
Lautenberg is the widow of Late Sen. Frank Lautenberg
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281144-honor-frank-lautenberg-by-protecting-our-kids

Return to headline | Return to top
Why the Historic Deal to Expand US Chemical Regulation Matters

May 25, 2016 | Nature

By Jeff Tollefson

The US Congress is poised to overhaul the law that governs the introduction and use of chemicals, in one of the most significant changes to the country's environmental regulation in decades. The update to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) comes after more than 10 years of debate, and many failed attempts to revamp the law.
The US House of Representatives passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support on 24 May. The Senate is expected to approve the measure this week, clearing the way for US President Barack Obama to sign it into law.
Nature takes a look at the implications of the historic deal, which will give the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) new power to ensure that chemicals — both old and new — are safe.
Why amend the current law?
Critics of the TSCA have long complained that the law effectively ties the EPA’s hands, preventing the agency from examining the safety of known chemicals and making it difficult to ensure that new ones do not pose undue health hazards.
It requires companies to register new chemicals before they are used in products and industrial processes, but the default assumption is that all chemicals are safe. Unless the EPA can show that a given chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, that chemical is automatically approved for use. Companies do not have to provide the agency with much information about their chemicals, and the EPA cannot require industry to conduct additional research without solid evidence that a chemical poses a health risk.
How many chemicals does the EPA regulate?
Companies introduce about 700 chemicals into the marketplace each year. And 40 years after the TSCA became law, the EPA’s chemical inventory lists 85,000 substances. But nobody knows exactly how many of these chemicals are still in use.
The EPA has identified 90 chemicals that merit further investigation, and possibly regulation. But only about 2% of the chemicals in use today have undergone a safety review by government scientists, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, a watchdog group in New York City.
So, what will change?
In short, everything. Once the TSCA is amended, the EPA will have the authority to ask questions, seek more information and even require companies to conduct additional studies to ensure that chemicals are safe.
The US law requires less information about chemicals up front than Europe's pioneering chemical-safety legislation, but the two regulatory approaches should have similar results, says Richard Denison, a biochemist who tracks chemical safety for the Environmental Defense Fund.
“The EPA now has to make an affirmative finding that a chemical is safe in order for that chemical to go on the market,” he says. Moreover, Denison notes, the legislation allows the EPA to determine the risks posed by a chemical without considering the economic implications of that decision.
The revised law will also restrict companies’ ability to withhold information about chemicals from the public by arguing that the data are a trade secret. Whereas most claims for confidentiality sail through under the current law, Denison says that the amended statute will require firms to provide detailed explanations for why the information they submit to the EPA should remain secret.
This change, along with the EPA's newfound ability to review more chemicals, will give researchers and the public greater access to information about chemicals in the environment.
How did the new bill arise?
Lawmakers in Congress have debated whether — and how — to revise the TSCA since at least 2005. But repeated efforts to overhaul the law failed as politicians debated how to expand the EPA’s authority to regulate chemicals without stifling commercial innovation.
The chemical industry initially opposed efforts to reform the TSCA, but gradually changed its position as state and international chemical regulation expanded. When a Republican proposal to amend the TSCA gained momentum in 2013, Democrats began to join the effort and a compromise slowly emerged.
The House passed its own TSCA reform bill in June, and the Senate approved its bill legislation in December. For months, lawmakers have been hammering out a compromise measure that blends aspects of the House bill with the major components of the Senate legislation.
The result is a deal with broad bipartisan backing in Congress, and endorsements from the White House and industry. Many environmental groups have expressed cautious support for the legislation, but remain concerned about its recommended funding levels, the continuing requirement to consider costs when developing regulations, and provisions that could allow the federal government to override state regulation of chemicals.
What comes next?
After the bill is enacted, the EPA will draw up rules for its new review process, which includes determining the fees that companies will need to pay to submit chemicals for government review. The legislation allows the agency to collect up to US$25 million per year in fees to supplement its budget for chemical regulation, which is intended to cover roughly a quarter of the total programme cost..
The EPA must also figure out which of the 85,000-odd chemicals in its inventory are still in use. The agency will survey companies that make and use chemicals to revise its list. Once that’s done, agency scientists can go through the list and prioritize those chemicals that merit a safety review.
http://www.nature.com/news/why-the-historic-deal-to-expand-us-chemical-regulation-matters-1.19973

Return to headline | Return to top
Restricting State Action on Dangerous Chemicals Unfair Trade-off for Better Safety Rules

May 25, 2016 | Bangor Daily News

By Editorial Board

Congress is nearing completion of a rewrite of the nation’s chemical regulations. The long overdue update takes important steps forward in giving the Environmental Protection Agency needed authority to regulate the tens of thousands of chemicals used in household products and manufacturing. But the legislation has a major flaw: It would pre-empt future state regulations.
The most important aspect of the new law is that it focuses on protecting the health of Americans. As simple as this sounds, the Toxic Substances Control Act, which went into effect in 1976, requires the EPA to consider the costs to businesses of changing the use of chemicals and to impose the “least burdensome” option when regulating a chemical. As a result, the EPA has been slow to regulate chemicals with known health dangers, such as asbestos.
This is remedied by giving the EPA the authority to act if it determines that a chemical or a specific use of a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. This risk assessment can also be narrowly focused on vulnerable groups such as children or the elderly. If such risk is found, the EPA can initiate rulemaking to ban or limit the use of such chemicals.
The rewritten act, which is expected to face votes in the Senate later this week after passing in the House on Tuesday, requires the EPA to evaluate the safety of chemicals and sets deadlines for this work. Within three years, the agency must be reviewing the safety of 20 chemicals. Each review can take up to seven years. Under the proposed Toxic Substances Control Act rewrite, the EPA will have the authority to obtain testing and other data from chemical manufacturers to assess potential risks.
This may not sound like much, but in the last 40 years, the EPA has reviewed a tiny fraction of the more than 80,000 chemicals used in the country, and banned or restricted use of only five.
These are significant improvements, but preempting state action is problematic. Under this provision, states cannot enact new rules regarding any of the 20 chemicals that the EPA is reviewing. States can pass laws banning or limiting the use of chemicals that are not under EPA review and can require disclosure of the chemicals used in products sold in the state. Such a sweeping preemption of state regulation is unprecedented, and it may delay important rule changes that can save lives.
In the absence of federal action to protect people from chemicals such as BPA and fire retardants, lawmakers in Maine and other states have taken action to restrict these chemicals. That authority should not be taken away.
Lawmakers in Maine passed the Kid Safe Product Act in 2008. Under the act, chemicals of concern are identified and studied. BPA, which is used in can linings and to harden plastic, like that used to make sippy cups and refillable water bottles, was the first chemical investigated under the act. The use of BPA in infant formula and baby and toddler food packaging was banned by the Board of Environmental Protection starting in 2014.
Fire retardants also are of concern in many states. In addition to health risks to homeowners and their children, chemical flame retardants have been cited as a likely contributor to rising cancer rates among firefighters and paramedics. A bill to prohibit the sale of furniture containing fire retardant chemicals died in the Maine Legislature this year. The updated federal chemical law could preclude Maine lawmakers from acting on such legislation in the future.
On balance, the significant updates to the chemical act are a needed improvement over existing law and worthy of support in the Senate. But it is unfortunate that these improvements come at the expense of states no longer being empowered to act when the federal government fails to do so.
https://bangordailynews.com/2016/05/25/opinion/restricting-state-action-on-dangerous-chemicals-unfair-trade-off-for-better-safety-rules/

Return to headline | Return to top
Shimkus Sponsors Toxic Substances Management Overhaul

May 25, 2016 | The X Radio

By Greg Sapp

Legislation introduced by Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-15) to update the way the United States assesses and manages the risks posed by chemicals and the products that contain them passed the House Tuesday.
H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, is the culmination of a multi-year, multi-Congress effort to enact the first consequential update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 40 years. The bipartisan legislation is expected to pass the Senate this week and the White House has said President Obama will sign it into law.
“As a chemical distributor and manufacturer with ties to southern Illinois, we are all too aware that the current TSCA law on the books is outdated and broken,” said Patrick Hawkins, CEO of Hawkins, Inc., which has facilities in Centralia. “We’re glad lawmakers worked in bipartisan fashion to pass a bill that will give Hawkins and the broader chemical industry much-needed regulatory certainty while strengthening government oversight and providing consumers with additional confidence in the safety of chemicals. We look forward to President Obama quickly signing this long-overdue reform into law.”
Cabot Corporation and LyondellBasell Industries, both of which have facilities in Tuscola, also praised the legislation.
Shimkus said modernizing TSCA is necessary to improve protections for public health and the environment, to provide the public greater confidence in the safety of U.S. chemicals, and to promote further innovation and economic growth.
Specifically, the legislation:
--Provides the EPA with more direct tools to obtain testing information on chemical substances – an improvement over the lengthy process they now face.
--Restructures the way existing chemicals are evaluated and regulated – allowing a purely scientific evaluation to guide those decisions.
--Clarifies the treatment of trade secrets submitted to EPA and ensures the Agency uses only high quality science in their decision making.
--Updates the collection of fees needed to support EPA's implementation of TSCA, and
--Organizes the Federal-State regulatory relationship in a way that promotes interstate and global commerce, while recognizing the efforts already taken by several states.
http://www.thexradio.com/news/78-local-news/22746-shimkus-sponsors-toxic-substances-management-overhaul

Return to headline | Return to top
Welch on His Support for Bill Overhauling EPA's Toxic Chemical Regulation

May 25, 2016 | Vermont Public Radio

By Bob Kinzel

The U.S. House has given its strong bi-partisan support to legislation that overhauls a 40-year-old law that regulates toxic chemicals. The proposal will bring more than 64,000 chemicals under the review of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Congressman Peter Welch voted for the bill because he says the EPA's current system of reviewing dangerous chemicals is "outdated" and poses a health and safety risk for many people.
Back in 1976, Congress passed what is known as the Toxic Substances Control Act. During the past 40 years, the EPA has banned or restricted the use of five of the roughly 85,000 chemicals that are currently in use.
Under the old law, the EPA was not allowed to weigh health and safety concerns in approving a chemical. Instead, it could focus only on the economic cost-benefit analysis of the product.
The new bill calls on the EPA to conduct a thorough health review of the tens of thousands of chemicals that are still in use, and many of these chemicals can be found in household products.
Congressman Peter Welch says the legislation is a big improvement over the current law.
"When it comes to regulating chemicals, the EPA has almost no authority, and it's like the Wild West – very dangerous for health and safety,” Welch says. “The EPA cannot even regulate asbestos under current law. So this legislation is long overdue and it does some very significant positive things."
Welch notes that it will take the EPA some time to work through the backlog of chemicals, but he says all new chemicals will have to pass the health test before they're released in the marketplace.
“It will be on the basis of, 'Is this a health threat or not,’ as opposed to a cost-benefit analysis. And when it comes to protecting public health, health has to be the factor,” Welch says. “I mean, if something is going to cause health concerns, health problems, that shouldn't be out on the marketplace."
Paul Burns, the executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, says shifting to a health analysis of these chemicals is a positive change.
“Now, this will be still not an easy standard to prove, of course, and it shouldn't be,” Burns says. “But it is a standard that makes sense if the chemical is too dangerous to be included in products, and it shouldn't be used in commerce, it shouldn't be put into products, it shouldn't be purchased by unsuspecting consumers."
The legislation also includes a provision that prohibits individual states from enacting laws that impose tougher health standards than the EPA. Burns doesn't like this preemption approach.
"The downside, and it is a serious one, is that it does discourage states, states like Vermont, from moving forward to regulate potentially dangerous chemicals in their own states,” Burns says. “And those laws, those protections have been very important for the general public."
Welch says he also has concerns about the preemption provision, but he says states will have up to a year to enact tougher regulations from the time that the EPA formally announces that it's started it own review process of a chemical. Welch says he's been assured by the EPA that Vermont could retain its more stringent regulation of PFOA, a chemical that has contaminated groundwater in Bennington County.
“As long as Vermont is vigilant and acts in a prompt way, and I'm confident we will … then Vermont will be able to take what action the governor and the General Assembly believe is essential to protect health and safety of Vermonters,” Welch says.
The measure now goes to the Senate for its consideration. Backers of the bill are confident that it will win strong support in the Senate and then will be signed into law by President Obama.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/welch-his-support-bill-overhauling-epas-toxic-chemical-regulation#stream/0

Return to headline | Return to top
US Hazcom Ccompliance Challenges Ahead, Survey Finds

May 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Sylvia Palmer

Half of affected companies in the US have yet to meet the Osha hazard communication Standard (Hazcom) compliance requirements, according to a survey conducted by software firm Actio. The deadline for compliance is 1 June.
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) revised Hazcom in 2012 to align with the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals. The agency outlined specific compliance milestones and deadlines for industry.
To gauge the current level of preparedness, Actio – which supplies SDS management and product compliance software – conducted a survey. From the 108 companies providing full responses, there is a considerable challenge facing industry, with the deadline fast approaching.
Three quarters of responders from "compliant" companies said the process had taken more than a year. And, despite obvious progress, many companies may not have started soon enough. One of the biggest problems cited is obtaining up-to-date compliant safety data sheets from suppliers.
The majority of responders from "non-compliant" companies expected their companies to take at least 120 days or more, from now, to achieve full compliance. This suggests they will miss the 1 June deadline.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47554/us-hazcom-compliance-challenges-ahead-survey-finds

Return to headline | Return to top
Making Strides on Companies’ Chemical Footprints

May 24, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Boma Brown-West

As we’ve written here before, public commitment is one of the essential pillars of leadership on safer chemicals. When a company leads on public commitment, that means communicating not just its initial goal-setting, but its full safer chemicals journey, publicly and honestly.
That’s no small task. The rise of shareholder resolutions across a wide range of sectors shows that investors and purchaser communities are becoming increasingly interested in how companies manage chemicals and mitigate risk. With the release of its inaugural report, one organization is throwing a spotlight on companies that are not just making, but following through on, those commitments.
Ingredients for measuring your (chemical) footprint
The Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) recognizes companies that have effectively demonstrated public commitment to improved chemicals management. A joint effort launched in June 2015 by Clean Production Action, Pure Strategies and the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, the CFP was created as a simple way for investors and purchasers to assess these critical aspects of corporate value.
The CFP’s evaluation system was designed to be flexible and can be used for any business sector, from personal care products to toys. Using a twenty question survey, the CFP assesses companies’ performance in four areas:Chemicals management strategy (i.e. corporate chemicals policies),Chemical inventory (i.e. knowing the chemicals used in products, manufacturing processes and supply chains),Chemical footprint measurement (i.e. knowing the mass of chemicals of high concern in a company’s products and packaging, processes, and supply chain and tracking progress toward safer alternatives), andPublic disclosure and verification.
A company’s performance is scored on a 100-point scale, with a bonus for verification – respondents receive up to 4 points for independent validation of reported data.
Breaking down CFP’s findings
Last week, the CFP released its inaugural report, with 24 companies from seven sectors participating. Though individual company scores are presented without identification, CFP’s initial report reveals many interesting themes:
·         Of the four key performance areas, participating companies scored highest on chemical inventory, followed by footprint measurement, management strategy, and lastly, disclosure & verification.
·         Company scores ranged from 12 to 89. The CFP revealed that companies receiving high scores have chemicals policies and integrate them into their business strategies, showing the importance of senior management engagement.
·         90% of participating companies have corporate chemicals policies focused on removing chemicals of concern; however, only two-thirds of those companies have policies that explicitly address the use of safer alternatives.
·         Many companies do not publicly disclose information on their chemicals policies and management systems, even when they have active systems in place.

A potent new tool for measuring chemicals management
The CFP has the potential to become a useful barometer of progress towards safer chemicals in the same way that CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have for tracking companies’ progress on other aspects of environmental sustainability, like greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. The CFP has already amassed signatories representing $2.3 trillion in asset management and $70 billion in purchasing power.
Participating in The Chemical Footprint Project is one way a company can share progress on chemical management and gain recognition along its path to leadership from employees, suppliers, consumers and/or health advocates. EDF is pleased to see the CFP make visible in a meaningful way – one that can be shared with investors – the importance of corporate chemical management as an indicator of a company’s long-term value.
http://business.edf.org/blog/2016/05/24/making-strides-on-companies-chemical-footprints/

Return to headline | Return to top
Post-Menopausal Women 'More Sensitive to PBDEs'

May 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch

Post-menopausal women appear to be particularly sensitive to thyroid effects, induced by exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, according to a US study.
Thyroid disorders affect more women than men, and rates of thyroid cancer are increasing globally. Although PBDEs have been phased out in several regions, exposure is expected to continue for several decades because of the reservoir of the chemicals existing in consumer products.
Used as additives rather than being covalently bound to a polymer matrix, the chemicals can migrate from source products into the indoor and outdoor environment.
Epidemiological evidence suggests that some PBDEs are endocrine disruptors, interfering with thyroid hormone action, reproduction and neurodevelopment.
Led by Joseph Allen, a team from Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health worked with Thomas Zoeller from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, to analyse data on women in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Nhanes).
The data showed a positive association between blood levels of PBDEs and thyroid disease in US women. “Perhaps the most striking and unique finding in the study is that the odds of having a current thyroid problem, associated with PBDEs, are so much higher in post-menopausal women,” write the researchers.
They suggest that the effect could relate to the change in hormone concentrations in these women, and the affinity of PBDEs for binding sites for both oestrogen and thyroid hormones.
For example, hydroxylated PBDEs (OH-PBDEs) can bind to an enzyme called oestrogen sulfotransferase, which could interfere with changing oestrogen levels during the menopause.
The OH-PBDEs may also compete for binding sites needed to remove circulating oestrogen. The higher than expected oestrogen levels could in turn increase thyroxine binding globulin (TBG) in the blood, they suggest.
PBDEs also show a strong affinity for TBG and a serum binding protein called transthyretin and, therefore, have a direct impact on circulating thyroid hormone levels. “All of this suggests the disruption of thyroid signalling by PBDEs that may be enhanced by the altered oestrogen levels during menopause,” write the authors in Environmental Health.
"To our bodies, these flame retardant chemicals look and function exactly like endogenous hormones our bodies produce. Should we be surprised that we see downstream health effects for women with higher body burdens of these chemicals? I think no. This is all too predictable and preventable," said Professor Allen.
The shape of the dose-response curve is non-linear and appears to be non-monotonic, report the scientists.
A non-monotonic dose-response curve would also help to explain an apparent inconsistency between studies examining the relationship between PBDEs and thyroid hormones, they suggest.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47636/post-menopausal-women-more-sensitive-to-pbdes

Return to headline | Return to top
Gauging the Health Risk of Lead in Lipstick

May 25, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Deirdre Lockwood

Mouse study suggests that average use of lip products may not pose major health risks from lead exposure, but heavy users could exceed limits.
Lead lurks in some lipsticks and lip glosses, but little is known about whether these products pose a health threat when wearers inadvertently swallow some of the product. A new study in mice by Hong-Bo Li and Lena Q. Ma of Nanjing University and their colleagues suggests that for the average lipstick user, even lip products with relatively high levels of lead may pose low risk (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6b01425).
The researchers tested 75 lipsticks and 18 lip glosses available in China and found lead concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 10,185 mg/kg, with an average concentration of 497 mg/kg. In comparison, previous studies have found that lipsticks in the U.S. market contain only 1 mg/kg lead on average. Further tests in mice of 15 of the products with relatively high lead concentrations revealed that some 23 to 95% of lead was absorbed in the bloodstream after ingestion. The researchers predict that an average daily use of 2.4 applications per day would lead to a daily lead intake below the maximum limit recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. However, for heavy use, more than 8 applications per day, the estimated lead intake exceeds this limit. And even with average lipstick use, the researchers point out, women may accumulate lead over time that could pose risks to a developing fetus during pregnancy.
Cheaper lip products, costing under $5, tended to have higher lead concentrations. “For those heavy users of lipsticks, it may be wise to invest in quality lip products,” says Ma.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/05/Gauging-health-risk-lead-lipstick.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

W.Va. AG Morrisey Says Rule Driving Changes in Energy Market Despite Stay

May 25, 2016 | E&E TV

Following last week's surprise move by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to postpone Clean Power Plan arguments to September, and before the full panel, parties involved in the case have spent the week assessing shifts in their strategies for arguments. During today's OnPoint, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) discusses how he plans to proceed during this fall's arguments. He also explains why he believes the U.S. coal industry could see a comeback if the Clean Power Plan is defeated in court, despite the market trending away from coal.
Monica Trauzzi: Attorney General Morrisey, thank you for your time.
Patrick Morrisey: Hey, it's great to be with you.
Monica Trauzzi: So following last week's surprising decision from the D.C. Circuit to move Clean Power Plan oral arguments to September before the full panel. How are you changing your strategy heading into those arguments? Any changes to what you're actually going to say?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, I think, first of all, we're optimistic because, as a result of the decision to hold this before the entire panel, I think that it sends a message that this really is an unprecedented action. We saw that the Supreme Court issued the unprecedented stay and that having the argument before the entire panel, I think means that everyone is paying close attention to it. We're still going to make the same legal arguments that we've been making and that ultimately prove successful before the U.S. Supreme Court. So I don't know that there's a fundamental shift in terms of strategy, but we are looking forward to getting into court in September.
Monica Trauzzi: But now it'll be before five Democrats, three of whom are Obama appointees. How will you look to target those judges and get them on your side?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we think that whoever hears this, we're hopeful will be responsive to our legal arguments that what's happening here is actually unprecedented, literally in our nation's history, and the EPA is going so far outside of its authority that, regardless of the political party that you may have come from, that people should still take our position.
Monica Trauzzi: So you called this week for EPA to stop federal spending on the power plan. There are a large number of states who are seeking technical assistance from the agency in planning for their compliance, which they're still doing despite the stay. Why shouldn't the agency be providing that assistance to the states? The states are moving on this path voluntarily.
Patrick Morrisey: So stay means stay. It means stop work. It doesn't mean continue and try to advance a regulation that ultimately will be deemed unlawful in the courts. So we don't think it's an efficient use of taxpayer resources. I would also add that whenever the court rules, if we don't succeed, they're going to have to reset all the timelines anyway, so there's really no need to take action right now. I think this is just a backdoor way to try to continue to advance the Clean Power Plan in contravention of the stay.
Monica Trauzzi: But then will those states who have acted now be ahead of the game, ahead of states who have halted action?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, I think, look, every state has to make their own decision, but I would say this. When the Supreme Court issued the stay, that had clear meaning, and that just doesn't mean that some of the states should stop working or that EPA should help some states at the expense of others. It's really directed at the EPA. They should stop work, they should put their pencils down.
Monica Trauzzi: A recent report by NERC shows the country's power generation mix is shifting more towards renewables, even without the Clean Power Plan in place, and in April, of course, as you know, Peabody Energy filed for bankruptcy. The market is driving away from coal and towards renewables very naturally, in a clear way. Does the Clean Power Plan mesh then with what the market dynamics are calling for?
Patrick Morrisey: You know, I think there's always -- there are always a number of factors as to why a particular state uses a particular form of energy. What we saw, though, with the CPP is that they started to really drive a lot of the changes in the marketplace. Yes, the marketplace was moving in a particular direction, but the regulatory directives that were coming down from the Obama administration really hastened a lot of the change, so I'm hopeful that as a result of obtaining a stay and ultimately defeating the power plan in court, that coal might have a little bit of a comeback. And I'm not predicting that it's going to return back to its previous lofty heights, but that there's still an opportunity, an important role for coal in our energy system.
Monica Trauzzi: In terms of protecting coal jobs in West Virginia, though, what would a court overturning the power plan achieve if utilities are already shifting away from coal? I mean, what's the substantive element there?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, we're very hopeful that if we do prevail and we win at the Supreme Court, that we can send a message that there still is an important role for coal in our nation's energy future. And once again, may not be at the same level as we saw in the past, even if we could reverse some of the regulatory damage that has occurred over the last few years, that could mean many thousands of jobs to hardworking West Virginians and their families.
Monica Trauzzi: What are your thoughts on the plan, the proposal that Hillary Clinton has, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has for protecting workers in West Virginia, for example, in these coal-heavy regions that are losing jobs?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, I think most people in West Virginia want to make sure that they still have access to a job. They're not looking for a handout, and while I think that when you hear about moneys coming to the state to address some of the damage, some people pay attention to that. I certainly will, but at the end of the day, jobs are being lost by the thousands in West Virginia, and people are looking to, if possible, get back to mining coal or, in the future, transition to some other good economic opportunities. I think that Hillary Clinton's promises fall flat on the citizens of West Virginia because I think they know that her election means fewer coal jobs in our state.
Monica Trauzzi: The Clean Power Plan, though, will create tens of thousands of new jobs, correct?
Patrick Morrisey: Well, I would say that we've been at the receiving end from a bad perspective. West Virginia has lost many thousands of jobs, and while there are many factors that can be attributed to that job loss, one clearly has been the regulations that have been coming in and just beating West Virginia up. So we haven't seen the upside of the Clean Power Plan. We've seen just about all downside.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Thank you so much for your time.
Patrick Morrisey: Thank you very much.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you.
Patrick Morrisey: Thanks.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2136/transcript

Return to headline | Return to top
States Say EPA Wrong on Mercury Rule

May 25, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

By Robin Bravender

A coalition of states is telling the Supreme Court that U.S. EPA is making flawed legal arguments about its rule to slash power plants' mercury emissions.
In the most recent chapter of a long-running legal dispute over EPA's rule, 27 states led by Michigan are asking the justices to hear their arguments against the regulation that the Supreme Court deemed illegal in 2015. The states filed their latest brief with the justices Monday.
EPA has since tweaked its regulation in light of the high court's ruling, but the states argue that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit didn't have the authority to leave an unlawful rule in place in the meantime.
Earlier this month, EPA pressed the justices to reject the states' appeal. EPA argued that the states weren't injured and therefore didn't have legal "standing" to appeal. The agency also said that the challenge was too late because it had already updated the regulation and that the lower court had the discretion to keep the rule in place (Greenwire, May 9).
EPA's arguments have two things in common, the states told the court this week. "First, each is wrong," they said. "Second, the arguments do not deny that EPA lacked authority to regulate power plants before April 2016, when it finally made a finding that included some consideration of costs."
The states said they have standing because they suffer from "direct economic injury" as a result of the rule. And the case, they told the justices, represents an "ideal vehicle for addressing whether a reviewing court may leave a rule in place when the agency lacked authority to promulgate it in the first place."
The justices are slated to consider whether to take the case during their June 9 conference, according to the court's website. They could announce soon after that whether they'll take on the appeal. The votes of four justices are required to take a case.
Click here to read the states' reply brief.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/25/stories/1060037862

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Courts Energy Industry

May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry and Timothy Cama

Donald Trump is seeking to make inroads with the fossil fuel industry as he moves into the general election.
The businessman and presumptive Republican presidential nominee has not made energy a focal point of his campaign, but the sector has historically been a strong GOP ally. Trump is expected to use a Thursday speech before a North Dakota petroleum convention to provide more detail about his platform.
So far, Trump has staked out only a handful of energy positions. He’s skeptical of climate change, wants to revive the coal industry and plans to review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules he doesn’t like enacted under President Obama. But he’s also been inconsistent at times.
November’s elections will have massive ramifications for energy policy. Democratic front-runnerHillary Clinton has promised to continue Obama’s agenda if elected this fall, and her opponent,Bernie Sanders, has said he would go even further in transitioning away from fossil fuel energy.
“Obviously the presidential election may end up playing a very important role in what happens with the [EPA’s climate rule for power plants],” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said at a National Press Club event this week.
“I am optimistic with the Republican nominee, there might be an opportunity to withdraw these regulations, and that could give coal the little bit of the boost it really needs.”
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who is advising Trump on energy policy, said the real estate mogul could reap dividends in battleground states if he releases his energy platform now. Pennsylvania has a growing fracking industry, for example, and there is coal mining in Ohio.
“I’d say he’s got an opportunity to put that marker down in the energy producing states and rally them, but I think that’s the easy part,” Cramer said. “The other opportunity he has, with a true all-of-the-above, level-the-playing-field, pick-no-winners-and-losers ... [strategy is to] gain support beyond the energy-producing states.”
One prominent coal industry executive is already backing Trump: Bob Murray, the head of Murray Energy Corp. and a vocal critic of Obama. Murray met with the White House contender last week and concluded “he’s got his head on right,” according to SNL Financial.
Trump also has the support of energy moguls T. Boone Pickens and Harold Hamm.
Others in the energy industry are waiting to hear more from Trump.
“We’re all waiting to see what he has to say on Thursday,” said Ron Ness, the president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, which is hosting Trump on Thursday. “Frankly we haven’t seen a lot of depth or a lot of discussion. ... We’re thinking this is a great place to talk energy.”
Like many in the GOP, Trump has dismissed the science behind climate change, equating changes in the atmosphere to weather. He told talk show host Hugh Hewitt in September, “I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems,” and he’s called global warming a Chinese conspiracy.
Even so, Trump has raised concerns about climate change in his business career. In a May application to build a seawall at a golf resort in Ireland, Trump officials said “global warming and its effects” necessitated it, as first reported by Politico.
The New York tycoon has lambasted Obama’s work on climate change, including the Paris climate deal. The agreement, which sets carbon reduction targets for countries, is unfair to the United States and should be renegotiated, Trump told Reuters this month.
He has promised to revive the American coal industry, which has shed jobs and production as demand for the product has declined, and vowed to put miners back to work.
“They’re going to start to work again, believe me. They’re going to be proud again to be miners,” Trump said in West Virginia earlier this month.
Trump, though, has at times spoken favorably of green energy. During the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses last fall, he said the government should continue setting ethanol blending requirements for gasoline refiners and subsidizing wind energy.
But taken as a whole, where Trump has discussed energy policy, he’s mostly sided with fossil fuel interests. In a March questionnaire with the American Energy Alliance (AEA), Trump said he would scrutinize Obama-era EPA rules on clean water and power plant carbon emissions, saying, “Under my administration, all EPA rules will be reviewed.”
The League of Conservation Voters, which has endorsed Clinton, said Trump’s positions won’t fly with voters.
“Hopefully there’s more clarity coming soon, but with what little we have heard, Trump’s pro-drilling, anti-EPA and anti-clean air and water protections are right in line with GOP leadership,” said Seth Stein, a spokesman for the group.
Overall, energy industry groups appear receptive to supporting Trump’s candidacy.
“In other areas there are probably folks [who] don’t have the same level of comfort I’m starting to get with respect to his position on these issues,” AEA President Tom Pyle said. “It will serve him well in the general election, because there is perhaps no other issue where there is a clear divide — an increasingly large divide — between the parties than energy and environmental issues.”
Mike McKenna, a Republican strategist and lobbyist for energy companies, said Trump wouldn’t have to do much to woo fossil fuel interests.
“Trump doesn’t have to court them. Hillary’s in the business of driving them away,” McKenna said. “It’s simply a matter of holding your arms open and letting apples fall into your basket.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281148-trump-courts-energy-industry

Return to headline | Return to top
This Texas Fight Shows Just How Conflicted We Still are About ‘Clean Coal’

May 25, 2016 | Washington Post

By Chelsea Harvey

On the path to a low-carbon economy, most experts agree that a variety of strategies will be needed, from the dramatic expansion of wind and solar power to electrification or better biofuels for cars and planes. Some technologies remain more controversial than others, however. Carbon capture and storage — the idea of trapping carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and other industrial sources before they are released into the atmosphere and then storing them, usually underground — is one such widely debated approach.
Some scientists have argued that carbon capture and storage, or CCS, can play a critical role in mitigating the risk of climate change — the International Energy Agency, for instance, has made this argument in multiple reports. On the other hand, other experts have suggested that the practice may be too costly and could even hurt climate efforts in the long run by providing an incentive to continue burning fossil fuels instead of focusing on renewables.
Now, a kerfuffle over federal funding of a Texas CCS plant, known as the Texas Clean Energy Project, has helped the debate to rear its head in the United States again. With environmental groups on both sides of the controversy, it forcefully raises the question of whether CCS will ever become an accepted part of the United States — or even global — energy landscape, and what it would take to get there.
Carbon capture and storage in the U.S.
The Energy Department first signed on to help fund the Texas Clean Energy Project in the spring of 2010 as part of its Clean Coal Power Initiative, when it awarded a cooperative agreement to Summit Texas Clean Energy LLC to construct the facility. The plan was to build a first-of-its-kind commercial “clean coal” power plant, which would capture 90 percent of its own carbon dioxide emissions and use them for enhanced oil recovery — a process that involves injecting carbon dioxide back into depleted oil reservoirs to help push more oil out of the ground.
Commercial carbon capture and storage projects are not unheard of around the world, but they’re not exactly common, either. According to the Global CCS Institute, 22 large-scale CCS projects are in operation or under construction around the world, including several in the United States as well as in Canada, Europe, South Korea, China, Australia and the United Arab Emirates.
These facilities are not limited to the power sector. CCS technology can be used to capture emissions from all kinds of industrial sources, said Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer and carbon capture expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You can do CCS on basically any hydrocarbon-burning power plant, which can include coal, natural gas and biomass,” he said. “You can also do CCS on other stationary sources — the cement industry has been one target, oil and gas processing and refining, iron and steel are also potential targets for CCS.”
Carbon capture and storage also does not have to involve enhanced oil recovery. As an alternative, captured carbon dioxide can simply be sequestered in geologic formations in the ground and left alone.
Although the technology can be implemented in a variety of ways, its use in energy production remains a priority for the Energy Department, given that the burning of fossil fuels still remains dominant on the American energy landscape. Coal, for instance, still accounts for about a third of the total share of U.S. electricity generation. The goal of the Clean Coal Power Initiative was to cut down on the environmental impact of coal-burning while acknowledging that coal is “likely to remain one of the nation’s lowest cost electric power sources for the foreseeable future,” according to the initiative’s website.
The Texas Clean Energy Project is one of six major demonstrations selected by the Energy Department for investment under the Clean Coal Power Initiative, all of which involved carbon capture technology. None of these has made it to operation, and the agency has withdrawn funding from or suspended four of them, with Texas making the fifth.
The downfall of the Texas Clean Energy Project
Up to now, the Energy Department has allocated $116 million to the project, and an additional $240 million has been pledged. But after a series of construction delays and missed deadlines — and a highly unfavorable report from the Energy Department’s inspector general’s office — the agency has moved to suspend funding for the project. (DOE set a May 13 deadline for the project to secure debt and equity to cover its building costs before the agency will consider any more funding — a deadline it has just extended by seven weeks.)
There has been outspoken responses on both sides of the issue. Part of the controversy revolves around whether the Energy Department was justified in suspending its funding of the project. Summit Texas Clean Energy and other supporters of the project, including members of the Texas congressional delegation, have argued that the project did not miss some of the milestones the agency claimed it failed to achieve and have pointed out that securing debt and equity before the agency invests in continued development of the project probably is an impossible task.
Other groups, such as Green Scissors — a coalition that campaigns against projects it considers environmentally harmful or wasteful — have argued that the delays have resulted in a waste of taxpayer money, and that the project is better curtailed before more money is needlessly spent.
But the issue also has raised broader questions about the role of carbon capture and storage technology in the country’s changing energy landscape. And even among environmental groups that prioritize climate action, the topic is a source of disagreement.
Some greens, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Clean Air Task Force and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, have written to the Energy Department in support of continued funding for the Texas project.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, they wrote, “We share your view that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an important climate change abatement technology to reduce CO2 emissions from both the industrial and power sectors. One CCS project, Summit’s proposed Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP), is especially important, and we would like it to succeed.”
On the other hand, other groups oppose the project at least partly on environmental grounds. Friends of the Earth — a member of the Green Scissors coalition — is one of them.
“We have our own organizational stances against carbon capture and sequestration that we’ve held for years as Friends of the Earth — that this is a false solution, that it is not able to be brought online quickly enough, that it essentially replicates a lot of the injustices of our carbon economy,” said Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth’s climate and energy campaigner.
The organization thinks carbon capture and storage technology does nothing to address the environmental and health concerns of communities that are affected by fossil fuel extraction activities, Ross said. But he also questions the climate friendliness of the practice, particularly when it’s used for enhanced oil recovery (which, at a time when there is no price on carbon, makes the entire process more economical).
“If you are using the emission from burning one fossil fuel to enable the extraction of another, you are not actually doing something to help the climate,” he said. And he added that devoting resources to carbon capture research could distract from technologies that are already expanding and proven effective at reducing carbon emissions in the power sector.
“We need to give clean renewables the support that they deserve,” he said. “We have the technology and we have the policy solutions ready now to actually get past combustible energy sources. We do not need moonshot technologies.”
However, other experts think that national and international climate goals are unlikely to be met without applying a variety of solutions — carbon capture among them.
“I do not think renewables can get us anywhere near to the [carbon] cuts we need for stabilization, period,” said Herzog, the MIT researcher. Because of problems with intermittency — solar power can’t be produced when the sun isn’t shining, for instance, and the same goes for wind power when the wind isn’t blowing — renewable energy will remain limited until energy storage technology becomes more advanced and cost-effective, he said.
This means that fossil fuels will remain a necessary part of the energy mix until that point. If we want to lower the power sector’s carbon footprint in the meantime, carbon capture is a necessary step, he said.
This is also largely the stance taken by the Energy Department. When looking at the recent Paris climate agreement, “if you assume that every single country did everything they need to do under the plan they put forth, it’s still not enough to get us to our long-term [climate] goals,” said Christopher Smith, the Energy Department’s assistant secretary for fossil energy. “Which, for us, is an observation that this is really a mandate and a necessity for innovation. We’ve got to continue to go forward and invest in those next-generation technologies that are going to deliver the results we need to create energy in what we see as being a carbon-constrained world.”
The future of CCS
According to Herzog, a major barrier to the expansion of CCS in the United States comes from a lack of policy support, which translates to a lack of a market for the technology. He pointed out that tight emissions regulations on coal-fired electricity generation in Canada aided in the commercial success of the Boundary Dam carbon capture project, a clean-coal project that came online in 2014.
“That was sort of a technology-forcing policy,” he said. But in the United States, particularly with the Clean Power Plan remaining in legal limbo, those types of stringent policies curtailing emissions don’t yet exist.
And Smith noted that this has been a major hurdle for the CCS and clean coal demonstrations the Energy Department has been involved with.
“In order to move the technology forward, and in order to reduce costs, we actually have to get these big demonstrations built,” he said. “But we’re doing these in an environment where it’s essentially free by law to emit as much carbon pollution into the environment as you want to. And so we’re trying to move forward on projects that capture the carbon dioxide in an environment where companies aren’t required to do so — and that introduces some commercial complexities.”
This could continue to present a challenge for the future advancement of CCS technology, which still has improvements to be made. Finding ways to reduce costs is obviously a major priority, Smith said. But in the future, he also hopes to see new breakthroughs in the way carbon sources are actually combusted that would make it easier to capture pure streams of carbon dioxide.
Additionally, the debate among climate activists about whether the technology is worth our investment in the first place — and whether it could even be detrimental to other climate efforts, such as the expansion of renewables — probably won’t disappear anytime soon. But those in favor of CCS remain optimistic.
“It’s an exciting time to be working on these technologies,” Smith said. “There are big big challenges, but we certainly do see that the innovations that are coming out of this program in terms of reducing emissions out of fossil fuel sources are going to be a critical component in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/25/this-texas-fight-shows-just-how-conflicted-we-still-are-about-clean-coal/

Return to headline | Return to top
Bakken Still Premium Shale Play, But Global, Geographic Impacts Remain

May 25, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

The low-price correction period in the oil/natural gas sector may have helped the Bakken transition from a high-priced shale play to one of lower prices and greater value, according to Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC).
"In the downturn in prices, operators have to get more efficient, find more ways to reduce cost and boost efficiency, and I think we have done that and made the Bakken a $65/bbl, rather than a $85/bbl. shale play, which for the longer term is good to help withstand price cycles," Ness told NGI's Shale Daily on Monday.
Even though North Dakota sweet crude is some of the most geographically and geopolitically remote major shale supplies nationally and globally, the price downtown has shown it is not immune to the global energy markets, and those markets can change with impacts for everyone, Ness said during an interview following a North Dakota Industrial Commission meeting in which an array of state-funded oil/gas research projects and administrative rules were reviewed.
"The Bakken is still in the top one or two world class energy resources in the asset portfolios of all these producers," Ness said. "It still has an economic price, and price is what determines the level of investment.."
In these extreme price-sensitive times, Ness contends the Obama administration nuclear deal with Iran that pushed that nation's crude supplies back into the world market to a bigger extent had a significant negative impact on Bakken producers. "I think the Iran deal had a significant impact the first part of this year," he said. "The concerns and potential concerns to markets sometimes are of more dramatic than the actual event itself, and that was probably the case here because that oil probably would have found a way to market anyway," he said.
"The ramifications and build up to it led to a lot of false beliefs in terms of what the inventories would be. Certainly that deal did not help us one bit at a time when we did not need it one bit."
North Dakota's chief oil/gas regulator, Lynn Helms, during a separate interview echoed some of Ness' comments, noting that state officials responding in early 2015 to the oil price crash did not consider the additional impact from Iran.
"We've learned you have to plan for the mid- and long-term, but you also have to protect yourself for the near-term collapses in commodity markets," said Helms, director of the state Department of Mineral Resources, who ascribes the "second-leg" or lengthening of the current price downturn to the Iranian deal.
In late 2014, when North Dakota's legislature was tempering state budget forecasts for the collapsing oil prices "all of the experts said [the Iran deal] was of very low probability, and no one expected the Iran deal to happen," Helms said. 'But it did, and we got the second leg of this thing, and it was deeper and much worse even than OPEC expected."
Ness sees all of this year as a "tough one" for Bakken producers because prices will fluctuate and mostly below what is needed for more economic activity, so he sees a period of "continuing hunkering down." He sees the ramp up coming in $5/bbl increases in prices with the first $5 increase going into operators' balance sheets; the next $5 for bringing idle wells back online, and waiting until mid-2017 to "get back out to the investors on Wall Street."
While promoting the high value of Bakken supplies as a world resource, Ness acknowledges that North Dakota's relative remoteness hurts in maintaining an adequate oilfield workforce in these current down times. "Our work force is substantially different than it is in the Eagle Ford, for example. In the Eagle Ford you're over some old gas fields, and you have immediate access to markets," he said.
"The nature of the build out of the infrastructure changes dramatically once you know you have a good market for your product, and here [in North Dakota] that has always been a big challenge."
In response over the past decade, Ness said the NDPC has kept up a steady stream of programs to help producers with attracting a talented, albeit transitory, workforce, and the state and industry have invested billions of dollars in new highways and natural gas pipeline and processing infrastructure, respectively.
"We've spent $13 billion on natural gas infrastructure since 2007, and we still have more to go, but that is a staggering number."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106537-bakken-still-premium-shale-play-but-global-geographic-impacts-remain

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Coherent Cyber Response Plans Elude State Agencies

May 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

State governments aren't equipped to handle a major cyber emergency such as a coordinated attack on electric utilities or water treatment plants, a panel of homeland security authorities told lawmakers yesterday.
Meanwhile, the few state officials testing ways to respond to the threat say they could use help getting the word out.
Mark Ghilarducci, director of emergency services under California's Gov. Jerry Brown (D), told members of the House Homeland Security Committee that federally backed information-sharing programs are "really critical" to countering cyberattacks at the state level. The Department of Homeland Security could also encourage states to devote more grant money to enhancing cybersecurity, an area where many governors still lack confidence, he said.
"This is an evolving threat. It's getting more complex; it's getting worse as the days wear on," Ghilarducci said at a joint hearing called by the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies Subcommittee in conjunction with the Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications Subcommittee. "We really need to catch up with the fact that this threat is not going away."
Speakers at the hearing cited a lack of spending justification, trouble retaining a technology-savvy workforce and confusion over whom to call after an incident as roadblocks to cybersecurity preparedness.
Ghilarducci said California uses its Utilities Emergency Association as a one-stop shop for power companies and other critical infrastructure operators to report data breaches or other cyber events.
Utilities face particular challenges. "They do have a lot of people they need to be reporting to, and inadvertently, what's happening is that some entity that needs to know what's going on is falling through those cracks," Ghilarducci said.
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), co-founder of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, pressed witnesses at the hearing to think about whom they would call first in a cyberattack. "I've found that's something that's unclear to many, whether federal agencies or big businesses," he said.
Two panelists suggested reaching out first to state "fusion" centers, offices couched in homeland security departments set up after 9/11 to share intelligence on a range of threats from terrorism to cyber sabotage. "We should leverage this [fusion center] structure that took so long to build to share this cyberthreat information," said Lt. Col. Daniel Cooney, assistant deputy superintendent in the New York State Police's office of counterterrorism. "It's something that's there. We just need to take it a little further."
While the fusion centers can get the word out about the threat, it's less clear who would take charge of recovery efforts after a cyberattack that had widespread physical impacts, experts said.
Robert Galvin, chief technology officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said "no one organization [is] responsible for overseeing a coordinated response to a coordinated attack, which is of high concern for me."
He also observed that "there's less awareness of who to call" in the private sector. For his part, Galvin said it would depend on the nature of the cyberattack but that he would likely end up leaving a message with the FBI after keying in state authorities.
Langevin pointed out that the Department of Homeland Security has its own offices that rely on cyberthreat information furnished by the private sector and state partners. He said Congress could "help get the word out more that one of the first places to go in addition to the FBI would be the [DHS National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center] or the U.S. [Computer Emergency Readiness Team] to request federal assistance."
Other lawmakers on the House Homeland Security Committee noted that DHS has yet to define its own responsibilities for helping states respond to a crippling cyberattack.
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), chairman of the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies Subcommittee, said DHS had not yet finished its National Cyber Incident Response Plan, still lingering in draft form after six years.
"We are neither too ignorant nor too proud to think that a major cyber event is outside the realm of possibility right now, so I would like to take this moment to convey that we are watching the development of this document very closely," Ratcliffe said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/25/stories/1060037812

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Building Material Human Hazard and Exposure Assessment Announced as New LEED Pilot Credit

May 25, 2016 | For Construction Pros

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has announced a new LEED pilot credit—Building Material Human Hazard & Exposure Assessment, which encourages project teams and manufacturers to assess human health related exposure scenarios for products during their installation and use phases.
“LEED v4, the latest version of the LEED green building system, has begun a shift in how we think about health and building materials,” said Scot Horst, chief product officer, USGBC. “We have a focus on transparency and optimization so specifiers can know what they are using and can reward innovation. But understanding how a material impacts human health requires a full understanding of hazard and exposure. The new pilot credit is a first step toward evaluating exposure by encouraging product inventories in order to prioritize decision making.”
The pilot credit seeks to reward manufacturers who perform hazard and exposure assessments that can serve as a basis for developing products designed to minimize human health impacts during installation and use of the products. These assessments can, in turn, be an important consideration for alternative assessment of building materials. By requiring exposure to be considered during product development, this pilot begins to make linkages between the product’s ingredient inventory and hazard assessment required by the existing Materials Ingredients credit and performance testing required by LEED’s Low Emitting Materials credits.
The Hazard & Exposure pilot credit continues USGBC’s work to advance LEED users’ knowledge and understanding of the materials used to build and operate buildings. USGBC’s ultimate aim is that project teams have a full and complete picture of building materials and products—all in one place—which will help enable transparent, informed decisions around important attributes of materials and products used in our offices, homes, schools and other structures.
This pilot credit was developed by USGBC in conjunction with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and its members, as part of the partnership announced in 2014. The partnership was established to expand collaboration between suppliers and specifiers, leverage scientific expertise and make LEED a more effective tool to deliver positive economic, environmental and social outcomes. This initiative acknowledges USGBC’s success in leading the transformation of the built environment and sets up a pathway to take advantage of the materials science expertise of ACC and its members.
“ACC welcomes the new pilot credit, which rewards products that have undergone rigorous and scientific hazard and exposure assessments,” says Debra M. Phillips, vice president, ACC. “Through Responsible Care, ACC members support scientific and systematic approaches to managing and continuously improving the safety of their products. ACC members also undertake third-party verification of their systems and approaches. This new credit brings such a scientific, systematic and third-party validated approach to the important issue of health.”
All USGBC members are eligible to submit pilot credits for consideration; pilot credits are evaluated based on applicability to the goals of LEED, relative impact compared to other LEED credits or pilot credits, technical rigor and achievability.
“Today, exposure information and the assumptions that go into it aren’t required to be shared by manufacturers,” added Horst. “This new pilot credit will facilitate information sharing that will help us guide future credit writing.”
To fulfill the credit requirements, LEED projects must submit product documentation from manufacturers, including calculations and assumptions, to GBCI, the third-party verification body for LEED. This information will be combined with data from other ongoing pilots and credits and synthesized by USGBC and GBCI to inform technical development of this pilot and other materials-related LEED credits.
http://www.forconstructionpros.com/news/12212277/building-material-human-hazard-and-exposure-assessment-announced-as-new-leed-pilot-credit

Return to headline | Return to top
White House to Push Companies for More Disclosure on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

May 25, 2016 | Wall Street Journal

By Amy Harder and Bradley Olson

The White House is set to propose a new rule Wednesday that would push companies with federal contracts to publicly disclose more information about their impact on climate change, their efforts to address the issue, and how a warmer planet could impact business operations.
The White House’s Federal Acquisition Regulation Council, which directs government contracts, is expected to require companies that have contracts with the U.S. government to indicate publicly whether they disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, their goals to cut those emissions, and the risks a changing climate could pose to their operations.
“The goal in this effort is to try to have better and clearer information both about greenhouse gas emissions and accounting for climate-related risks,” Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said in an interview. “We want to make sure that better information is informing contracting decisions going forward.”
The rule, which is expected to be finalized this fall after a public comment period, would affect an estimated 90% of all federal contracts, or more than $400 billion in annual contracting expenditures, according to the administration.
The White House announcement will coincide with meetings Wednesday of Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. shareholders, where attendees are expected to vote on resolutions that would require the companies to disclose more information about the risks new climate-change regulations pose to their businesses.
Both companies opposed the investor proposals, which call for them to show how the value of their assets could fall if the world moves toward lower-carbon energy sources. They’re not expected to pass Wednesday, but they are expected to garner a far higher percentage of votes at each company than in previous years.
The White House rule is much less sweeping than the activist investor efforts because it doesn’t actually require any new public disclosure of information, only reporting on whether that information is currently disclosed. It also doesn’t address the impact of climate-change regulations.
The rule instead seeks to put companies on the record one way or the other about whether they have revealed their greenhouse gas emissions and goals to cut those emissions, and whether they have considered how the effects of a warmer planet—such as an increase in extreme weather events—could impact operations.
Administration officials say they hope the rule will add to the public debate about climate-change risks, including events like Wednesday’s shareholder meetings of two of the U.S.’s biggest oil and natural-gas companies.
“There are significant existing demand drivers for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data, including growing calls from investors, insurers, and institutions,” three administration officials wrote in a blog item to be posted Wednesday. “Today’s announcement sends another clear market signal that there is strong interest for disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk data government-wide.”
The federal government is a major buyer of petroleum products, often for Department of Defense operations such as jet fuel for aircraft or diesel for Navy vessels. Exxon Mobil, Chevron and other major oil companies routinely compete for and win such contracts, which can extend across multiple years and stretch into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-to-push-companies-for-more-disclosure-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1464184983

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel Advances Interior, EPA Spending Bill

May 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

A House Appropriations Committee subpanel on Wednesday approved a $32.1 billion spending bill for the Interior Department and environmental programs.
The bill, rolled out on Tuesday, would cut $64 million from current spending levels for the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other programs.
It is $1 billion less than President Obama requested in his budget, and contains a host of policy riders designed to block environmental regulations issued by his administration.
Republicans on the Appropriations Committee’s Interior and environment subcommittee on Wednesday acknowledged those riders, which would block rules related to water, power plant emissions and coal mining, saying they were necessary for stopping Obama administration overreach.
“There is no question that regulations aimed at killing coal are largely to blame for the over 11,000 mining jobs lost in my district alone since 2008,” said Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.).
“Until we see relief from the onslaught of regulations coming from this administration, we’ll continue to see jobs eliminated in this sector.”
The bill would cut the EPA’s budget by $164 million, which is a smaller total than Republicans have looked for in the past. But the GOP says those cuts are aimed at the agency’s regulatory agenda, which is 6 percent smaller in the bill.
“There is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by EPA in the absence of legislation without clear Congressional direction,” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the Interior and environment subcommittee.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the subcommittee, highlighted Democrats’ opposition to many provisions in the bill, including both the policy riders and funding levels.
The bill "means the needs of many important programs vital to protecting our nation’s natural and cultural resources will not be met, as they far outpace a stagnant allocation,” McCollum said.
The riders, she said, are of “deep concern and disappointment” and “veto-bait” for the Obama administration.
“Their effect would be to undermine important environmental laws, endanger public health and safety, and deny that climate change is having an impact on our planet,” McCollum said.
Republicans hope to move the spending bill through the House for the first time in several years. Last year, the GOP sent the bill to the House floor, only to see it fail when a fight over the display of the Confederate flag cropped up during the amendment process.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/281212-house-panel-advances-interior-epa-spending-bill

Return to headline | Return to top
State Claims Cap and Trade is a Bargain for Suing Businesses

May 25, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

By Debra Kahn

California regulators defended their landmark cap-and-trade program yesterday in a closely watched case that could interfere with the state's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
At issue is whether the cap-and-trade program authorized by the 2006 state law A.B. 32 violates a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 13, which requires new taxes to be approved by a two-thirds legislative majority.
A set of 2013 lawsuits from the California Chamber of Commerce and a tomato canning company arguing that the quarterly auctions of greenhouse gas allowances are an illegal tax has been on appeal since 2014 in the California Courts of Appeal.
The court granted a request last month by CalChamber and the National Association of Manufacturers to speed up the proceedings. The court also asked a series of pointed questions, including whether there is a relationship between the auction revenue and the environmental impacts caused by the companies under the cap (ClimateWire, May 9).
Responses were due yesterday. California officials held that the program is neither a tax nor a regulatory fee, which would trigger another requirement that the proceeds be spent on activities that directly mitigate the fee-payers' adverse effects. They argued that businesses are not required to participate in the cap-and-trade auctions.
"The covered entities voluntarily decide to conduct the kind of business that emits greenhouse gases," California Deputy Attorneys General Robert Asperger and David Zonana wrote on behalf of the state Air Resources Board.
"Taxes, in contrast, are generally compulsory; one cannot avoid paying income taxes merely by reducing one's demand for government services or shifting one's income to a different line of work," they said.
The state also argued that the $4 billion in revenue collected thus far is nowhere near equivalent to the environmental harm done by market participants' CO2 emissions.
California cited the Obama administration's calculation of the social cost of carbon, which estimates the damage caused by 1 ton of carbon dioxide in 2015 is $38.
"By comparison, the per-ton clearing price in all four ARB auctions in 2015 was between $12 and $13, roughly one-third the federal government's latest estimate," Asperger and Zonana wrote.
"The environmental harm resulting from the covered entities' emissions, amounting to approximately 85 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in California, greatly exceeds the total revenue generated by the auction system," they said.
Industry appellants argued that the auctions meet the definition of a tax. The price paid for emissions permits isn't related to the cost of pollution, because the price is set by the market, they said.
"Because ARB did not -- either in the Superior Court or during the administrative proceedings -- establish a reasonable relationship between the allowance revenues and the cost of any regulatory program or any burdens imposed by covered entities' operations, that should end the matter: the allowance charges are unconstitutional taxes," National Association of Manufacturers attorney Sean Commons argued.
The appellants challenged the link between the payments and the pollution that would qualify cap and trade as a regulatory fee. Because climate change is a global problem, California businesses can't fix it, they argued.
"ARB never established that covered entities' greenhouse gas emissions will cause any environmental impacts that would not otherwise occur due to emissions from sources in other states and countries around the globe," Commons wrote. "ARB has not shown that eliminating covered entities' emissions entirely would have any measurable impact on global climate change or any environmental impacts in California, let alone that covered entities' operations will impose tens of billions of dollars in 'social or economic "burdens"' on California over the life of the cap-and-trade program."
The next step in the case is oral arguments, which have not yet been scheduled.
Other filings in the case: the California Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, International Emissions Trading Association and Morning Star Packing Co..
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/25/stories/1060037839

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Can't Congress Stop the EPA's Assault on Private Property Rights?

May 25, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog

By Former Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas)

Karl Marx wrote that, "The theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Waters of the United States" regulation may not be the abolishment of private property rights that Marx had in mind, but it's one heck of a start.
Before chalking this off as an exaggeration, let's rehash the breadth of EPA's rule.
First, all tributaries, loosely defined as anything with a "bed and banks and ordinary high water mark" (OHWM), are categorically included under the definition of "Waters of the United States" and, thus, subject to regulation. This definition not only ignores the historic understanding of Waters of the United States as generally confined to navigable and interstate waters — although somewhat broadened by the U.S. Supreme Court to also encompass certain adjacent waters — but it is nearly all-encompassing, if this definition is to be interpreted literally. Common ditches and less can easily meet this definition. Moreover, even if the EPA were to depart from habit and restrain its regulatory ambitions, there is nothing to prevent third-party lawsuits from forcing the implementation of the rule to its maximum application. Therefore, any land except that which is perfectly flat can easily fall under the EPA's rule and therefore the civil and criminal penalties sanctioned under that statute.
Second, while certain waters that are adjacent to what are widely accepted as navigable and interstate waters do fall under the EPA's regulatory reach according to the Supreme Court, the EPA's rule stretches the definition of "adjacent" far beyond what the court had in mind when it ruled that an abutting wetland could be subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. The EPA's rule defines "adjacent" as anything "bordering, neighboring or contiguous," and further stretches these terms to encompass whole flood plains and riparian areas. Meanwhile, by executive order, the administration has separately sought to significantly expand the definition of what constitutes a flood plain.
Finally, a significant nexus test is to be applied in cases where the water in question is not otherwise roped-in under federal regulation on account of its categorical inclusion as a tributary or due to the adjacency rule. This is so even though the significant nexus test, articulated by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, was meant to be applied to all waters over which EPA sought jurisdiction to the extent that such waters are neither navigable nor interstate in nature. The EPA was supposed to demonstrate some ecological connection between the water or waters it seeks to regulate and a water commonly understood and accepted as a regulated water. By excusing tributaries and adjacent waters from meeting this test, two things are accomplished. First, the significant nexus test is generally evaded. And, second, through this evasion, which vastly expands what constitutes Waters of the United States, the significant nexus test can easily be employed to rope in even more remote waters that the court specifically meant to exclude.
The new rule is so all-encompassing that it is essentially the Migratory Bird Rule by another name. That 1986 EPA rule, which generally regulated any water where a migratory bird might land, was struck down by the Supreme Court as having exceeded statutory authority. The crux of the matter, then, is that after two rebukes from the Supreme Court and at least 26 years of trying to legislatively overturn these legal setbacks through bills that would have significantly broadened the Clean Water Act's reach, EPA simply decided to ignore the long and widely recognized limitations under the current law and unilaterally move forward with an extralegal regulation. In one fell swoop, the EPA gave itself the legal authority it knew it did not have but had sought to obtain under bills that were introduced in 1991, 1993, 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2010 but which had gone nowhere.
In short, the EPA's process was underhanded, its actions are illegal and the consequences for private property rights are serious.
This is why lawmakers have worked so persistently to block the Waters of the United States regulation, in the context of standalone legislation and disapproval resolutions, as well as riders on appropriations bills.
Unfortunately, these efforts have thus far proved unsuccessful, with standalone bills and resolutions with clear majority support in both chambers either falling short of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate or otherwise passing both chambers but meeting with a veto pen when it landed on the president's desk.
Some take solace in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' temporary injunction blocking the rule. But a temporary injunction is just that: temporary. How the Sixth Circuit ultimately comes down on the merits of the case is uncertain. How the Supreme Court would come down, however, is less of a mystery. An evenly split court is the best private property rights can hope for, with four justices already on record as having taken a very expansive view of the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act, and with at least one of these justices opining that current authority actually extends to the outer reaches of the Commerce Clause, which is legalese for "the sky is the limit."
This means that the appropriations process may well be the only way to ensure that the EPA's federal land grab is successfully blocked. In fact, appropriations bills that block the EPA's Waters of the United States regulation have been approved by both chambers.
But, where the wheels fall off in the effort to rein in the EPA in defense of private property is at the end of the appropriations process, when some members of Congress who are adamantly opposed to the Waters of the United States rule refuse to vote for the final appropriations bill that would stop the EPA regulation, therefore requiring congressional leadership to rely on the votes of members who strongly support the Waters of the United States regulation and oppose inclusion of any language to block it. Thus, protection of private property rights is thrown overboard.
It is one of life's ironies, then, that it is perhaps those in Congress who claim to cherish private property rights the most whose actions are effectively doing these rights in. It seems to me that while there may be plenty to dislike in any appropriations bill, a vote to protect private property rights covers a lot of sins. After all, we are talking about a cornerstone of liberty.
Combest represented the 19th Congressional District of Texas from 1985 to 2002 and chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Agriculture Committee. He is now a principal at Combest Sell & Associates.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/281165-why-cant-congress-stop-the-epas-assault-on-private

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested