Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/10/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Industry Will See Continued Growth in 2016: ACC
Jun 10, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
The American chemistry industry will continue to grow this year, as it did in 2015, according to Mid-Year 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook Report, released this week by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Celanese Working on Plans for 2nd U.S. Methanol Plant
Jun 10, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
Irving, Texas-based Celanese is working with Japanese partner Mitsui on plans for a second methanol project in the U.S. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moving Toward White House Review Of Federal Synthetic Turf Plan
Jun 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA and other federal agencies collaborating on a research plan for investigating the human health risks of playing on fields and playgrounds made with tire crumb rubber are awaiting the results of an external peer review before seeking White House approval of the plan, while at the same time reviewing public comments questioning the plan. -
(ACC Mentioned) Key Takeaways from the Passage of TSCA Reform
Jun 10, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
Now that the final TSCA reform bill is on the President’s desk, it is a good time to reflect on what it represents and what’s next. We’ve posted a fact sheet on the final bill here if you want an abbreviated, but relatively thorough, rundown of the issues. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Regulations Finally Updated
Jun 10, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The effort to reform the 40-year-old law that governs the regulation of chemicals in the US has faced many false starts, especially over the last year, but now finally President Obama’s signature enacting a law to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is imminent. -
When Red and Blue in Congress Makes Green
Jun 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Fred Krupp
It often seems that Congress these days produces little other than partisan rancor, but here’s an exception: The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed the most important environmental legislation in two decades, a few weeks after similarly lopsided passage in the House. -
In U.S. Drinking Water, Many Chemicals are Regulated — But Many Aren’t
Jun 10, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
For all the pathogens and chemicals monitored by the federal government to protect drinking water, a far broader universe of “emerging contaminants” is going unregulated. -
U.S. Senate Passes Overhaul to Expand Review of Chemicals in Everyday Products
Jun 9, 2016 | LA Times
By Sarah D. Wire
The Environmental Protection Agency will have to review the safety of thousands of chemicals — many commonly found in items Americans interact with every day — under legislation on its way to President Obama. -
Unpacking The Toxic Substances Control Act Reform Bill
Jun 10, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Sandra A. Edwards
The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have passed the long-pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation, which will bolster the government’s power to regulate a wide variety of chemicals. -
MN Environmentalists Want More from New Toxics Rules
Jun 10, 2016 | Public News Service - MN
By Brandon Campbell
One step forward, two steps back. That's how some Minnesota environmentalists describe new federal rules on toxic substances that could limit the state's own protections. -
Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics Linked to Preterm Births and Low Birth Weight
Jun 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Erin Green
A study of pregnant Brooklyn women led by the SUNY Downstate Medical Center links triclosan, an antibacterial agent common in personal care products, with preterm births and smaller newborns. -
Pa. Republicans Push for a Say in Climate Regs Compliance
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Pennsylvania's GOP is tightening its grip on the state's response to the Clean Power Plan. -
Inhofe, Industry Lawyer say EPA Work Negates Supreme Court Order
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Critics of the Clean Power Plan say U.S. EPA's continued work with states that want to keep planning for power-sector carbon reductions may force opposing states to stay involved or get left behind. -
EPA IG Asked To Review Alleged Cover-Up Of Methane Leaks
Jun 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
A North Carolina group is asking EPA's Inspector General (IG) to investigate claims that the former head of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) led a three-year cover up of under-reporting methane leaks from oil and gas operations, which the group says resulted in the agency not adequately regulating emissions from the sector. -
Watchdog Group Warns of Faulty Methane Calculations
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A North Carolina watchdog group is arguing that the government may not actually know how much methane is released into the atmosphere from the drilling and storage of natural gas. -
'Ransomware' Threat Opens Utilities to Information Sharing
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
If faraway spies can't persuade power utilities to share cyberthreat information with the federal government, a here-and-now hostage crisis just might, homeland security officials heard yesterday. -
Calif. Dems Try Again to Allow Citizens to Sue Over Spills
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
People affected by spills and leaks could sue the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration under a new bill from Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat whose district was rocked in 2010 by a natural gas pipeline explosion. -
Chemical Spill in Riverside County Injures 16, Including Firefighter
Jun 10, 2016 | LA Times
By Angel Jennings
Sixteen people, including a firefighter, were injured Thursday in a chemical spill at an Eastvale food distribution center, authorities said. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Grants Six-Month Extension For Input On RCRA Dust Petition Denial
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is granting a six-month extension for input on its proposed denial of a whistleblower group's petition seeking stricter federal hazardous waste law listing criteria for corrosive dust, far more than the 30 to 60 days industry groups say is acceptable but short of the 210 extra days the whistleblowers sought to review the content of the denial. -
Oil & Gas Industry Doubts Need For Final EPA Voluntary Ozone Guidelines
Jun 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo & Stuart Parker
Oil and gas industry officials are questioning EPA's plan to soon finalize its voluntary guide for how areas not attaining federal ozone standards can cut ozone, saying the agency's apparent plan to eventually regulate methane from existing sector sources negates the need for the guide given that cutting methane can also reduce ozone. -
House Votes to Condemn Carbon Tax
Jun 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House voted Friday to condemn a potential carbon tax, closing the door on a climate change policy popular in some conservative circles.
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) U.S. Chemical Industry Will See Continued Growth in 2016: ACC
Jun 10, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
The American chemistry industry will continue to grow this year, as it did in 2015, according to Mid-Year 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook Report, released this week by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
“Growth is happening even in the face of some serious economic challenges: weakness in key export markets, a high dollar, ongoing balancing in the oil and gas sector, and a major slump in the domestic and global manufacturing sector,” the report states.
Compared to producers elsewhere in the world, American chemical manufacturers are greatly advantaged with access to cheaper and more abundant feedstock and energy and, as a result, there has been significant capital investment in American chemistry, the report states.
“Abundant supplies of domestic natural gas from shale have moved the U.S. from being a high-cost producer of key petrochemicals and resins, to among the lowest cost producers globally, creating a period of unprecedented growth,” said Cal Dooley, ACC chief executive, speaking this week at ACC’s annual meeting, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
“We currently have more than 262 new chemical projects announced that are valued at over $161 billion,” according to Dooley.
“Although lower costs of inputs may be translating into more muted gains in revenue and shipments, we are seeing continued growth in chemical production volumes, particularly in basic chemicals,” according to the report.
Chemical production volumes have improved in 2016 and, except for wholesalers, inventories remain fairly balanced, Kallanish Energy learns. Thus, new production will be required to satisfy growing demand in 2016 and 2017.
Over the past year, output gains have been led by agricultural chemicals, bulk petrochemicals and organics, and plastic resins, all areas aided by renewed competitiveness arising from shale gas.
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2016/06/10/u-s-chemical-industry-will-see-continued-growth-2016-acc/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Celanese Working on Plans for 2nd U.S. Methanol Plant
Jun 10, 2016 | Kallanish Energy
Irving, Texas-based Celanese is working with Japanese partner Mitsui on plans for a second methanol project in the U.S.
The company expects to have a clearer view on whether or not it will move forward by the end of the year, Celanese’s CEO said earlier this week.
“We’ve done the preliminary engineering and more work is due at the end of the year when we should have an updated business case,” Mark Rohr said in an interview with ICIS News on the sidelines of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) annual meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Celanese’s first US methanol plant with joint venture partner Mitsui in Clear Lake, Texas, came online in October 2015, Kallanish Energy reports.
“This would be a replica of that plant as that way we can minimize capital costs,” Rohr told ISIS.
The first plant, with capacity of 1.4 million metric tonnes per year, is running at full capacity, he added.
If everything proceeds as planned, the second methanol plant could start up in 2019-2020 range.
While there should be more clarity on the second project by the end of 2016, it won’t necessarily be a binary decision as to whether a final investment decision is made or the project is dropped, Rohr told ISIS.
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2016/06/10/celanese-working-plans-2nd-u-s-methanol-plant/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moving Toward White House Review Of Federal Synthetic Turf Plan
Jun 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA and other federal agencies collaborating on a research plan for investigating the human health risks of playing on fields and playgrounds made with tire crumb rubber are awaiting the results of an external peer review before seeking White House approval of the plan, while at the same time reviewing public comments questioning the plan.
The agencies' "Synthetic Turf Fields with Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Research Protocol" document is currently going through external peer review managed by a contractor, an EPA spokesman says. "After the peer-review is complete, the next step is for the research protocol document to go through the [White House] Information Collection Request (ICR) review process before the research can proceed . . ."
The research plan must undergo scrutiny from the White House Office of Budget and Management because the research involves collecting information from more than 10 people or entities. The spokesman did not indicate when the peer review will conclude, saying only that the results of the review will be posted on EPA's website.
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) are leading the federal research project, while the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is also collaborating. EPA and ATSDR released in February a plan for two new studies, one intended to "characterize field use procedures and conditions," by recording field use and maintenance patterns at 40 synthetic turf fields spread across the United States, according to ATSDR's Feb. 18Federal Register notice.
The second study is thought to be "the first assessment of activities conducted on synthetic turf for the purpose of characterizing potential exposure patterns," according to the notice, by surveying people who frequently use synthetic turf fields.
The Register notice adds that "if time and resources allow, we will conduct a full exposure characterization sub-study among a subset of the respondents. If possible, we will use the facilities sampled in the first study to conduct activities for the full exposure characterization of facility users. The exposure characterization sub-study will likely include but is not limited to field environment and material sampling, personal air monitoring, dermal sampling, and urine collection."
Research Plan
The research plan is drawing a mixed reaction from environmentalists and industry, with advocates pressing for a ban on the use of such fields by children younger than 6 years old until the research is complete and industry groups urging the agencies to clarify in any communications about the studies the levels of contaminants in the tire crumb rubber used to make the synthetic turf as well as reporting the chemicals and contaminants identified.
In its May 2 comments, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) criticizes the federal research plan, saying that it will only delay action, that it should focus more on lead and there should be some link to regulatory action. PEER calls for the agencies to "issue a joint public statement urging that tire-crumb not be installed as play surfaces for children under age 13 until a thorough risk assessment and analysis of toxic pathways has been completed"; to standardize and monitor the components used to make artificial turf, and for CPSC to declare playground and sports fields at schools to be children's products. The last action would place the grounds under the third-party testing requirements of the 2008 CPSC Improvement Act, which among other things limits lead content in children's products to 100 parts per million.
Similar concerns are raised by the Safe and Healthy Playing Fields Coalition, which joins PEER's call for CPSC to declare the artificial playgrounds and fields children's products, and expands the request by calling on the agencies to place a moratorium on construction of any new fields of this type. Further, the group describes concerns of cancer clusters of youth soccer players, particularly goaltenders, who they say have the greatest exposure to tire crumb rubber in artificial turf. The group notes the efforts of one Washington state soccer coach to gather the names and information on some 200 youth soccer players diagnosed with various cancers, the majority of them goaltenders.
"We respectfully request that an official study of the soccer player cancer cluster be initiated by [the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention] immediately," the group writes in its May 2 comments.
Environmental Risks
Meanwhile, the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network, argues that in addition to human health concerns, the components of synthetic turf fields and playgrounds also pose environmental risks. The group's April 29 comments point to studies indicating that "[a]s rubber degrades it can leach toxic substances which can contaminate soil, plants and aquatic ecosystems."
The group argues that "it is also clear that additional study for water and other natural resources is needed."
By contrast, the Synthetic Turf Council, representing makers and installers of synthetic turf, calls on EPA and the other agencies to alter the federal research plan to add sampling controls of air and soil near the synthetic fields selected for the study, consider the risks and benefits of alternatives to synthetic fields, and report chemical components within synthetic fields "in context with regard to health-based guidelines," the association's May 2 comments say.
The group explains that "the identification of chemical compounds in recycled rubber must include context, i.e., a baseline below which the presence of those constituents has been determined to present no significant health hazards (e.g., health-based standards for toys) . . . if the presence of chemicals found at low levels is reported, the Agencies must provide context to that report by noting (if so) that the chemical compounds are present only at levels below which there is any significant risk. And, the Agencies should note whether such chemicals are also present in natural grass and dirt fields, especially those in urban and suburban settings, where contributions from pollutants deposited from vehicular exhaust, paint chips, and other dusts and debris are common."
The group adds that the industry uses two health-based guidelines in creating the synthetic fields, including European, CPSC and EPA lead standards in toys and soils and "Human health risk assessment models to estimate additional cancer risk from exposure to [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] via the dermal and ingestion exposure pathways are benchmarked against exposure to background level of PAH's and arsenic in urban and rural soils."
Industries' Concerns
The industry association explains that it has communicated its concern with local sampling controls to California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is conducting its own research into synthetic turf fields and tire crumb rubber playgrounds. The sampling controls allow discovery of other potential sources of chemicals beyond the tire crumb rubber, the industry association argues, and as a reference to chemicals that may be found on grass fields and soils.
"Finally, failing to utilize adequate sampling controls will call into question the validity of the results of the federal research. We note that California OEHHA staff had initially not included control soil sampling in its research, but is reconsidering that position based on comments at a recent Public Meeting of its Synthetic Turf Scientific Advisory Panel . . .”
An industry coalition including the American Chemistry Council, National Manufacturers' Association and others raises these concerns as well, while also urging the agencies to analyze all existing peer-reviewed studies and to create a scientific review panel.
The industry groups call on the agencies to "engage in a comprehensive and thoroughly objective analysis of all available peer-reviewed research concerning crumb rubber and its composition, including studies on exposure. There has been much research on the issue, and it is vital that the agencies avoid selection bias when determining key knowledge gaps, which is one of the specific objectives indicated in the Federal Research Action Plan."
Regarding the review panel, the industry groups say that it "should be comprised of subject matter experts from industry, academia and the research community and would help minimize any duplication of efforts by the agencies. Importantly, the scientific review panel should provide comments on agencies' efforts."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-moving-toward-white-house-review-federal-synthetic-turf-plan
-
(ACC Mentioned) Key Takeaways from the Passage of TSCA Reform
Jun 10, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
Now that the final TSCA reform bill is on the President’s desk, it is a good time to reflect on what it represents and what’s next. We’ve posted a fact sheet on the final bill here if you want an abbreviated, but relatively thorough, rundown of the issues.
First, I want to thank all of our supporters for their hard work. The moms and dads and doctors and nurses that participated in our Stroller Brigades locally and in DC should appreciate the impact that you’ve had. Also, I want to thank our many coalition partners, national and local, who mobilized varied expertise and diverse memberships. Together we were able to turn this legislation around in three years to something that is at least net positive for public health and the environment. The combination of grassroots activism and constructive engagement on the policy questions worked. It did not work well enough for us to endorse, but the bill should do more good than harm. Pat yourself on the back. This is not a champagne moment, but you deserve a beer at least.
Here are the takeaways I would suggest for key constituencies:
To the concerned public: Keep up your guard and stay involved.
You know who you are. You might not be a professional advocate, but you have become a change-maker for a safer environment for you and your family. You choose safer products, but also take action, at least occasionally, to push for more systemic improvement. You might come at the issues from the perspective of breast cancer, from a concern about learning disabilities, or just general concern for public health. The key question you have is: does this bill solve the problem of toxic chemicals? The short answer is no. No one can credibly argue that this bill solves the problem of toxic chemicals and their impact on public health in the United States. The progress at the federal level will just be too slow.
The good news is that because of the reforms, the federal government can finally be part of the solution. The EPA can get in on the action of advancing public health and environmental protection. Consumer-driven campaigns will probably still produce more change, more quickly than EPA can. So keep reading labels and keep taking action for your own family and the broader world. Keep pressuring companies to substitute safer chemicals for unsafe ones. Keep holding your retailers accountable for what they sell through our Mind the Store campaign and similar efforts. But now, also help us keep EPA’s feet to the fire to use their new powers to the maximum degree.
To my coalition partners and allies: Let’s use this new law.
This is not the reform we set out for by a long shot. I am acutely aware of that, perhaps more than anyone. The chemical industry’s power in the political process was too great and reflects a normalization of the corrupting influence of big money. Some key allies, inside and outside of government, let us down at critical moments. It was enormously frustrating.
And yet… we won on several important issues. The key legal roadblocks that have prevented EPA from taking action on chemicals have mostly been removed. The provision requiring identification and protection for disproportionately exposed populations provides a powerful new handle for environmental justice communities and workers like fire fighters. The requirement to identify and protect populations that are disproportionately susceptible to injury provides a potentially powerful handle to protect the developing fetus and child from endocrine disrupting chemicals. The mandatory schedule and deadlines in the bill are lame, sure, but even a relatively small number of chemicals can impact millions and millions of people. If EPA gets it right, and truly implements the letter and spirit of these provisions, we could prevent new harm from those chemicals and have a positive impact on a substantial part of the population. The provisions on chemical testing and confidential business information also provide opportunities to advance public health. Let’s bring our A-Game to implementation and get the most out of what we won. Let’s also continue to watchdog the issues like low priority and import notification that pose risks.
Europe will still be the leading edge of global regulation. States will still be the leading force domestically. Market campaigns will produce change more quickly especially for particular chemical and product combinations. We must keep firing on those cylinders, but we now also have the potential for significant gains from EPA.
To State Legislatures, Governors, and Attorneys General: You’re still the Watchers on the Wall.
Yes, that’s a Game of Thrones reference and yes, I’m a nerd. (Don’t kid yourselves, you’re nerds too.) In the show, the Night’s Watch is an underfunded and understaffed cadre of public employees guarding an aging infrastructure (the Wall) against an ancient evil that threatens the “realms of men.” Sound familiar? The fact is that you still have a critical job to do. In the parlance of the show: Your watch has not ended.
As you know, state authority was probably the most contentious issue in this debate. The coalition fought hard to protect it. I’m sorry that we could not do better. The early or “pause” preemption in the bill is a ridiculous idea that became the proverbial “pound of flesh” that the American Chemistry Council demanded in this debate. The waiver for states is pretty convoluted too. The fact that the final bill included these is particularly difficult to swallow since we had a House bill that avoided them entirely.
But there is a flip side: TSCA is now reformed and no one, no one, can credibly argue that it takes the place of state chemical regulatory activity. ACC will be peddling that line in state capitols but we both know that they are completely full of crap. The pace of chemical reviews will simply be too slow to make that claim stick.
And because the preemption in the bill is tied to the progress that EPA makes chemical-by-chemical, that means state authority is preserved in full for the vast majority of chemicals. Also, take special note of the inclusions and exclusions from preemption even when EPA does take action. The grace period of 12 to 18 months for states to act on a chemical that EPA has prioritized is important too. States are not encumbered by the burdens of proof and analysis that will still weigh the federal program down, so state action, even on a chemical EPA has just prioritized, will often make sense and it will be still be possible under the bill. It’s worth noting that TSCA doesn’t apply to certain categories of chemical use, such as food packaging and cosmetics, so states are free to take the lead there too.
TSCA reform is finally here and it falls demonstrably short of what’s needed to fully protect public health and the environment. Your service at the state level – on the Wall – is still critical. That sound you’re hearing is not the buzzer, but the opening bell.
To Retailers: Customers won’t wait for EPA.
You’re in business and you know that the customer is always right. Many of you have responded to consumer demand for safer products by enacting your own policies to exclude certain chemicals of concern from what you sell or to require disclosure. Many more of you are contemplating new policies. Some of you have turned to EPA’s voluntary Safer Choice program for guidance in identifying safer substitutes. The chemical industry will surely insist that a reformed TSCA means EPA is now “on it” and you can now stand down. But you’re smart enough to know that you don’t want to tell a mom that you don’t care about the chemical in something she bought from you because EPA might look at that chemical five years from now.
So you’re still on the hook to be a part of solving this problem. The efforts you have made to promote safer substitution and innovation have already made a big difference. Products are safer today than three years ago because of retailer-driven change. So rather than slowing down, you could speed up. There may even be tools in the reformed law that could help you in terms of requiring information to be developed or declassified about a particular chemical. We will continue to be your partners, and nudge you when necessary.
To EPA: Let’s have a strong start.
Congratulations! You now have new authority. Are you ready to use it? The slower schedule in the final legislation was in many ways a response to your demand that the program not “set the agency up to fail.” So if the pace will be slow, it’s on you to ensure the maximum public health improvements are extracted from this process. We encourage you to take the protection of disproportionately exposed and susceptible populations to heart and ensure your evaluations and restrictions reflect the realities of toxic chemical exposure in this country. Also to use the best available science, like aggregate and cumulative exposure analysis, recommended by the National Academies of Sciences. The provisions on Work Plan chemicals and PBTs allow you to take expedited action on some of the worst chemicals. Use them.
We also encourage you to think expansively about some of these powers like testing authority. There is a broader demand for credible toxicity information about chemicals from various players in the marketplace who are looking to make the right decisions about the chemicals they choose to use in their products. Engage with them and don’t only require testing for the chemicals that you are planning to review in the near term.
The more you use the new powers effectively, the more of a constituency the program will have. The chemical industry will push back, of course, but the broader public health community, environmental groups, mom bloggers and others are rooting for you. We stand ready to help secure adequate funding and we plan to participate in the process.
With the reformed law, you can now join the states on the Wall guarding against unsafe chemicals. Your watch has begun.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/06/10/key-takeaways-from-the-passage-of-tsca-reform/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Regulations Finally Updated
Jun 10, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The effort to reform the 40-year-old law that governs the regulation of chemicals in the US has faced many false starts, especially over the last year, but now finally President Obama’s signature enacting a law to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is imminent.
The bill came to the Senate floor on the evening on 7 June by unanimous consent and passed on a voice vote, after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the same legislation by 403-12 on 24 May. The President has made his support for the legislation clear.
TSCA reform was derailed in the Senate by Republican Senator Rand Paul, a former presidential hopeful, who blocked a vote on the measure in May over concerns that it represented an over-reach of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority. Paul said he needed more time to review the bill, which is about 180 pages long, and then lifted the hold on 7 June despite his continuing objections. Addressing the Senate floor during the vote on 7 June, he argued that the TSCA reform bill set to become law represents a ‘sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulations’.
The updated TSCA gives the EPA significantly more power and responsibilities, including the authority to require health and safety data for untested chemicals. The bill also sets mandatory and enforceable deadlines for the EPA to act to regulate chemicals of concern, and it gives industry a pathway to prioritise approval of new chemicals before they reach the market as well as protection over proprietary information.
The legislation is not only bipartisan, having earned the votes of bitter political enemies on this issue, it has also managed to attract the enthusiastic support of the chemical industry and a significant portion of the environmental lobby.
The American Chemistry Council’s president and CEO, Cal Dooley, said the TSCA reform bill is significant not only because it is the first major environmental law passed since 1990, but also because it will benefit US manufacturers, American families and the nation’s standing as the world’s leading innovator.
Loopholes and rollbacks
The Environmental Defense Fund also celebrated the TSCA reform bill clearing Congress, hailing it as the first major environmental legislation in over two decades. While the Natural Resources Defense Council agreed that the bill strengthens EPA’s programme to evaluate and regulate toxic chemicals, its president, Rhea Suh, warned that it contains ‘loopholes and rollbacks’ sought by the chemical industry. She said these include restrictions on the authority of states, and limits on the EPA monitoring chemicals in imported products that may be a threat to public health.
The Environmental Working Group agreed that the TSCA rewrite now sitting on Obama’s desk represents a significant improvement over the current law, but said that it may not provide the EPA with the necessary resources or clear legal authority the agency needs to quickly review and, if needed, ban dangerous chemicals.
Last month, Republicans in the House released an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017 that would slash the EPA’s funding and staffing. The bill, which would cut $164 million in spending from the agency’s current levels, is $1 billion less than President Obama requested.
The committee also proposes to reduce the EPA’s regulatory programmes by 6% below the current level, and 21% below the President’s request. Further, the House bill rejects Obama’s proposed increase in staffing for the EPA, holding the agency to the current capacity of 15,000 positions, the lowest since 1989.
The head of the House Appropriations Committee, Hal Rogers, recently told Bloomberg BNA that ‘it remains to be seen’ if the implementation of the revised TSCA law will be funded adequately in fiscal year 2017. Any funding levels proposed by the House will have to be negotiated with the Senate figures before they can be forwarded to the President for his signature into law.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/06/tsca-us-chemical-regulation-law-passed
-
When Red and Blue in Congress Makes Green
Jun 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Fred Krupp
It often seems that Congress these days produces little other than partisan rancor, but here’s an exception: The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed the most important environmental legislation in two decades, a few weeks after similarly lopsided passage in the House.
That legislation is an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. The bill aims to fix the biggest problems with America’s broken chemical-safety system, providing the Environmental Protection Agency with new authority to review for safety and restrict the use of chemicals. Its passage is not only a victory for public health, but also for the kind of old-fashioned legislating in which the parties work toward common ground rather than jockey for partisan advantage. This provides lessons for how some of the oddest bedfellows in Washington can deliver major reform.
Most Americans assume that products they buy—upholstered furniture or laundry detergent, for instance—contain chemicals deemed by the government to be safe. That’s far from the truth. The U.S. has never effectively regulated chemicals. Millions of Americans have been left exposed to chemicals such as formaldehyde, a known carcinogen found in carpet glue and laminated countertops.
Health and environmental advocates have spent two decades pushing for an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, unchanged since the era of bell-bottoms and disco. Despite the law’s obvious flaws, efforts at reform stalled. In every Congress for the past decade, Democrats introduced strong legislation, bills that my organization supported. But they were blocked by those worried about overregulating the chemical industry.
Two factors broke the stalemate. First, consumers’ rising concerns registered with retailers, manufacturers and state lawmakers. Companies like S.C. Johnson and Procter & Gamble began reformulating products to remove certain ingredients, and retailers likeWal-Mart and Target began asking their suppliers to do the same. Given that the broken federal system couldn’t even regulate a known danger like asbestos, states stepped in to the fill the void. This created a patchwork of overlapping rules that manufacturers found confusing and onerous.
Second, negotiating partners sought common ground. The late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a public-health champion who got smoking banned on airplanes in the 1980s, was the first to step up. The New Jersey Democrat introduced the first bipartisan reform bill with Sen.David Vitter (R., La.), a legislator typically more concerned with reducing EPA regulations. When Sen. Lautenberg died in 2013, Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.), a longtime environmental advocate, led the effort to advance and improve the legislation.
Progressive Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley and Cory Booker threw their support behind the bill after securing changes to strengthen the role of states, among other improvements. Conservative Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.), best known in my circles for throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to mock global warming, joined the cause in recognition of the greater certainty that a national regulatory program would provide the business community. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, after attaining concessions preserving more authority for her home state of California and other states, signed on as well.
The House assembled its own set of unusual partners: Republicans John Shimkus andFred Upton worked with Democrats like Frank Pallone, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.These negotiations ultimately produced legislation that won support from a sizable bipartisan coalition in Congress—and, critically, the White House.
The law will for the first time require safety reviews for all new and, over time, existing chemicals in use. They will start with those presenting the greatest hazards and most widespread exposures. Further, the safety of chemicals will be determined based solely on health and environmental risk. Instead of considering cost when determining whethera chemical is dangerous, cost will only be examined when deciding how to regulate a risky chemical. The bill will also give the EPA enhanced testing authority, set aggressive deadlines for action and ensure that only legitimate trade secrets can be protected from public disclosure.
A professor of mine once said that problems become more solvable when people lower their voices and work things out. In the midst of the final negotiations, Sen. Inhofe and I discussed our shared commitment to find a way forward. That conversation helped me realize how right my teacher had been. Despite our profound and public disagreements over the years on climate change, we had found a way to work together to make progress on protecting Americans from dangerous or untested chemicals.
For too many in Washington, even talking to the opposition, much less working across the aisle, is a sin. But in an era of narrow majorities and divided government, that is a recipe for certain failure. If a willingness to work with people you normally oppose leads to fewer hazardous chemicals in our children’s lives, perhaps some are looking at the moral calculation in the wrong way.
Mr. Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-red-and-blue-in-congress-makes-green-1465511431
-
In U.S. Drinking Water, Many Chemicals are Regulated — But Many Aren’t
Jun 10, 2016 | Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
For all the pathogens and chemicals monitored by the federal government to protect drinking water, a far broader universe of “emerging contaminants” is going unregulated.
The Environmental Protection Agency keeps tabs on scores of substances that have surfaced in water systems around the country, with the aim of restricting those that endanger public health. But partly because the rules that the agency must follow are complicated and contentious, officials have failed to successfully regulate any new contaminant in two decades.
Only once since the 1990s has the EPA come close to imposing a new standard — for perchlorate, a chemical found in explosives, road flares, rocket fuel and, it turns out, the drinking water of upwards of 16 million people.
The years of inaction, critics say, have left many Americans at potential risk from substances that few even realize might be in their water in the first place.
“We live in a country where we’ve made a fundamental decision that chemicals are safe unless they’re proven to be bad,” said Jeffrey Griffiths, a public health professor at Tufts University School of Medicine who studies waterborne diseases. “We have this system which is biased toward the presumption of innocence.”
Here in North Carolina, one of the contaminants on the government’s watch list has been found in rivers and streams on which more than a million people depend.
Since 2013, Detlef Knappe and a team of researchers at N.C. State University have logged hundreds of miles as they gathered samples along the Cape Fear River basin. From Greensboro in the heart of the state to the coastal city of Wilmington, they have identified troubling levels of “1,4-dioxane,” a byproduct of plastics manufacturing that can be found in everything from paint strippers and varnishes to detergents, shampoos and cosmetics. The EPA has deemed it a “likely human carcinogen,” although limited data exist on the cancer risks it poses for people.
“1,4-dioxane really has no business being in the water,” said Knappe, an environmental engineering professor who has worked with state regulators and the National Science Foundation to dig deeper into the issue. “This has probably been going on for decades, but no one has really looked at it. . . . We only find what we look for.”
The EPA keeps a list of about 100 unregulated contaminants that have made their way into water supplies from industrial sites and other sources. Every five years, the agency updates a shorter lineup of chemicals that it thinks should betracked and studied and requires utilities to do testing.
The current inventory includes two viruses and 28 chemicals, including 1,4-dioxane. The goal is to eventually regulate those that pose the greatest risk to public health.
But critics say that regulators should be moving far more assertively, even as scientists continue researching the short- and long-term health impacts. They blame both the system set up by Congress as well as the agency’s glacial pace.
“For an agency to be unable to adopt a single new standard in 20 years is inexcusable,” said Erik Olson, health and environment program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s a combination of a bad law and very bad implementation.”
In the wake of the lead crisis in Flint, Mich., and other problems in communities elsewhere, many people are increasingly wary of what flows from the faucets of their homes and schools — and whether the federal government is doing enough to safeguard drinking water. In April, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that more than 60 percent of Americans rate the government’s efforts as just fair or poor.
In 1974, the newly enacted Safe Drinking Water Act gave the EPA broad authority to monitor and regulate the nation’s public drinking-water supplies. The agency adopted existing standards covering nearly two dozen microbial and inorganic chemical contaminants. When regulators took too long to expand that number, Congress made clear in 1986 that it wanted faster action.
A bipartisan majority passed additional legislation requiring the agency to establish drinking-water limits for scores of contaminants — including bacteria such as legionella and chemical compounds from acrylamide to xylene. Lawmakers also directed the agency to set up a system for monitoring still-unregulated contaminants.
The result over the next decade was health-based thresholds for more than 85 substances, including a range of disinfection byproducts and chemicals known to increase the risks of kidney damage, high blood pressure and cancer, among other conditions.
Those efforts prompted complaints from some local water officials about the increased costs and time needed to comply with the wave of new regulations. Utilities faced testing and treatment requirements for a growing list of contaminants — some that appeared only in certain parts of the country and some that scientists were still studying to determine their public health implications.
In 1996, Congress intervened again. This time lawmakers directed the EPA to do detailed cost-benefit analyses on additional contaminants that it sought to restrict. The agency also had to ensure that sufficient science existed to establish the public-health risks of a particular substance before attempting to regulate it.
“It created this Herculean set of tasks that EPA had to go through before they could adopt any new standards,” Olson said.
In the 20 years since, the EPA has come close to successfully regulating only one new chemical contaminant in drinking water. In 2011, reversing a Bush administration decision, the agency announced its intention to set a federal standard for perchlorate. Exposure to the chemicalcan disrupt thyroid function in humans.
Yet the agency still has not put any limits in place. The National Resources Defense Council recently sued, saying that the EPA’s inaction could be exposing children and pregnant women to harm.
Joel Beauvais, who heads the EPA’s Office of Water, acknowledged that the agency’s pace in regulating new chemicals had slowed, in part because of the system mandated by Congress. “It’s a rather intensive process to get one of these drinking-water regulations across the finish line,” he said.
The law demands that the agency move deliberately — and there are reasons for that, he said. A substance may occur in only a very small number of drinking-water systems, for instance, or it may not have been detected at levels of concern. Before the EPA imposes new burdens on thousands of water systems, it must prove that there is a meaningful opportunity to improve public health.
“These are very consequential regulations,” he said. “They are consequential from a health perspective. They are consequential from an economic perspective.”
Beauvais noted that the EPA has updated standards for certain contaminants as well as revised other rules, such as those for treating wastewater, in ways that help contain the number of overall contaminants in drinking water. Officials also have said that they are exploring new approaches and could begin regulating entire groups of substances rather than targeting one at a time.
The agency has issued numerous health advisories — most recently forperfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a potentially toxic compound that has turned up in many water systems — that can prompt state and local officials to take action or at least notify residents about contaminants. Ultimately, though, the advisories are unenforceable.
The American Water Works Association says that the EPA should winnow its list to focus on a handful of chemicals that pose the biggest public-health concerns.
“In a resource-constrained world, it’s hard to make progress spreading your resources broadly,” said Steve Via, the association’s director of federal relations. “The way the current process is running, with large numbers of contaminants on the list you don’t get enough focus to achieve progress. When you don’t achieve progress, folks ask if the process is working.”
Congress on Tuesday passed a sweeping revision of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which covers thousands of chemicals in products as diverse as sippy cups, paint thinners and permanent-press clothing. The overhaul will give the EPA the power to require health and safety data for untested chemicals and to prevent substances from reaching the market — and, ultimately, drinking-water sources — if they have not been determined to be safe. Implementation will take years, however.
“Prevention is an incredibly important issue for the country over time,” Beauvais said. “If we regulate more on the front end, we’re less likely to have contamination from chemicals with adverse health effects on the back end.”
In North Carolina, environmental officials published a report earlier this year detailing a year’s worth of sampling for 1,4-dioxane within the Cape Fear River basin. It highlighted numerous “hot spots” for the contaminant located immediately downstream of wastewater facilities, suggesting that manufacturers or other industrial operators were sending it into municipal sewers. Current water treatments don’t effectively remove the chemical.
“People are understandably concerned,” said Steve Drew, Greensboro’s director of water resources. “[But] in the absence of enforceable limits, what is a water system to do?”
His department and other downstream communities responded by launching a sort of detective operation. They tested hundreds of miles of sewer lines and met with business owners to track down the possible sources of 1,4-dioxane.
“We got it down to about a half dozen or so businesses — a couple that had very high levels of 1,4-dioxane discharged into our system,” Drew said. “These companies are not even thinking about it because they aren’t regulated on it.”
He said the companies have been “very diligent” in trying to alter supply chains and remove the chemical voluntarily from their manufacturing process. There are early signs that those efforts are slowly beginning to lower 1,4-dioxane levels in the river basin.
But if companies balk, Drew has no way to force them to cooperate.
“Right now,” he said, “it’s completely dependent on good relationships, and ‘please’ and ‘thank you.’ ”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-us-drinking-water-many-chemicals-are-regulated--but-many-arent/2016/06/09/e48683bc-21b9-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html
-
U.S. Senate Passes Overhaul to Expand Review of Chemicals in Everyday Products
Jun 9, 2016 | LA Times
By Sarah D. Wire
The Environmental Protection Agency will have to review the safety of thousands of chemicals — many commonly found in items Americans interact with every day — under legislation on its way to President Obama.
The House passed the bill in May, but it was held up when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he needed more time to read the legislation. He released his hold this week, and the Senate passed the bill Tuesday.
It's an update of the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, and will now allow the EPA to gather more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States, while limiting how and when states can act on their own to regulate a chemical.
The current Toxic Substances Control Act, signed by President Ford in 1976, gave the EPA authority to review the potential human and environmental risks of chemicals, but the agency restricts only a small fraction of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in products in the United States, including detergents and pesticides.
Here is a look at what the bill means for California and its tough environmental laws.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-governor-lawmakers-reach-deal-on-new-1465519843-htmlstory.html
-
Unpacking The Toxic Substances Control Act Reform Bill
Jun 10, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Sandra A. Edwards
The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have passed the long-pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation, which will bolster the government’s power to regulate a wide variety of chemicals. The bill amends TSCA for the first time in forty years to ensure that only human and environmental health are considered in assessing the safety of chemicals. Under the new bill, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, all chemicals in commerce will be reviewed by U.S. EPA to consider—without regard to cost or benefits—their health and safety impact. The legislation also shifts the burden and cost of evaluating and regulating chemicals to manufacturers, along with imposing new fees. EPA’s oversight of chemicals manufactured, sold or distributed in the U.S. will be greatly expanded, as will be the processes by which chemicals may be approved. The reform legislation will now be sent on to President Obama, with every expectation he will sign it.
The regulation of existing chemicals will be bifurcated into two steps: (1) risk evaluation of a chemical and (2) risk management of chemicals found to be problematic. The first step in deciding whether regulation is warranted is to conduct a scientific evaluation of the risks without regard to cost or benefits. If EPA concludes the chemical’s use presents an “unreasonable risk,” EPA is required to issue a risk management rule. The rule may range from requiring labeling or notice requirements to putting into effect an outright ban on the use of the chemical. To the extent practicable, the cost and benefits of the rule and the cost effectiveness of the regulation must be considered as a factor, but is not determinative.
For new chemicals, EPA will be required to review and make an affirmative finding about the level of risk posed without regard to cost. And indeed, the chemical may not be commercially produced until EPA rules on it, and it cannot be produced without being in compliance with EPA restrictions on that chemical. EPA must make a determination about, and choose the regulation for, a chemical within 90 days, but no later than 180 days if more time is needed.
Some additional key points of the legislation include:Requires EPA to identify individuals and groups relevant to assessing the safety of a chemical, including risks to relevant populations and ensuring their protection.A mandate for EPA to review the risks posed by chemicals in active commerce, thus eliminating the existing grandfathering-in of chemicals in use without any risk evaluation. This will require companies to identify all chemicals they are currently making or processing, with EPA to establish the priority of active chemicals.In establishing the priority of active chemicals, EPA must ensure high-priority chemicals undergo full safety assessment and safety determinations. For any chemical that does not meet the safety standard, EPA must impose restrictions sufficient for the chemical to meet the safety standard; where restrictions cannot ensure the safety standard will be met, EPA must ban or phase out the chemical. To the extent sufficient information exists, EPA may conclude a chemical is likely to meet the safety standard, and is therefore a “low priority” chemical.
Notably, the bill will allow EPA to issue an order requiring testing, rather than having to promulgate a rule, avoiding the multi-year process typically associated with rulemaking. Testing authority applies to both new and existing chemicals, and in limited instances may also be applicable to the prioritization process. Historically, the rule making and consent agreement processes were lengthy and slow, so that EPA is likely, going forward, to simply order a test.
Several provisions of the bill also alter the process for the handling of Confidential Business Information (CBI) in ways that will impact manufacturers. Companies seeking to protect the specific chemical identity of a chemical substance will be required to submit a notice to EPA substantiating the confidentiality of the chemical compound, and substances for which no notification of CBI are received will be placed on the non-confidential portion of EPA’s §14 database list of regulated chemicals. The bill requires EPA to develop a retroactive review plan for evaluating whether chemicals on the existing list require CBI protection, or whether they can be placed on the non-confidential portion of the list.
The issue of preemption was one of the sticking points in the effort to reform TSCA. The result, and one way in which the new legislation differs from the existing TSCA, is that if EPA decides a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk and requires no regulatory action, that decision preempts state laws that may contradict that finding. Preemption of state and local law begins when EPA defines the scope of a risk evaluation, and ends either 30 months later or when the risk evaluation is completed, whichever is earlier. This does not restrict the state from enforcing a law enacted prior to risk evaluation, and federal preemption applies only to the scope of the risk evaluation and to the significant new uses under Section 5 of the Act. There are additional exceptions for, among other things, existing state laws and regulations.
Until the legislation is signed into new law, there may be further changes to the bill. I will provide a further update once the final legislation is released.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/06/10/unpacking-the-toxic-substances-control-act-reform-bill/
-
MN Environmentalists Want More from New Toxics Rules
Jun 10, 2016 | Public News Service - MN
By Brandon Campbell
One step forward, two steps back. That's how some Minnesota environmentalists describe new federal rules on toxic substances that could limit the state's own protections.
Congress this week sent a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act to President Obama's desk. It's the first update to the act in 40 years, and expands the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to study and test thousands of chemicals.
But Kim LaBo, program organizer with Clean Water Action Minnesota, says the proposed rules would also place new restrictions on how states can manage potentially toxic chemicals.
"Right now states can act," says LaBo. "That kind of quick action would be blocked when the EPA is assessing a chemical and then when they make a final determination states can't enact anything stronger than what the EPA has ruled."
LaBo says Minnesota has passed at least eight laws in recent years, which protect families from toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde in consumer products. She says those moves would be undermined by the new rules, if they're made law by the president.
The Environmental Defense Fund, however, says the new toxics rules are a small step in the right direction, because they'll allow the Environmental Protection Agency to work through a backlog of tens of thousands of untested chemicals. But LaBo says the EPA only will be required to assess 20 chemicals at a time, which could leave future generations vulnerable.
"The schedule of chemical assessments could be a lot more aggressive," says LaBo. "Twenty chemicals at a time is really not a serious schedule."
LaBo and other environmental protection advocates are asking Obama not to sign the new rules. Instead, they are urging lawmakers to revise the proposal to keep state authority intact.http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-06-10/toxics/mn-environmentalists-want-more-from-new-toxics-rules/a52325-1
-
Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics Linked to Preterm Births and Low Birth Weight
Jun 10, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Erin Green
A study of pregnant Brooklyn women led by the SUNY Downstate Medical Center links triclosan, an antibacterial agent common in personal care products, with preterm births and smaller newborns.
The SUNY study also linked those medical problems to long-chain parabens, which are chemicals often used as preservatives in food, cosmetics and personal care products.
This research expands upon the growing body of scientific evidence that supports the view that triclosan and long-chain parabens disrupt the endocrine system and harm the reproductive system and infant development.
“While small-scale changes in birth size may not be of clinical relevance or cause for concern in individual cases, subtle shifts in birth size or timing at the population-level would have major impacts on the risk for adverse birth outcomes,” said lead study author Laura Geer, associate professor at SUNY’s School of Public Health
Geer and her team tested the urine of 185 mothers in their third trimester and umbilical cord blood of 34 participants for parabens, triclosan and triclocarban. These ingredients are common in antimicrobial soaps, lotions and creams.
According to EWG’s Skin Deep cosmetics database, propylparaben is used in 7,352 personal care products; butylparaben, in 2,285 products; triclosan, in 147 products; and triclocarban, in 21 products.
People are exposed to these chemicals when they eat certain foods, use certain cosmetics and clean with some antimicrobial household products . Babies may consume them in breast milk. In fact, in an earlier study, the SUNY research team detected elevated levels of these compounds in a group of mothers and infants
According to a survey conducted last March by the Mellman Group and American Viewpoint, Americans likely to vote overwhelmingly support stricter regulation of chemicals in personal care products. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, which was supposed to guarantee the safety of cosmetics, is nearly 80 years old and falls far short of ensuring that personal care products are safe.
Until stronger regulations bans or restricts these potentially harmful chemicals from everyday products, use EWG’s Food Scores database and Skin Deep to identify healthier choices for yourself and your home.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/06/chemicals-food-and-cosmetics-linked-preterm-births-and-low-birth-weight
-
Pa. Republicans Push for a Say in Climate Regs Compliance
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Elizabeth Harball
Pennsylvania's GOP is tightening its grip on the state's response to the Clean Power Plan.
The state's Republican-led General Assembly this week advanced a bill that would give it more influence on how the state complies with U.S. EPA's regulation to curb emissions from power plants.
The legislation, S.B. 1195, which passed 41-9, is billed as a deal struck between Republican lawmakers and the state's Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. Wolf vetoed an earlier attempt by the General Assembly to lock down its ability to disapprove of the state's Clean Power Plan strategy.
In a statement, bill sponsor Sen. Don White (R) called it "a compromise agreement between the General Assembly and Governor Wolf that provides important safeguards that protect local energy-producing industries and the thousands of workers they employ from overreaching regulations that could come with Pennsylvania's compliance with the federal Clean Power Plan."
"The language in Senate Bill 1195 would allow the General Assembly to give Pennsylvania's plan thoughtful consideration before it is submitted," White added.
Pennsylvania is one of the few states that enacted a law, Act 175, requiring the General Assembly to approve of any implementation plan the state Department of Environmental Protection develops (Greenwire, Oct. 16, 2014). But it was enacted before the final Clean Power Plan was released and includes requirements that are defunct under the final version of the climate regulation.
The new bill is seen as an update to Act 175. It would still require the DEP to submit the state's Clean Power Plan implementation strategy to the General Assembly for approval and would bar the state from submitting a plan until after the Supreme Court stay is lifted.
However, it includes language allowing DEP to submit a final Clean Power Plan implementation plan to EPA if the General Assembly fails to approve of the plan in a set window of time. This would mean Pennsylvania would avoid EPA implementing its own compliance plan on the state if the General Assembly doesn't act before the federal deadline.
Environmentalists decry 'minor changes to a bad bill'
In an email, a spokesman for Wolf did not comment on whether the administration was happy with the compromise.
"Governor Wolf is committed to addressing climate change, and his administration has been working to craft a Clean Power Plan that is tailored to fit Pennsylvania's unique economic and energy needs," stated spokesman Jeffrey Sheridan. "Currently, the administration is awaiting the resolution of litigation pending in the federal courts, and will continue to work with the legislature, industry stakeholders and the environmental community before submitting its state plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
Pennsylvania's environmental groups continued to oppose the bill, despite the changes.
"Even with the amendment, it locks in the Legislature's ability to delay sending the state plan to EPA by years," said Matthew Stepp, director of policy for PennFuture.
"These are pretty minor changes to a bad bill," said Stepp, adding, "It's not like they met in the middle in any way."
Before the Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan, former DEP Secretary John Quigley was determined to submit a final compliance strategy to EPA in September, despite Act 175 (ClimateWire, Dec. 4, 2015). This drew the ire of the state's Republican lawmakers and coal industry groups.
However, Quigley abruptly resigned in May after a colorful email he sent to environmental groups surfaced in which he urged the groups to more aggressively back the Wolf administration's environmental policies. Following Quigley's resignation, Republican lawmakers vowed to fight the Wolf administration's climate goals even harder (EnergyWire, May 24).
Stepp, however, said he didn't think S.B. 1195's trajectory was affected by Quigley's resignation.
"The administration is trying to figure out how to manage this very historic series of attacks," he said. "I don't think what happened with the secretary has any bearing on this."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/10/stories/1060038610
-
Inhofe, Industry Lawyer say EPA Work Negates Supreme Court Order
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Critics of the Clean Power Plan say U.S. EPA's continued work with states that want to keep planning for power-sector carbon reductions may force opposing states to stay involved or get left behind.
Allison Wood, a partner at the law firm Hunton & Williams LLP who has represented companies that argued for the Supreme Court's February stay of the regulation, said states will feel pressure to study and comment on elements of the plan EPA has yet to finalize.
"In trying to provide additional tools to the states that want to continue to work, EPA ends up forcing states and regulated entities that do not want to work during the stay to do so," Wood told lawmakers on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
She testified that states and companies that asked for the stay will feel the need to weigh in on EPA's programs to incentivize early renewable power and energy efficiency programs, as well as the agency's guidance on carbon trading.
Otherwise, they will "risk not having any say in design and implementation of aspects of the Clean Power Plan," Wood said.
At the core of the debate is whether Clean Power Plan deadlines will move forward to account for the length of the stay. Challengers of the rule say if it is upheld, states will have extra time to prepare. They say continuing work nudges states and industry to keep planning anyway (ClimateWire, March 24).
Still, some states worry they will not get extra time, Wood said, which "negates the relief provided by the stay."
A stay vs. an injunction
EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R) yesterday sent a second letter to EPA arguing that when the Supreme Court issued the stay, it simultaneously granted a request to extend deadlines.
EPA counters that Clean Power Plan deadlines will be determined when the stay is lifted. The agency and its supporters say it's perfectly legal and routine to continue providing guidance about the regulation. That's the difference between a stay and an injunction, they argue.
In all, about 20 states are continuing planning talks, while 19 have halted them and eight have either slowed preparations considerably or are assessing how to proceed, according to updated E&E reporting. Inhofe in the hearing, however, claimed 29 states have halted planning.
Michael McInnes, CEO of the coal-heavy power co-op Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., said his company reluctantly continues to participate in carbon reduction discussions, although only two of the five states it operates in -- Arizona and Colorado -- are still doing some official planning for the rule.
"Several state regulators justify moving forward based on EPA's gentle threat that deadlines may remain the same if the rule is ultimately upheld," McInnes said. "We feel it is wasteful to spend taxpayer and ratepayer money developing plans for an unknown target. There are so many variables that could change -- a new rule, a modified rule, a new president withdraws the rule or proposes a new one. Markets could change. New technology could be developed. So any plan developed today will likely have to be redone."
Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer (R) noted her state's Department of Environmental Quality has already spent 2,000 employee hours interpreting and planning for implementation of the regulation.
"That consumes vital state resources that I believe should be devoted to addressing pressing issues in our state," Fischer said.
All that effort, Inhofe said, is going toward complying with a rule that could very well be overturned.
U.S. already on track?
Inhofe claimed the rule would cost billions, increase energy bills and put grid reliability at risk without having an impact on the environment.
Challengers of the Clean Power Plan asked the Supreme Court to stay the rule in part because they argued companies would suffer "irreparable harm" if the court did not halt the rule and then later struck it down. They say EPA's work under the stay will also hurt the industry.
But in a report this week, Resources for the Future argues the power industry would not face irreparable harm because the country is already headed toward comparable emissions reductions without making any changes and because the timeline of the rule is so long, stretching from 2022 to 2030.
Several recent studies have suggested the United States as a whole could stay under EPA's emissions caps through the mid-2020s without making any changes to current plans. The impact on particular companies would vary, however (ClimateWire, June 9).
But Josh Linn, a co-author of the Resources for the Future report, said power companies would not start making business moves based on the rule until years into the future.
"We're really not going to see any major decisions, and particularly irreversible decisions, being made until much later on," Linn said in an interview.
Katie Dykes, deputy commissioner for energy for Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told lawmakers at the hearing that her state needs additional information from EPA to plan for changes to the grid.
In a call with reporters earlier this week, she said although having the Clean Power Plan in legal limbo makes planning more uncertain, the power system is no stranger to uncertainty.
"Grid planners and state regulators are constantly making investment decisions amid uncertainty," Dykes said. "No one has a crystal ball."
But she noted that thinking through the possibilities, with assistance from EPA, can help guide the state's process.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/10/stories/1060038591
-
EPA IG Asked To Review Alleged Cover-Up Of Methane Leaks
Jun 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
A North Carolina group is asking EPA's Inspector General (IG) to investigate claims that the former head of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) led a three-year cover up of under-reporting methane leaks from oil and gas operations, which the group says resulted in the agency not adequately regulating emissions from the sector.
NC WARN, a group that seeks to address “the accelerating crisis posed by climate change,” June 8 filed a 68-page petition asking the IG to investigate charges that former SAB head David Allen “committed scientific fraud and possibly criminal misconduct” because he led “an ongoing, three-year effort to cover up underreporting” of devices used to measure gas leakage and deliberate venting of natural gas, process that result in releases of methane, the potent greenhouse gas.
They say Allen has ties to the oil and gas industry through his faculty work at the University of Texas at Austin.
The group adds in a statement that its allegations are based on written evidence and testimony by the engineer who invented the primary technology to measure leakage and venting of natural gas, known as the Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler.
“The complaint says the devices severe underreporting of emissions during two high-profile studies has ramifications for releases of methane at hundreds of thousands of” locations, the statement says.
The complaint adds that the engineer “has repeatedly urged various EPA officials to address and resolve technological problems that have led to greatly underestimated methane emissions in natural gas production” due the device at issue. “To date, these problems have not been addressed.”
The under-reporting of emissions is said to have undermined two high-profile studies, published in 2013 and 2014 by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), that EPA relied upon to develop policy and regulations. As a result, there has been “a persistent and deliberate cover-up that has prevented the agency from requiring the natural gas industry to make widespread, urgently needed and achievable reductions in methane.”
But EDF is downplaying the group's concern, saying in a a June 9 statement that the issue needs to be kept “in perspective.”
EDF cites the NC WARN complaint to note that the device was used in just two of the large and growing list of studies showing high levels of emissions, and that the long list is “a major reason why EPA recently increased its official estimates of industry emissions by 34 percent, and why the agency is pursuing new rules to start fixing the problem.”
EDF also notes that complications involving the device have been discussed publicly for more than a year.
Mark Brownstein, an EDF official who works on methane issues, told InsideClimateNews that even if the technology did malfunction during the 2013 study, the potential inaccuracy was not that significant. "If you extrapolated it to what it means for emissions from the total natural gas supply chain, it would change your assessment of emissions by about 2 to 5 percent," he said.
He added that EDF is now working on a final analysis of methane emissions from across the oil and gas industry which he said would “absolutely” include the disputed study.
However, NC WARN notes that Allen led the 2013 study for EDF, a study that “has been used persistently by the gas industry to argue that methane leakage is low and that EPA should back off efforts to begin reducing methane emissions.”
NC WARN director Jim Warren blasted Allen's work for allowing “the industry to dig in for years of delay in cutting emissions -- at the worst possible time.”
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Watchdog Group Warns of Faulty Methane Calculations
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
A North Carolina watchdog group is arguing that the government may not actually know how much methane is released into the atmosphere from the drilling and storage of natural gas.
The group, NC Warn, submitted a complaint to U.S. EPA, claiming the agency lets unknown levels of methane to be released into the sky by allowing oil and gas companies to measure emissions through a costly but faulty device.
NC Warn says that EPA knows the $20,000 Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler, which is the size of a backpack, doesn't work well because the man who invented the technology that inspired the device raised concerns.
The inventor, Touché Howard, voiced his concerns to a researcher at the University of Texas who used the device as one way to measure emissions for a major methane study. That researcher, the university and others defended the study.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/10/stories/1060038630
-
'Ransomware' Threat Opens Utilities to Information Sharing
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
If faraway spies can't persuade power utilities to share cyberthreat information with the federal government, a here-and-now hostage crisis just might, homeland security officials heard yesterday.
"Your intellectual property may be siphoned halfway across the world [in a cyberattack], but you won't really feel the pain," said Dewan Chowdhury, founder and CEO of industrial control systems cybersecurity company MalCrawler and a consultant to major power utilities. "You feel the pain when your entire enterprise is locked out and you need to get Bitcoins to unlock the machines."
That pain "is definitely changing the mentality for people to be sharing data" to help others avoid "ransomware" attacks, Chowdhury said.
Private cybersecurity firms and the FBI have warned 2016 is shaping up to be a banner year for ransomware. Hackers are increasingly breaking into company networks, encrypting as many files as they can get their hands on, then holding the key up for ransom. Organizations from hospitals to universities -- including, most recently, the University of Calgary -- have paid $15,000 or more to get their digital lives back.
Power utilities are no exception -- and more than just PDFs and Word documents may be at stake.
"We heard about the Ukrainian incident, where the power went down," Chowdhury said at a Department of Homeland Security workshop on information sharing yesterday, referring to a Dec. 23 cyberattack on western Ukraine's grid that briefly knocked out electricity for 225,000 customers (EnergyWire, Feb. 26). "You know how many incidents where power was jeopardized because of crimeware? Where all of a sudden ransomware showed up on what we call the OT -- the industrial control -- network? There are handfuls of them."
The only known U.S. case of ransomware at a power utility involved the Lansing Board of Water and Light, a city-owned company with about 100,000 electricity customers in central Michigan. LBWL claimed its operational networks were never held hostage in the April incident, but its business networks were tied up for days as it reinstated backup files (EnergyWire, May 2).
Homeland security officials hope that streamlined information sharing among utilities and the federal government can stave off threats and make successful ransomware strikes, and other cyberattacks, more expensive for hackers to pull off.
Their logic: If a utility spots an attempted ransomware infection and reports the internet protocol address and pertinent info to DHS, the agency can forward that crucial data to other energy companies that participate in voluntary information sharing programs. Those companies can then use the intelligence to block the attack before it ever lands on their network.
If it can all happen fast enough, the goal is to leave hackers wondering, "'Why did that thing that worked an hour ago against an energy company not work an hour later against the other targets on our target list?'" said Richard Struse, DHS chief advanced technology officer. "We are now starting to change the economics, maybe change some behavior."
In December, President Obama signed into law legislation aimed at making information sharing programs simpler and less risky for the private sector to use. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act included liability protections for firms that share cyberthreat indicators, as well as a directive for DHS to move forward on automated, machine-speed information sharing initiatives like the ones discussed at yesterday's workshop.
For the utility industry, Chowdhury called such automation a "huge strategic advantage when it comes to the tens of thousands of threats we're dealing with on a daily basis."
"It may be an initial cost, but the long-term effect is amazing," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/10/stories/1060038594
-
Calif. Dems Try Again to Allow Citizens to Sue Over Spills
Jun 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
People affected by spills and leaks could sue the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration under a new bill from Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat whose district was rocked in 2010 by a natural gas pipeline explosion.
Speier's bill (H.R. 5443) arrives on the heels of House passage of pipeline safety legislation (S. 2276) after a similar provision allowing such "mandamus-type" lawsuits by citizens or local governments had been stripped out. The oil and gas industry's fear of environmental groups' using such litigation as a tool to kill pipeline projects helped quash the provision in the PHMSA reauthorization (E&E Daily, April 29).
"Despite the deaths of eight of my constituents in San Bruno in 2010, Congress continues to rubber-stamp PHMSA's weak and ineffective oversight with each reauthorization," Speier said yesterday. "If Congress will not commit to holding PHMSA accountable, we need to let the American people bring PHMSA to court."
On Valentine's Day in 2012, the City and County of San Francisco tried to do just that. It filed a lawsuit alleging that PHMSA "abjectly failed" to enforce federal safety standards for more than a decade before the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. pipeline explosion in San Bruno that leveled 38 homes (Greenwire, Feb. 15, 2012).
The lawsuit asked for a court order requiring stronger enforcement.
However, the courts found that the Pipeline Safety Act did not give San Francisco standing to sue. Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California district court's dismissal of the litigation.
Democrats tried to address the issue in the PHMSA reauthorization.
House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said including language was "the top priority for the safety community," when the committee introduced its first draft of the bill. But it was eliminated after Republicans and industry groups expressed opposition.
"While I'm pleased the House passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize PHMSA and prioritize long-overdue rulemakings, the bill failed to include a critical provision clarifying the ability of citizens to force PHMSA to perform its required duties," said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the committee and co-sponsor of Speier's bill.
Eshoo said the "PHMSA Accountability Act" would restore the provision "and allow communities like San Bruno to force PHMSA to act."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/10/stories/1060038632
-
Chemical Spill in Riverside County Injures 16, Including Firefighter
Jun 10, 2016 | LA Times
By Angel Jennings
Sixteen people, including a firefighter, were injured Thursday in a chemical spill at an Eastvale food distribution center, authorities said.
Cal Fire/Riverside County firefighters received a call at 2:48 p.m. of hazardous material waste at Starkist Foods in the 12000 block of Philadelphia Avenue. When firefighters arrived, they discovered about 40 gallons of an unknown chemical overturned inside the warehouse.
All 16 people suffered inhalation injuries and were taken to hospitals.
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department has closed Philadelphia Avenue between South Milliken Avenue and Vintage Avenue.
Authorities are investigating the cause of the spill.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-chemical-spill-riverside-county-20160609-snap-story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Grants Six-Month Extension For Input On RCRA Dust Petition Denial
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is granting a six-month extension for input on its proposed denial of a whistleblower group's petition seeking stricter federal hazardous waste law listing criteria for corrosive dust, far more than the 30 to 60 days industry groups say is acceptable but short of the 210 extra days the whistleblowers sought to review the content of the denial.
In a notice slated for publication in the June 10 Federal Register, EPA extends from June 10 until Dec. 7 the comment deadline on its April 11 decision that after “careful consideration” it finds the petition by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which often represents government whistleblowers, fails to show that strengthening the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) corrosive dust limits is warranted.
PEER in 2011 petitioned EPA to revise a RCRA rule the group says is 10 times less stringent than the presumed safe levels set for alkaline corrosives by other international bodies. The group says the too-lenient pH levels for corrosivity were noticed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center (WTC) attacks when first responders suffered severe, permanent and in some instances fatal effects due to exposure to corrosive dust.
The group asked EPA to revise the regulatory value for defining waste as corrosive, moving it from a pH of 12.5 to 11.5, and sought to broaden the scope of the RCRA corrosivity definition to include nonaqueous wastes in addition to aqueous wastes.
But EPA in the tentative denial said WTC injuries could not be attributed to any one property of the dust, and none of the research on the exposed population identified the type of tissue damage that could be linked to corrosivity. EPA, however, in soliciting public comment asked for additional data on possible impacts from the current corrosivity rule.
In May 16 comments submitted to the agency, PEER sought a 210-day extension of the 60-day comment period, citing several justifications.
First, PEER points to the length of the initial Register notice denying the petition and the 422 supporting documents in the agency's docket.
Second, the group contends it is "impossible" for commenters to quickly obtain all of the docket documents as nearly half of them are unavailable electronically via the docket.
PEER's Concerns
Further, PEER alleges that EPA may have failed to comply with federal meeting requirements such as the Federal Records Act (FRA) in allegedly conducting closed-door meetings on the petition with industry.
The docket includes 11 documents of emails between EPA and companies or a "RCRA Corrosivity Coalition" related to setting up meetings or calls or submitting information to EPA, but contains only one set of minutes as to the content of those meetings, thereby failing to satisfy FRA requirements, PEER claimed.
"Rather than engaging in a proper review of the petition and creating a proper administrative record to support its decision, EPA engaged in a review process that gave excess consideration to parties who have a financial interest in the outcome of the decision," PEER alleged.
But in June 7 comments, a coalition of numerous industry parties, including the American Chemistry Council and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, opposed PEER's appeal for a 210-day extension, saying the coalition believes such an extension is unwarranted and "unprecedented," but conceding that it would not object to a shorter 30- to 60-day extension "if in fact additional documents need to be provided."
It said, "PEER raises spurious allegations of procedural improprieties, including that EPA 'actively facilitated' meetings with and relied impermissibly on information from industry stakeholders, namely this Coalition."
Upon learning of the petition, the coalition says it approached EPA with concerns and gave information to the rulemaking record. Records of all contacts between the two, including the submitted information, are in the public docket, it says.
USWAG's Support
Meanwhile, in substantive comments submitted June 3, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), which represents energy utilities, says it "strongly supports" EPA's denial of the petition, which it argues would broadly re-write the corrosivity characteristic in order to reduce injuries from a discrete waste stream.
"This broad revision is wholly inappropriate because, as EPA recognizes, the injuries described do not result from the corrosive nature of the waste stream, it is unclear if the petitioned for revision would actually cover the waste stream identified, and the RCRA hazardous waste management, treatment, storage and disposal regulations would not prevent these types of injuries,” USWAG wrote.
In the new Register notice, EPA grants the comment extension in response to PEER's request “to allow additional time to evaluate the record supporting the tentative denial.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-grants-six-month-extension-input-rcra-dust-petition-denial
-
Oil & Gas Industry Doubts Need For Final EPA Voluntary Ozone Guidelines
Jun 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo & Stuart Parker
Oil and gas industry officials are questioning EPA's plan to soon finalize its voluntary guide for how areas not attaining federal ozone standards can cut ozone, saying the agency's apparent plan to eventually regulate methane from existing sector sources negates the need for the guide given that cutting methane can also reduce ozone.
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe told a June 3 Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) meeting in Philadelphia that the agency will finalize the control technique guidelines (CTGs) "within the next month or so."
But one industry official says, "What I find most troubling is why EPA would continue with the CTGs now that it is moving on a nationwide existing source rule," referring to the agency's June 3 Federal Register notice seeking comment on a draft information collection request (ICR) on methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations. The data EPA collects under the ICR is expected to eventually inform first-time methane limits for those sources.
EPA issued the data request alongside a suite of final air rules for the sector in the Register, which also included its rule setting first-time limits on the greenhouse gas methane from new oil and gas operations. Environmentalists have argued that issuance of the new source rule triggers a Clean Air Act duty to impose methane limits on existing sources, but the agency has to date declined to pursue such a rule and is developing the ICR instead.
In the meantime, the agency says that its CTGs -- floated in draft form in September -- will offer states in nonattainment with its ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) strategies for curbing ozone-forming pollution from the industry.
The CTGs would not directly impose binding regulations for VOC sources, instead providing recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut VOC emissions from certain existing sources. States would be allowed to use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT is subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will achieve the required pollution cuts.
The industry source argues that the final CTGs are unnecessary given the likely eventual existing source methane rule as well as pending Interior Department rules on flaring, or burning off, of gases from the sector.
Ozone CTGs
The CTGs would likely influence state implementation plans (SIPs) -- emissions control blueprints for Clean Air Act compliance -- for EPA's Oct. 1 stricter ozone NAAQS of 70 parts per billion, the source says. States still have several years to craft their SIPs, which would push implementation of the CTGs even closer to a potential existing source rule, the source says. As a result, issuance of the final CTGs "seems unnecessary because I would anticipate that EPA plans to have the nationwide existing source regulation in place sooner," the source adds.
Additionally, that source adds that a rule to curb methane from existing oil and gas sources could demonstrate that the cost-benefit assumptions in the CTG that industry cited as flawed are indeed inaccurate.
Although industry doubts the need for the CTGs, one environmentalist says they are still necessary given that EPA's plans to regulate existing sources will be "significantly behind" final CTGs, because the agency is unlikely to finalize an existing source rule by the time the Obama administration leaves office in January 2017.
The source says that along with there being no time frame for an existing source rule, "EPA still has to address existing source of ozone" in nonattainment areas, regardless of whether it issues methane limits. "They may be different sources" than the facilities or equipment of concern in the CTG, the source adds.
Proponents of the pending final CTGs say they are expected to help areas in ozone NAAQS nonattainment identify options to reduce air pollution from existing oil and gas drilling operations.
Under section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, states would have to submit revisions to their state implementation plans for complying with the NAAQS to EPA for approval within two years of the agency finalizing the CTGs.
Nonattainment Areas
The draft CTGs for the oil and gas industry would apply in areas out of attainment with the NAAQS and throughout the 12-state Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast that has struggled with high ozone levels. The region includes Washington, D.C., portions of Northern Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Industry has previously raised a number of concerns with the CTGs, including the modeling on which EPA bases its RACT recommendations; faulting the agency's use of economic studies that are based on average facilities that do not account for the full range of sources; and saying that the notification, monitoring, testing and reporting measures are significantly more burdensome for smaller facilities than are justified.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/oil-gas-industry-doubts-need-final-epa-voluntary-ozone-guidelines
-
House Votes to Condemn Carbon Tax
Jun 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House voted Friday to condemn a potential carbon tax, closing the door on a climate change policy popular in some conservative circles.
Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”
The non-binding resolution is first and foremost a defensive measure, to get lawmakers on the record against a carbon tax, in case it’s part of a future proposal, perhaps part of a comprehensive tax reform package or in return for repealing certain regulations.
President Obama has not proposed a carbon tax, and while many Democrats support the idea, it has not taken hold as a serious legislative proposal in years.
Nonetheless, Republicans spoke as if they were opposing a specific policy that has a significant chance of passage.
“With a carbon tax, there would be a tax hike on production, distribution and use of not only oil, but also natural gas and any other form of energy that emits carbon,” Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said on the House floor.
“Such a tax would have many serious impacts on our economy, by making day-to-day life more expensive for families throughout this country.”
Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who sponsored the resolution, accused Obama of trying to push carbon taxes through his executive actions after his cap-and-trade bill failed to pass Congress.
“Even with that defeat, President Obama still tries to come back with a carbon tax, through other means, whether it’s regulations or whether it’s superimposed carbon taxes through the [Environmental Protection Agency] and some of the other things they’re doing,” he said.
Scalise objected to the scientific consensus that the climate is changing due mainly to human activity through greenhouse gas emissions and accused carbon tax proponents of trying to control weather.
“They talk about somehow being able to create policy that would stop hurricanes and change the sea level rising, for goodness sake. As if some policy’s going to do that,” he said. “And by the way, the result of their policies will increase carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Democrats said Republicans are burying their heads in the sand about climate change.
“If we would have had our committee take these issues seriously, maybe have a week of hearings, we would have been able to demonstrate to the gentleman, with an impartial panel of independent experts, all across the political spectrum — conservative, liberal, Republican and Democrat — who would conclude that a carbon tax, revenue-neutral, is actually the key to the innovative future they want,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.).
Rep. Sandy Levin (Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said considering the resolution is a waste of valuable legislative time.
He listed various more pressing matters, like fighting the Zika virus, raising the minimum wage or helping Flint, Mich., recover from its drinking water crisis.
“Instead, today we are voting on two sense-of-Congress resolutions,” he said. “Doing so provides further evidence that the Republicans are not acting on those real problems mentioned earlier, but are in denial on another real issue that needs action: climate change.”
The carbon tax is popular among Democrats and environmentalists, as well as some conservatives who prioritize fighting climate change.
A group of think tank leaders from the Niskanen Center, R Street Institute and elsewhere, along with some scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, wrote to Congress opposing the resolution this week.
“We are concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of market-based climate policy,” they wrote.
“Legislation that incorporates a carbon tax could include regulatory and tax reforms to make the United States economy more competitive, innovative, and robust, benefiting both present and future generations.”
Some major oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and BP, also support various kinds of carbon taxes.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has sponsored a similar carbon tax resolution in the Senate, but it has not gotten a vote.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283029-house-condemns-carbon-tax
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