Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/31/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report Evaluates Mixed Waste Processing Technologies
May 31, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Recycling Today Staff
A report released May 31, 2016, by the Plastics Division of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council finds the main technologies used in modern recycling plants, known as material recovery facilities (MRFs), are being integrated successfully into mixed waste processing facilities (MWPFs). -
Miracle on the Potomac: The New Bipartisan Law Regulating Toxics
May 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Steven Cohen
With Donald Trump pushing fossil fuels, misunderstanding the Paris climate accord, but still promising to tear it up if—or as he says, “when”—he becomes president, it is easy to be pessimistic about our environmental future. -
Congress to Update Toxic Substances Control Act.
May 31, 2016 | World Cement
By Rebecca Bowden
For the first time in 26 years, Congress is updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs the regulation of hazardous chemicals. The bill was approved by the US House of Representatives on 24 May, and it is expected to be taken up by the US Senate in early June. -
Advancing Nanotechnology Creates Product Stewardship Challenges
May 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The unique properties of nanomaterials that have enabled their application for various uses in consumer products can also pose unknown safety risks, which bring product stewardship challenges. -
EPA Says Industry Arsenic Database Concerns Due To Misunderstanding
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The head of EPA's influential risk assessment program says in a recent letter to industry groups who have charged the agency is biased in its long-ongoing assessment of inorganic arsenic that the groups have misunderstood the database where EPA collates studies included in its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments. -
States Raise Concerns Over EPA's Drinking Water PFC Health Advisories
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
States are raising concerns over EPA's new health advisories for chronic exposure to two perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in drinking water for which states primarily have the discretion to implement, questioning the advisories' protectiveness and potential implementation obstacles such as limits on testing water contaminant levels. -
Carbon Planning Under Legal Stay Moves Behind Closed Doors
May 31, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Across the country, state officials, power companies and environmental advocates are participating in closed-door meetings to discuss the future of the Clean Power Plan. -
Accountability Scarce in Exide Lead Contamination
May 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A battery recycling plant that left up to 10,000 homes with lead contamination has faced little accountability despite California officials' tough talk. -
Pipe Replacement Costs Nearly Double
May 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Replacing water lines in Flint, Mich., will cost twice as much as expected. -
Narrow High Court Decision Backs Review Of CWA 'Jurisdiction' Findings
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Supreme Court in a narrow, unanimous ruling is backing pre-enforcement review of agencies' Clean Water Act (CWA) findings on whether particular waters are subject to permit limits and other protections, but the decision relies in part on an agreement between agencies on how to conduct JDs that the White House has already signaled it may revise. -
IG Defends its Work in Latest Report to Congress
May 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The U.S. EPA inspector general touted its investigative work in a new report released to Congress. -
Congress Confirms Biomass Should Help Fight Climate Change
May 31, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Roger A. Sedjo and Stephen Shaler
In a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation, the Senate just passed a far-ranging energy bill. Critics have quickly homed in on a unanimously adopted amendment recognizing the renewability and carbon benefits of biomass energy derived from wood and plant material. That designation puts biomass in the same category as wind, solar, and other renewables in the eyes of federal officials.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report Evaluates Mixed Waste Processing Technologies
May 31, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Recycling Today Staff
A report released May 31, 2016, by the Plastics Division of the Washington-based American Chemistry Council finds the main technologies used in modern recycling plants, known as material recovery facilities (MRFs), are being integrated successfully into mixed waste processing facilities (MWPFs).
Both types of facilities aim to divert postuse materials from landfills by maximizing the recovery of marketable commodities. However, MRFs and MWPFs differ in that the former require recyclables to be removed from the waste stream prior to processing, usually through residential collection programs, while MWPFs extract recyclables directly from municipal solid waste.
“Recycling is a critical part of how we make the most of the earth’s limited resources,” says Craig Cookson, ACC senior director of recycling and energy recovery. “But when it comes to meeting the diverse needs of our communities, there’s no one size fits all. Mixed waste processing can offer a unique set of solutions for areas with a high percentage of multifamily homes or that lack funding to operate separate collection programs for recycling.”
Authored by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc. (GBB), Fairfax, Virginia, “Supplemental Report: The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities—Technology and Equipment Guide” examines 10 types of equipment, such as optical sorting systems; bag openers, which liberate materials from closed plastic trash bags; air separation systems and densifiers, for example. The evaluations typically include the quality of the finished product, the volumes that are captured versus those that are lost and the speed at which the processing equipment works.
This technology and equipment guide builds on a prior report, “The Evolution of Mixed Waste Processing Facilities, 1970-Today,” released in June 2015.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/acc-mixed-waste-processing-facility-equipment-report/
-
Miracle on the Potomac: The New Bipartisan Law Regulating Toxics
May 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Steven Cohen
With Donald Trump pushing fossil fuels, misunderstanding the Paris climate accord, but still promising to tear it up if—or as he says, “when”—he becomes president, it is easy to be pessimistic about our environmental future. Fortunately, presidential preference polling varies throughout election year, Donald’s policy views are far from fixed, and last week Congress passed the first piece of major new environmental legislation in about a quarter century. A new law regulating toxic substances won huge bipartisan congressional majorities. Its passage reminded me of the 1970s and 1980s when bipartisan super majorities enacted most of our federal environmental policy framework.
The new law is far from perfect, but it is a major improvement over the ineffectual 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under that law, only five of the over 80,000 chemicals now in use have been banned or substantially restricted in use. Not much action in four decades. Under the new law, EPA must review all chemicals now in commercial use. The law also allows EPA to require manufacturers to conduct tests of the chemicals without being required to first demonstrate that the chemical causes harm. This helps place the burden of proof on the chemical industry to demonstrate a chemical’s safety. Under the new law, EPA must prioritize the twenty riskiest chemicals in use and must complete their study of any chemical under review in less than seven years. This means that the riskiest chemicals can now be regulated. In return, the chemical industry achieved their goal of federal preemption of new state toxic chemical laws. Currently many states have enacted more stringent toxic chemical rules than those enforced by the federal government. Under the new law, new state rules focused on the same chemicals under review by the feds would be preempted, although existing state laws could remain in place. The federal approach simplifies compliance with rules, since chemical companies need only comply with one rule rather than a wide variety of state regulations.
This law is a step forward, but it still does not adhere to the precautionary principle where new chemicals are tested before they are put in use. But it is significant because the chemical industry and the environmental community and legislators from both parties were able to work together and compromise. There was a time when such compromise was far from newsworthy, but in today’s hyper-partisan national government, it seems like a small miracle. It is a graphic demonstration of America’s shared belief in the importance of a safe, healthy environment. Polling has long demonstrated the wide consensus behind efforts to free our environment of toxics.
The new law is also a quiet recognition of the toxicity of the high tech environment we live in. Early in the industrial age, our homes, clothing, tools, and other artifacts were largely made of materials that were biodegradable. Our homes were clad in wood and bricks, not vinyl. Our floors were made of materials like wood and stone and were not sealed in layers of plastic for protection. Our furniture was made of wood and cloth and our clothing was made of cotton, wool, silk, fur and other organic materials. Modern computers, smartphones, and home entertainment systems are all based on plastics and electronic elements that are either toxic or non-biodegradable. Today’s materials are less expensive, more durable, and more toxic. When the process of manufacturing, using and recycling these materials is well regulated and carefully managed, they can be kept from damaging natural systems. When they are developed with haste, without rules and without care, they can cause great damage to the planet’s air, water and land. In some cases they can also harm living creatures such as human beings.
When America first attempted to regulate toxic substances in 1976, the plastic and chemical-dominated economy was only a generation old. Forty years later, the chemicals have become more complex and their use more widespread. For example, marine debris is everywhere and fish sometimes confuse plastics for food, or find they are tangled in packaging and discarded toys never meant for disposal in the ocean. Far more dangerous is the release of the poisons that the new chemical control law is designed to regulate. These chemicals can enter our food chain and cause cancer, birth defects and can affect the health of many living beings.
While the new law is a significant move in the right direction, its scale is dwarfed by the chemical industry’s ability to invent and manufacture new combinations of chemicals for new industrial uses. This bill makes it possible to remove the most dangerous of these substances from the American economy. However, since we are now in a global economy, controlling the chemicals in America does not eliminate our exposure to their impact.
I have often observed that the challenge of addressing climate change has so dominated discussions of environmental policy, that the issue of toxics and ecosystem well-being have been relegated to the sidelines of political discourse. I do not see these as competing priorities and believe they should all be integrated into a single discussion of the challenge of global environmental and economic sustainability. Nearly all the economic growth of the past two centuries has been due to the development of technology. Our way of life depends on labor saving, transportation, information and communications technologies that have had the effect of reducing poverty and enhancing quality of life. The problem is that our species is so successful at developing technology that our technologies threaten the planet that we still require for sustenance.
The use of technology in our economic life must be tempered and managed to reduce its impact on natural ecological systems. The impact of greenhouse gases on climate is one of many human-made substances changing our biosphere. Many of the other 80,000 human-made chemical products we have concocted also damage the environment. We need to get all of them under control.
My view is that an appreciation of toxics and local air and water pollution can lead to a deeper understanding of the existential threat of climate change. Since the impact of some toxics is relatively immediate and because some of these pollutants are easy to see and smell, they are difficult to deny and have the ability to teach people about the impact of technology on human health. It is then a small leap to understanding the unseen impact of greenhouse gases on global climate.
The chemical companies came to the bargaining table on toxics regulation because they saw the growing grassroots support for chemical bans at the state and local level. They know that people are more aware of what they are putting in their bodies and what they are feeding their children. The focus on wellness, exercise and diet is a mass, broad phenomenon and these companies understand that they must be willing to manage and even police the most dangerous of the chemicals they have invented. The connection of pollution to public health is what built widespread support for environmental protection here in America. We see this starting in China and in other developing nations globally.
Speaking of the threat of a nuclear contaminated planet on June 10th, 1963,President John F. Kennedy connected the natural environment to our needs as living creatures when he said that:
...In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal...
We are all air breathing, mortal beings who have an ethical responsibility to preserve the planet for our children. That is the story of the toxics compromise in Congress, and I believe that if somehow the Donald becomes the deal-maker-in- chief, he too will come to think about the health of his children and grandchildren when he makes environmental decisions. If for some reason he doesn’t, the courts, the congress, and America’s states and cities will make those decisions for him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/miracle-on-the-potomac-th_b_10219116.html
-
Congress to Update Toxic Substances Control Act.
May 31, 2016 | World Cement
By Rebecca Bowden
For the first time in 26 years, Congress is updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs the regulation of hazardous chemicals. The bill was approved by the US House of Representatives on 24 May, and it is expected to be taken up by the US Senate in early June.
When signed into law, TSCA will force the EPA to start a new regulatory review process, as well as encouraging the agency to give priority to substances that persist and accumulate in humans. The bill requires a scientific evaluation as to whether a chemical has enough public health risks to warrant regulation. If the agency then decides a chemical poses an unreasonable danger to humans, the EPA is required to issue risk management rules. The new requirements can include everything from new labels to an outright ban. In deciding a ban, EPA must consider the availability of feasible alternatives.
“An update of TSCA is long overdue,” said Michael W. Johnson, NSSGA president and CEO. “It would be a remarkable accomplishment to see this bill approved with bipartisan support, given the politicised climate of Congress.” The last time Congress passed such a major environment bill was the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
The bill has been endorsed by both Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and ranking Democrat Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
“NSSGA plans to be very vigilant and involved when the EPA begins implementing this legislation,” Johnson said. He indicated that the association will actively oppose any attempt by EPA to regulate common rock dust particles.
http://www.worldcement.com/the-americas/31052016/Congress-to-update-Toxic-Substances-Control-Act-193/
-
Advancing Nanotechnology Creates Product Stewardship Challenges
May 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The unique properties of nanomaterials that have enabled their application for various uses in consumer products can also pose unknown safety risks, which bring product stewardship challenges.
This is according to the speakers on a nanomaterials panel at a recent product stewardship conference in Baltimore.
Linda Dell, senior manager at Ramboll Environ Inc, told audience members that because the properties of nanomaterials are different, a risk assessment paradigm throughout the entire lifecycle must be considered.
Nanomaterials can change across the lifecycle as they encounter different environmental pathways, said Ms Dell. As a result, exposures to end users, for example, are different from those working with raw materials.
According to Ms Dell, methods and tools are needed to appropriately measure multiple kinds of exposures in order to effectively manage the environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks posed by nanomaterials.
Agency action
Agencies in the US, such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh), continue to issue guidance for managing product stewardship. Best practices documents are being developed with sector specific guidance, such as the recently issued guide to help small business owners to design successful nanotechnology workforce safety programmes.
Questions on exposure characterisation, and how it should be measured, highlight the need for methods and tools to quantify exposure. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is leading the development of a new NIEHS nanotechnology centre, focused on EHS issues, including exposure assessment.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is proposing to participate in this NIEHS-led centre. CPSC-funded research will target the development of methods for quantifying and characterising the presence, release and mechanisms of exposure to nanomaterials from consumer products.
Meanwhile, the EPA is working to develop scientific methods to study and evaluate the unique properties of nanomaterials, how they behave during manufacturing, product use and end-of-life disposal.
The US and the EU are also cooperating on the responsible development of nanotechnology. In June, a workshop organised by the National Nanomaterial Initiative and the European Commission – 'Bridging nanoEHS research efforts' – will allow European and American scientists to share information on research and identify ways to advance the science. This is the fifth event in a series of joint workshops on the subject.
Reporting rule
The EPA regulates nanomaterials as they are developed for putting on the market. The current state of play is that most action is taken under TSCA, where risks are managed through significant new use rules (Snurs).
The agency appears ready to issue a final rule, following a 6 April 2015 proposal to require reporting and recordkeeping under section 8(a) of TSCA. An item in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) spring 2016 regulatory agenda indicates the agency will do so in October.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at Bergeson & Campbell, who also spoke at the product stewardship conference, told the audience that it is unlikely the final rule will happen in October.
She also spoke of current “cutting-edge concerns” for the nanomaterial industry, such as “how to address nanomaterials in SDSs [safety data sheets] when information is incomplete or inadequate, as often is the case.”
The US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) is seeking common approaches in the areas of risk assessments, with regard to Snurs in the US and significant new activity (Snac) regulations in Canada.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47738/advancing-nanotechnology-creates-product-stewardship-challenges
-
EPA Says Industry Arsenic Database Concerns Due To Misunderstanding
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The head of EPA's influential risk assessment program says in a recent letter to industry groups who have charged the agency is biased in its long-ongoing assessment of inorganic arsenic that the groups have misunderstood the database where EPA collates studies included in its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments.
EPA's IRIS program has struggled for years to update its 1991 assessment of inorganic arsenic, following concerns about low levels of arsenic in drinking water and what levels are safe for humans to consume long-term. The agency has indicated that it may have a draft of the assessment ready for public comment and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review during the summer.
But in an April 12 letter to the agency, the industry coalition Arsenic Science Task Force (ASTF) outlined a series of concerns, including opacity; lack of expertise; "failure to appropriately incorporate mechanistic information in evaluating papers for hazard identification"; "avoidance of reviews, meta-analyses, letters to the editor, commentaries, or any studies which do not have primary data"; and "introduction of bias," by the selection of studies including in EPA's Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO) database, providing examples for each.
Now, in a May 10 response, EPA's Ken Olden, director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment writes, "Having reviewed your letter, I believe there is a basic misunderstanding of the role that the HERO database plays in the development of IRIS toxicological reviews and the systematic review process."
Olden, in his letter to ASTF Chairman William Adams, explains that "HERO does not and is not intended to capture the variety of expert decisions incorporated into a Toxicological Review," and reminds the industry groups of the criteria that the NAS recommended EPA use to include or exclude studies for consideration in the arsenic assessment, citing NAS' 2013 report and EPA's Assessment Development Plan, released to the NAS late last year. "A number of the papers that you reference fall into these categories," Olden writes.
Olden does not address the groups' concern that the HERO database includes some studies that they consider irrelevant, such as studies on arsine gas.
The industry letter also protests what it considers evidence of bias in the literature that EPA has collected. "We are most troubled by the pattern whereby studies that support a particular view are included, but studies indicating a different view are excluded," the coalition writes. Regarding the issue of arsenic's possible genotoxicity, the letter cites a pair of studies by Sam Cohen of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and his students and colleagues. Cohen's research has long been cited by the industry coalition.
Olden responds that a number of studies that the industry groups thought were missing from the HERO database are in fact, included. "With a bit more exploration, you will find that the papers in your list of 'missing' papers are actually in HERO," Olden writes, outlining a search technique in the database. "Using this feature, one can identify fifty-four of Dr. Cohen's papers in the HERO arsenic database and which of these papers, based on the systematic review criteria, are unlikely to be included in the assessment . . . and those which are positioned to be included in the assessment."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-says-industry-arsenic-database-concerns-due-misunderstanding
-
States Raise Concerns Over EPA's Drinking Water PFC Health Advisories
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
States are raising concerns over EPA's new health advisories for chronic exposure to two perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in drinking water for which states primarily have the discretion to implement, questioning the advisories' protectiveness and potential implementation obstacles such as limits on testing water contaminant levels.
Staff from states who participated in a May 23 EPA webinar briefing to the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, which represents state drinking water programs, peppered EPA officials with questions that signaled the limits of the advisories, with EPA officials often pointing to states' discretion on implementing the advisories.
The briefing followed EPA's May 19 issuance of long-awaited health advisories for two persistent, non-stick PFCs in drinking water, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), significantly lowering the concentration at which the agency says are safe levels of the chemicals.
The agency set lifetime exposure health advisory levels at 0.07 micrograms per liter (ug/L) for each chemical, which translates to 70 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA also recommends that the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS, if found together in drinking water, not exceed 70 ppt. The levels apply to both short-term and chronic exposures, according to EPA.
The chemicals were used in a slew of consumer and industrial applications and in fire fighting foam, contaminating fire-fighting training sites across the country. They have been linked to adverse health effects, such as particular cancers.
The agency in the health advisories also provides recommended actions for drinking water systems and public health officials, advising additional water sampling beyond data collected under the agency's third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to confirm concentrations exceeding 70 ppt.
The agency calls for prompt notice to consumers of high levels and a particular emphasis on the risks of such exposures to fetuses during pregnancy and infants, both breastfed and formula-fed. It further advises steps to limit exposure, such as the shutdown of contaminated wells, the use of blending water sources or activated carbon or other treatment methods.
But states on the webinar pointed to perceived gaps in the advisories. For instance, states are raising questions over how much a 70 ppt safety level would add to the background burden of the chemicals that people already have; why the agency is not also giving heightened warnings to women of child-bearing age, rather than just those who are pregnant, or infants; and how states should consider other emerging PFCs often found along with PFOA and PFOS, according to a recording of the webinar.
Implementation Concerns
State staff also pointed to implementation concerns, particularly fears that lab capacity is inadequate to handle the need for sample analyses triggered by the health advisories.
The need for analytical work could grow in the aftermath of EPA's final advisories. News reports in the week after their release indicate that the advisories prompted actions by public water suppliers or state health officials in Pennsylvania, Arizona, West Virginia, Alabama and elsewhere. Actions included the shutdown of drinking water wells in some cases, the reports said.
New Hampshire officials took immediate steps to provide bottled water to additional private drinking water well users where concentrations were found to exceed 70 ppt, and the state now plans an emergency rulemaking that will establish groundwater cleanup and drinking water standards for the two chemicals, according to the state.
The advisories also prompted Chemours, a spinoff of DuPont -- which produced PFOA -- to offer bottled water to one West Virginia community in the interim as it designs and installs a granular activated carbon water treatment system there, according to a Chemours statement. The move comes after years of no response to requests by a plaintiffs' attorney seeking DuPont's cooperation in cleaning up certain water supplies contaminated with PFOA in West Virginia communities that fell outside a 2005 settlement agreement.
Mandatory Testing
During the three-year data collection under the UCMR3 that ended in December 2015, EPA-mandated testing detected PFOA or PFOS or both exceeding 70 ppt in 52 public water systems in 19 states and two Pacific island territories, according to statistics compiled by the environmental group Environmental Working Group (EWG).
EWG says the statistics indicate more than 5.2 million people may be consuming water contaminated with the chemical at levels exceeding 70 ppt.
An EWG source says the implementation of the advisories, which largely falls to states, are "certain to be uneven and spotty," while noting that almost 20 percent of the U.S. population consumes water from systems not covered by the UCMR, which primarily tests systems that serve large populations, along with a small sampling of smaller systems. In addition, another 15 percent of the population receives its water from private wells -- which have been some of the types of wells identified as contaminated with the two chemicals, the source says.
States indicated on the webinar their concerns over limited lab capacity for handling samples of PFOS and PFOA that states may need tested due to the health advisories, particularly in light of the third UCMR having ended mandated sampling at the end of 2015. In addition, the moderator on the webinar noted that one state has contacted all 21 labs that participated in the UCMR and found that just 14 are continuing to offer analyses using the same method EPA required for the UCMR, known as Method 537.
The moderator said, in referencing another question sent in to the webinar, that there is concern that with the drop in lab capacity, the time lag to acquire results will be even longer than the three weeks it has been taking. "This makes messaging and public notice and treatment decisions even more difficult," he said, reciting the comment.
One EPA staff member responded that past history shows that in general lab capacity grows to meet demand. He added that labs approved to meet the UCMR3 data call do not have to be used, if a state or water system has confidence in that lab.
Another EPA staff member also noted that now that UCMR monitoring is complete, there is no EPA lab approval process, although the agency would still recommend Method 537 and would offer a list of labs EPA previously approved for the UCMR. That said, he said water systems and states would have the discretion to set quality assurance and reporting they would like to see from the labs.
States' 'Uncertainty'
Of the other questions raised during the EPA-state webinar, states in particular sought answers from EPA on how the 70 ppt concentration -- if received daily through water consumption -- would affect blood serum levels and how much such a concentration would add to existing background levels in the population.
A public health official from Connecticut on the webinar said states want to "make sure whatever we're doing, with this much uncertainty, if we're adding significantly to background that we're really sure about our tox[icity] values." The official asked EPA how much the 70 ppt adds to the "background burden."
But an EPA official on the webinar responded, "It's a question we wrestled with as well. We came to the conclusion that the . . . model we used, we couldn't backtrack from the recommended health advisory level to a blood serum level easily because it's not a linear relationship." At the same time, the water office, after consulting with the agency's Office of Research & Development, believes the number is protective and does not increase the concentrations of the chemical in the U.S. population, she said.
A state source told Inside EPA in an interview that 70 ppt in drinking water would translate to 7 parts per billion in blood serum -- a level the source says is higher than the national average for PFOA. Therefore, just consuming water with a concentration of 70 ppt would put a person above the national average, the source says.
States are also asking about the limits of the health advisories, particularly how states should address other PFCs that arise in testing. One questioner on the webinar asked whether EPA is offering advice on how regulators should consider other PFCs, such as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), often found in environmental exposures, and asked whether the agency plans to conduct animal studies on other PFCs.
In response, one EPA official reiterated that the advisories are only for PFOA and PFOS, and said that the agency is not advising they apply to other PFCs because it lacks data at this time indicating they should be considered cumulatively. But the state source in the interview notes that one of the other PFCs, PFHxS, is more prevalent in firefighting foam than the two under the health advisory.
Jamie Strong, listed as one of the EPA briefing officials on webinar's slides, also responded that the agency's Integrated Risk Information System under its multi-year agenda dated December 2015 is looking at other PFCs to determine whether they warrant an IRIS assessment.
Health Advisories
Another concern raised by states on the webinar was why EPA, from a scientific viewpoint, did not include women of childbearing age among those specifically targeted under the health advisories as being of particular risk to drinking water concentrations that exceed the advisories.
A New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection staff member asked why EPA did not apply the same thought process typical of fish advisories, grouping pregnant and lactating women together with those of child-bearing age in consumption advisories. The staff member noted that given the long half-lives of years for PFOA and PFOS -- effectively the years it takes to eliminate the two chemicals from the body after long-time exposure -- it is unclear why EPA would not include women of childbearing age in their targeted advisory.
One EPA staffer responded that while the agency identified certain sensitive populations, its advisories are only recommendations, "and states and water systems are free to provide the advice that they think is appropriate based on the information in the health advisory."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-raise-concerns-over-epas-drinking-water-pfc-health-advisories
-
Carbon Planning Under Legal Stay Moves Behind Closed Doors
May 31, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Across the country, state officials, power companies and environmental advocates are participating in closed-door meetings to discuss the future of the Clean Power Plan.
While state agencies have made parts of their planning talks public, transparency experts say the common practice of holding parallel private discussions could deprive people of insight into preparations for a regulation that stands to affect power prices and public health for decades to come. They also say it may give utilities an early opportunity to sway discussions to their benefit.
"People tend to not trust what they can't see," said Kevin Goldberg, a lawyer who focuses on First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act protections. "The question that gets asked is, 'What are you hiding from us?'"
State officials and other organizers say closed meetings are perfectly legal. They argue that publicizing the discussions would make it difficult for agencies and companies to hash out technical questions and speak freely about their options.
"It's not really anything out of the ordinary," said Doug Scott, a former Illinois regulator who organizes Midwestern state meetings through the Great Plains Institute. "No decisions are getting made in these meetings. This is an educational thing for the states that choose to be in there."
But government transparency advocates like Goldberg say just because closed meetings are ordinary doesn't make them OK.
What does it mean to 'put pencils down'?
Before the Supreme Court froze U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan in February, even state political leaders who loathe it had begun to hold open meetings on the rule.
State agencies were moving forward, propelled by a now-defunct September deadline for submitting initial plans. Industry observers expected to get an important early look at the positions of states around the country.
Meetings in those states were getting little mainstream media attention. The documents they released were complicated and difficult to understand. But for the first time, consumers could expect comprehensive information about how their power companies viewed clean energy and what they might do to increase that type of generation.
Now, many states have halted or slowed their official work, and talks have moved further out of the public eye.
According to dozens of interviews and documents obtained by ClimateWire, air officials and electric regulators have continued to hold private talks within their states and to attend conferences and multistate meetings related to the rule, often to review interstate issues and power-sector modeling.
At these multistate meetings, some officials are from states whose governors oppose the rule. Often, industry and advocacy interests are present, too. Organizers argue that the meetings are closed to the public and reporters to spur frank discussions when political tensions are high.
Public meeting laws vary from state to state, but they usually don't kick in unless a quorum of electric regulators who oversee power prices and company profits are in the same conversation and are discussing policies they are actively considering. The laws don't apply in the same way to air officials in charge of coordinating state compliance with the Clean Power Plan. But decisions by both sets of regulators could affect how much consumers pay for electricity as utilities make carbon reductions.
In Arizona, the Department of Environmental Quality, which has had a robust public process, has simultaneously held private meetings with a technical workgroup of utilities and a few clean energy groups and consumer and environmental advocates. Those meetings date back to August 2014. Parallel public meetings did not begin until September 2015, according to public records obtained by ClimateWire.
The last public meeting was March 1. Since then, the private group has met twice. The private meetings have covered a broad range of questions related to the rule, including how companies might fare under different compliance schemes. DEQ has posted materials and meeting summaries from the closed meetings since January, when members of the public said they wanted to know more about what the group was discussing, according to a DEQ spokeswoman.
Amanda Ormond, a participant representing the business group Advanced Energy Economy, said the group is balanced with enough people to represent consumer interests.
"I have never, ever gotten a feeling that the technical advisory committee meeting was supposed to be any kind of private," Ormond said. "They have been selective on who's on there, but I don't feel like they've withheld information."
Similarly, Sandy Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, said DEQ seems interested in engaging with parties other than utilities. But, as she said late last year, "you worry a little bit about whether or not you're going to just get patted on the head."
DEQ said the technical workgroup is exclusive "to allow for back-and-forth discussion of the technical issues ADEQ seeks advice on." The agency plans to continue to hold public meetings quarterly, while technical workgroup meetings will be more frequent, every six weeks to two months.
While Arizona has had open and closed meetings, other states have held private meetings without organizing public components or publishing related documents. The New Mexico Environment Department held closed, separate calls with utilities and environmental groups, which ClimateWire later covered based on a public records request (ClimateWire, Dec. 21, 2015).
Out of sight, out of mind?
Meanwhile, in many multistate meetings, officials are now gathering under the "Chatham House Rule," according to which attendees can share information about the talks but cannot attribute it to a particular person or state. Many have called it the "no regrets" process because it allows state officials to talk about options without committing to them or looking like they are enthusiastic about the rule.
After one conference sponsored in April by the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Searle Center on Law, Regulation and Economic Growth, Program Manager Derek Gundersen said "the very nature of the event was intended to provide an environment for open dialogue amongst the utility commissioners and industry representatives."
"In order to foster this open dialogue, no efforts were made to memorialize or publicize the proceedings," Gundersen said, adding again that "the very nature of the event would preclude us from involving press of any kind."
The agenda covered broad discussions about changes in the energy industry, and the second day featured a panel on the Clean Power Plan. A publicly released roster of attendees lists more than a dozen utility commissioners from various Midwestern states and representatives from several of the utilities they regulate.
The Illinois Commerce Commission had three electric commissioners present, although a spokesman said they did not violate rules because they did not attend the second day, did not congregate and did not discuss policy. ICC spokeswoman Danisha Hall said commissioners attend conferences mostly to network and learn from the experiences of other states.
In Illinois, the attorney general's office is in charge of making sure agencies aren't acting improperly. It oversees more than 7,000 public bodies ranging from rural local governments to school boards. Staffers get about 400 requests a month to review Freedom of Information Act requests that were denied and potential public meeting law violations. Residents must make a complaint in order for the attorney general's office to investigate.
Maryam Judar, executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center in Illinois, said that although private meetings and conferences may not go against the rules, they are problematic both practically and for optics. She said regulators should provide advanced public notice of these sort of meetings "out of an abundance of caution."
Goldberg argued that adhering to meeting laws should be only "a basic minimum standard."
"If something coming out of this results in a final decision, by the time you get that final decision, you lose a lot of the process," he said. "You're not seeing the background."
Scott, the former environment and electricity regulator from Illinois, argues that states are only exploring options now, not making decisions. "In each state, they're going to have to justify what they've done publicly," he said.
He also noted that when states within the Midcontinent Independent System Operator or the PJM Interconnection LLC grid organizations are meeting privately, no industry interests are present. In addition to those meetings, grid organizations have continued to host public meetings and publish modeling results.
Scott believes that as long as state agencies follow the rules, it's good for them to be talking with power companies and other interests.
"My philosophy was if it wasn't a docket item, if I could meet with someone when I was an ICC commissioner, I would," Scott said.
Electric regulators likely won't see specific Clean Power Plan dockets until state air agencies send plans to EPA and start enforcing them. Then, utilities will go to electric regulators to get related costs approved.
Looking beyond state borders
State officials also hold Clean Power Plan talks in their national organizations. The association of electric commissioners makes meetings public, while the association of air agencies does not.
In other closed multistate meetings, the Clean Power Plan was focused on specifically. Organizers have said state officials are attending to understand the rule and share information about how their actions might affect one another.
Many of the Midwestern states attending meetings coordinated by the Great Plains Institute are opposed to the Clean Power Plan, Scott noted. That makes talking about the rule touchy for them, and that is partly why the group uses the Chatham House Rule.
The decision to plan for the Clean Power Plan or wait for a final court decision is more political than ever. After the Supreme Court issued its stay, GOP governors happily announced they were calling it quits and would spend no more money on preparing for the regulation.
The Center for the New Energy Economy, which organizes Western state meetings, has declined to list which 10 of the 13 original states are still participating. CNEE originally posted meeting materials but could not provide documents from a meeting in early April.
"It's not that there's meant to be some shroud of secrecy around these meetings," said Patrick Cummins, the group's project leader. "From our perspective, though, we would prefer to let the states that are participating to speak for themselves about their participation."
Cummins said the Western power grid and state policies are undergoing huge changes, and a recent meeting in early April was basically a roundtable with states updating each other on those changes.
In the Southeast, where most states have stopped official planning, Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions uses the Chatham House Rule for its multistate energy workshops.
"Our workshops are designed in a way to foster peer learning across state borders," said Jonas Monast, the institute's climate and energy director. He added that the Nicholas Institute has published white papers related to the topics explored in state discussions. The Nicholas Institute shared a meeting agenda from January but did not release one from May.
Monast said the Chatham House Rule is a "commonly used strategy to foster an open exchange of ideas."
Goldberg said it's "backward thinking" when officials claim they can't speak openly and in public.
"If people want to be transparent ... there are ways to do that, and the end result will be more trust in the final decision," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/31/stories/1060038061
-
Accountability Scarce in Exide Lead Contamination
May 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A battery recycling plant that left up to 10,000 homes with lead contamination has faced little accountability despite California officials' tough talk.
They have called Exide Technologies' spill a regulatory failure, an environmental injustice and a public health disaster. Yet years of pollution has earned little punishment for the plant.
Last year, the company came to an agreement with federal prosecutors, avoiding criminal charges for years of admitted felonies. And community groups in southeast Los Angeles County are not pleased that the government has allowed a plant to operate illegally for decades.
"People want to know, how can such calamity go on for so many years without any agency stopping it?" said Monsignor John Moretta of Resurrection Catholic Church in Boyle Heights. "From day one, we've been concerned about why this took place, and we haven't gotten a good answer."
In Michigan, state prosecutors have filed criminal charges in the wake of Flint's water crisis. In California, the government in investigating the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak that sickened thousands last winter. But no institution is currently working to investigate Exide.
The plant had been operating since 1922 in the industrial city of Vernon. Lead dust from the battery melting operation leaked into the surrounding community for decades.
"Clearly, everyone failed that community," said state Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D). "The danger is, if we do not figure out what was wrong with the process, we could repeat history."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/31/stories/1060038080
-
Pipe Replacement Costs Nearly Double
May 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Replacing water lines in Flint, Mich., will cost twice as much as expected.
The news comes as residents continue to struggle with high levels of lead contamination in the city's water supply.
A new report obtained by the Detroit Free Press showed that the average cost of replacing a water line in Flint during a recent pilot project was $7,500, almost twice the $4,000 the state Department of Environmental Quality estimated last fall.
The newspaper obtained a copy of a report issued by the engineering company Rowe Professional Services Co.
The increased expense could hamper talks at the state capital over how much funding Michigan should give to help Flint. The state currently faces a $460 million revenue shortfall.
Flint has already received $2 million from the state to replace around 500 lines, but Gov. Rick Snyder's (R) budget originally asked for almost $200 million.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/31/stories/1060038076
-
Narrow High Court Decision Backs Review Of CWA 'Jurisdiction' Findings
May 31, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Supreme Court in a narrow, unanimous ruling is backing pre-enforcement review of agencies' Clean Water Act (CWA) findings on whether particular waters are subject to permit limits and other protections, but the decision relies in part on an agreement between agencies on how to conduct JDs that the White House has already signaled it may revise.
The May 31 decision in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., written by Chief Justice John Roberts, allows property owners who receive a CWA jurisdictional determination (JD) saying their lands include waterbodies subject to the CWA to challenge those findings in court immediately, rather than waiting for EPA or the Corps to initiate permitting or enforcement action. The decision marks a significant shift from many lower courts' earlier decisions that had previously held a permit or enforcement action was necessary for a JD suit to go forward.
Roberts' decision says JDs are “final agency action” that carry legal consequences for recipients and can therefore be the subject of a lawsuit under the justices' landmark 1997 decision Bennett v. Spear.
However, that conclusion is narrow because it relies in part on a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Corps that, Roberts says, binds agencies to follow a JD's conclusions in enforcement actions and other litigation for at least five years after its publication. The agencies' MOA means a “negative” JD that finds no jurisdictional waters creates a binding “safe harbor” that ensures a property owner can fill in wetlands or discharge pollutants without fear of federal CWA penalties, Roberts writes.
“[A]lthough the property owner may still face a citizen suit under the Act, such a suit -- unlike actions brought by the Government -- cannot impose civil liability for wholly past violations. In other words, a negative JD both narrows the field of potential plaintiffs and limits the potential liability a landowner faces for discharging pollutants without a permit. Each of those effects is a 'legal consequence' . . . It follows that affirmative JDs have legal consequences as well: They represent the denial of the safe harbor that negative JDs afford,” he continues.
In the case, Hawkes, a Minnesota peat mining firm, is contesting a JD finding jurisdictional waters on its land that it argues effectively bars collecting peat on the affected property.
Roberts' decision stops short of embracing the argument Hawkes and other JD challengers have raised that JDs are inherently final action carrying legal consequences regardless of the MOA, because they represent a pledge from regulators to pursue federal enforcement action against unpermitted discharges. The challengers argued that a JD effectively denies property owners full use of their land unless they go through a potentially expensive permit process, and said that denial should be considered a “legal consequence” in itself.
'Safe Harbor'
But the court's reliance on the MOA could allow EPA and the Corps to dodge judicial review of future JDs despite unanimous decision, by amending its terms to remove the “safe harbor” provision Roberts cited.
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart said such a move was possible at March 31 oral argument in Hawkes, telling the justices, “If the agencies wanted to fix it, they easily could, simply by issuing a new [MOA] clarifying their view of the the JDs' effect."
Roberts goes on to say that JD recipients have no adequate means of contesting regulators' view of CWA jurisdiction other than to challenge the JD itself in court -- a necessary finding to allow suits to proceed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued on behalf of the Corps that property owners who believe their land includes no protected waters can either seek a permit and then sue over its terms, or discharge without a permit and raise jurisdiction as a defense against a federal enforcement action.
“Neither alternative is adequate. As we have long held, parties need not await enforcement proceedings before challenging final agency action where such proceedings carry the risk of 'serious criminal and civil penalties,'” Roberts writes.
Finally, he says, DOJ's argument that the recipient of a JD is legally no worse off than a property owner who never sought a JD and must rely on their own judgment of what the CWA requires is “[t]rue enough. But such a 'count your blessings' argument is not an adequate rejoinder to the assertion of a right to judicial review under the APA.”
Concurring Opinions
But even though the decision is unanimous, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all filed concurrences that show disagreement on whether they would have allowed review of JDs without the MOA -- meaning that if EPA and the Corps amend their agreement it could leave the law again unclear on whether the findings can be challenged.
Kagan writes in her concurring opinion that she believes the MOA is “central to the disposition of the case” because without it there would be no “safe harbor” against federal action for recipients of negative JDs.
However, Ginsburg says Roberts' opinion should not have relied on the MOA at all, and that JDs would satisfy the test for final action even with no interagency agreement.
“The Court received scant briefing about this memorandum, and the United States does not share the Court’s reading of it,” because DOJ argued it applies only to “special” JDs, Ginsburg writes.
She says she joins Roberts' opinion “save for its reliance upon the Memorandum of Agreement,” and argues instead that “the JD at issue is 'definitive,' not 'informal' or 'tentative' . . . and has 'an immediate and practical impact' . . . Accordingly, I agree with the Court that the JD is final.”
'Ominous Reach'
Similarly, Kennedy -- joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas -- acknowledges that the administration has signaled it could revoke or amend the MOA but notes that he believes JDs could be final even without it because “in many instances it will have a significant bearing on whether the Clean Water Act comports with due process.”
But he warns that without binding JDs the reach of the CWA becomes much less clear, echoing a statement he made at oral argument that the water law is “quite vague in its reach, arguably unconstitutionally vague.”
“The Act, especially without the JD procedure were the Government permitted to foreclose it, continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government’s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation,” Kennedy says in his concurrence.
He says that if the MOA is not binding as DOJ argued, then “the Act’s ominous reach would again be unchecked by the limited relief the Court allows today.”
EPA and the Corps have tried to set out a clear definition for which waters are jurisdictional in their controversial joint rule defining what is a “water of the United States” subject to the CWA, but that rule is itself under challenge from a host of stakeholders and expected to reach the Supreme Court. Kennedy's comments could signal sympathy with critics of the rule who claim it is expansive and seeks to greatly broaden federal regulation of private land.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), one of Congress' most prominent critics of the CWA rule, raised that connection explicitly in a May 31 statement on the Hawkes ruling.
“The Obama administration may think it’s above the law, but the Supreme Court confirmed today it certainly is not. This decision is just the latest blow to the president’s regulatory rampage. Families and small businesses across the country shouldn’t have to fight Washington just to use their own property. Now the Supreme Court should go one step further and strike down the entire Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule before more Americans are strangled by this unprecedented Washington water grab,” Barrasso said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/narrow-high-court-decision-backs-review-cwa-jurisdiction-findings
-
IG Defends its Work in Latest Report to Congress
May 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The U.S. EPA inspector general touted its investigative work in a new report released to Congress.
On Friday, the agency watchdog released its latest semiannual report, covering its work from Oct. 1 last year to March 31. The IG included in the report various statistics to demonstrate the impact of its investigations and audits.
Investigators reported bringing in $4.1 million on the return on investment in the IG office, including nearly $3.2 million in fines, settlements and restitutions resulting from joint investigations between the EPA IG and other federal agencies.
The inspector general also helped bring about five criminal convictions, two civil actions and 10 suspensions or debarment actions. The IG also disproved five allegations during the time period, according to the report.
In his message to Congress accompanying the report, IG Arthur Elkins said his office's "investigations detected instances of fraud, waste and abuse, resulting in criminal convictions and dollars recouped."
Elkins also noted the IG's ongoing investigations into the agency's sluggish response to the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., as well as into the Gold King mine disaster, where EPA workers accidentally released toxic waste into the Animas and San Juan rivers.
Elkins also mentioned past investigations that his office has recently completed, including its findings of just seven EPA employees taking more than 15,000 hours of administrative or paid leave.
The EPA IG also lamented that it is still facing impediments to investigations from agency management. EPA's Office of Homeland Security, a frequent source of friction between the watchdog and the agency, remains an obstacle to the IG's probes.
According to the IG's semiannual report, the homeland security office has said it will not share FBI information with the agency watchdog unless it determines it falls in the IG's jurisdiction. In addition, OHS developed EPA's "Insider Threat" rules but did not consult much initially with the IG until "lengthy negotiations" established the IG as "a central entity" in the program.
"This is of concern given that insider threat cases involve employee misconduct, and the OIG is the sole entity in the agency that can investigate allegations of employee misconduct," said the IG's report.
An agency spokeswoman said EPA would respond to the inspector general.
"EPA is reviewing the OIG report and will respond to the OIG, as appropriate," said Melissa Harrison, an EPA spokeswoman.
Expect more reports from the EPA IG in the future. There were 234 pending investigations as of March 31, including 90 "employee integrity" cases that detail worker misconduct, according to the semiannual report.
'Employee integrity' cases
Also on Friday, the EPA inspector general released summaries of 35 employee integrity cases closed between Oct. 1 last year and March 31.
Some of the summaries detail the agency watchdog's greatest hits, including its investigation of former Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned after allegations of mismanagement and blocking investigations, as well as John Beale, the former EPA senior official who impersonated a CIA spy.
The case of Peter Jutro is also included in the IG's report, though he is not mentioned by name. Jutro, who once led EPA's homeland security office, resigned in January last year after investigators uncovered several instances of him sexually harassing women (E&E Daily, May 4, 2015).
Other cases mentioned in the report have surfaced elsewhere already.
For example, one case described an IG special agent being suspended for one day without pay last July for "failing to properly secure an OIG-issued firearm in the workplace." A Freedom of Information request by Greenwire showed that the agent had left a gun in a bathroom stall at EPA's headquarters (Greenwire, Feb. 22).
The inspector general also provided more detail on some of the cases at a congressional hearing this month.
One employee for an EPA contractor was found to have regularly watched porn on an agency computer for 18 years. The contractor was ordered to pay $22,088 in restitution as a result. Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Patrick Sullivan discussed the case in his written testimony for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (E&E Daily, May 18).
Sullivan also discussed in his testimony another investigation that involved an EPA Criminal Investigation Division special agent being involved in a pyramid scheme. That case is included in the employee integrity report, noting that the agent paid $8,000 in restitution and fines for making a false statement.
Some individuals caught committing misdeeds by the IG often escape sanction from the agency by leaving EPA through retirement or resignation. The lack of punishment for those wrongdoers has angered lawmakers on Capitol Hill who want to see EPA tamp down more aggressively on misbehaving employees.
"That is the M.O.: You steal, you sit around and watch porno, you get convictions outside and you either voluntarily resign or get to retirement, but nobody gets fired," Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) said at the House Oversight hearing earlier this month on EPA employee misconduct.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/31/stories/1060038094
-
Congress Confirms Biomass Should Help Fight Climate Change
May 31, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Roger A. Sedjo and Stephen Shaler
In a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation, the Senate just passed a far-ranging energy bill. Critics have quickly homed in on a unanimously adopted amendment recognizing the renewability and carbon benefits of biomass energy derived from wood and plant material. That designation puts biomass in the same category as wind, solar, and other renewables in the eyes of federal officials.
Critics claim lawmakers have gotten out in front of the science and that there's not enough evidence to definitively prove biomass's environmental benefits. They're wrong. Science recognizes biomass is a well-established way to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. Supporting biomass energy provides one more important strategy for fighting global climate change.The Senate should be applauded. And the final compromise legislation with the House should preserve these amendments.
Often derived from bark, sawdust, treetops, and low-quality wood unsuitable for home building or furniture, biomass can be used instead of fossil fuels to produce heat and electricity, resulting in significantly fewer emissions than conventional energy sources. A recent peer reviewed study from the University of Illinois concluded that electricity derived from popular biomass products is 74 to 85 percent less carbon-intensive than coal-based electricity.
And that's just one entry in a large and growing literature demonstrating that biomass helps reduce greenhouse emissions. Indeed, over a 100 of the country's preeminent forestry experts recently signed a letter to federal regulators calling the carbon benefits of biomass "well established."
Yet this designation in the Senate energy bill has been met with fierce criticism. Anti-biomass groups claim that biomass is environmentally unfriendly. The Washington Post complained that the Senate was "legislating science rather than allowing agency experts to make determinations." The New York Times called for Congress to scrap the proposal and let the EPA make "make case-by-case determinations of neutrality…something it is much better suited to do."
Such alarmism is deliberately misleading. The critics are willfully ignoring the environmental benefits of biomass presented in the science literature.
Using biomass for energy actually contributes to the health of our forests. Removing biomass from growing forests helps the remaining trees grow larger and remain healthy. It also helps prevent wildfires -- themselves a source of CO2 pollution -- by clearing out dense undergrowth that increases fire risk.
The extraordinary growth of American forests -- a 50 percent increase in volume since the 1950s -- is a major reason why biomass offers such significant carbon savings. New trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the total greenhouse gas emissions resulting from biomass. In fact, the net growth in U.S. forests offsets 13 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions annually.
Forest growth and removal data show that over the last decade, as the biomass industry steadily expanded, forest stocks in the American South -- a key source of raw biomass materials -- have actually increased by almost 1.2 billion tons.
In both the Atlantic and Gulf regions, smaller pine trees thinned from the forest -- specifically to provide biomass fuel -- accounted for just 0.03 percent of overall forest inventory. And for every ton of low quality hardwood removed for biomass energy each year, forests are growing an additional 2.45 tons of volume.
While it's true that the use of biomass is growing in some areas, opposition groups are exploiting modest increases by using alarming, unrealistic future growth models that no one believes. Informed analysts believe that biomass demand will level-out and play a relatively small but important role as a trusty complement to wind and solar energy -- a point that biomass opponents seem happy to leave out.
Biomass energy decreases the use of fossil fuels, improves forest health, and dramatically reduces carbon emissions. In other words, it's precisely the sort of clean-energy option that those seeking real solutions to climate change should be proud to champion.
The Senate is right to recognize the carbon benefits of biomass energy. It is another important source of hope for bringing down global greenhouse gas emissions.Roger A. Sedjo, PhD, is a Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future. Stephen Shaler, PhD, is the Director of the School of Forest Resources and Associate Director at the Advanced Structures & Composites Center at the University of Maine.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281734-congress-confirms-biomass-should-help-fight-climate
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested