Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/20/2016
-
Examining Pathways Towards Compliance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone: Legislative Hearing on S. 2882 and S.2072
Jun 22, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen / 2:30 PM -
Hearing on Federal Efforts to Improve Cybersecurity
Jun 20, 2016 | U.S. House Oversight Committee
Location: Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 2525, 219 Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL / 10:30 AM -
Oversight Hearing on Investigating the Appropriate Role of NEPA in the Permitting Process
Jun 22, 2016 | U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) An Employment Problem Bred of Success
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
Chemical executives are growing concerned about staffing their expanding companies. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Records Key for Chemical Information to Stay Confidential
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers protecting proprietary chemical information will have to keep additional types of records under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, according to a Sidley Austin attorney. -
(ACC Mentioned) Corporate America is Killing with Chemicals
Jun 18, 2016 | Richmond County Daily Journal
By Robert Lee
In recent weeks, I have watched several documentaries about the plastic industry. Some of the things that I saw, I already knew about. -
Questions Linger On EPA Approach To TSCA Bill's New Chemicals Program
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform advocates say that Congress' landmark overhaul of the 1976 toxics law -- which at press time was awaiting President Obama's signature -- leaves unanswered questions about how EPA will implement the agreement's program... -
Jackson: Late Senator Scores a Big Win
Jun 19, 2016 | NorthJersey
By Herb Jackson
In a bitterly divided Congress, laws that were once considered routine, like funding the highway system or avoiding a government shutdown, are touted as significant bipartisan achievements. -
What's That Toxic Smell? One Father Clashes with the Chemical Industry
Jun 19, 2016 | U.S. PIRG
By Anna Low-Beer
The movie Stink! originated with one pair of children’s pajamas that Director John Whelan bought his daughters for Christmas in 2011. The new pajamas, when taken out of their plastic packaging, smelled overwhelmingly of chemicals. -
Businesses Warns of Problems from EU Endocrine Criteria
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Crops may be ravaged and diseases spread as unintended consequences of the criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals that the European Commission proposed June 15, the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union said in a June 17 statement. -
One Way to Tackle Our Huge Plastic Pollution Problem: Turn It into Fuel
Jun 17, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
Plastic pollution is a colossal environmental problem, with millions of tons of it dumped into the ocean every year. And while many nations around the world have made an effort to step up their recycling game in recent years, there’s clearly more work to be done... -
European SME Body Says Innovation Lower Than Before REACH
Jun 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Ueapme, the European trade body for SMEs, says much more must be done to allow small companies to focus on innovation rather than compliance work. -
As Wind Power Lifts Wyoming’s Fortunes, Coal Miners Are Left in the Dust
Jun 19, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
After Kullin Orcutt lost his job at the Peabody coal mine this spring, he knew what he needed to do: join the exodus. “Leave Gillette, leave the state,” he said. After Kullin Orcutt lost his job at the Peabody coal mine this spring, he knew what he needed to do: join the exodus. “Leave Gillette, leave the state,” he said. -
Energy Legislation Running Short on Time
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Time is running out for Congress to craft the first broad energy policy bill in nearly a decade. -
RGGI Expects More Information on Carbon Cap in Fall
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is aiming to finish the current phase of its program review this summer as it tries to improve the effectiveness of the cap-and-trade program. -
Natural Gas Surpasses Coal as Power Source for 1st Time, BP Report Says
Jun 17, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
U.S. power plants burned more natural gas than coal for the first time last year, one factor that kept global CO2 emissions the lowest in years, a key oil company economist said Thursday. -
Tug-of-War Renewed Over Arctic Leasing Plans
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A federal leasing plan for offshore oil and gas exploration has triggered another round of argument over whether to allow more leasing in waters off the coast of Alaska. -
Government’s Efforts to Raise the Standard for Cyber Security with New Threat Sharing Regulation Still Problematic
Jun 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Eric O’Neill
In response to unprecedented cyber-attacks in the past few years including breaches of the Office of Personnel Management, IRS, Federal Reserve, and now the DNC, plus rampart industrial espionage targeting United States industry, the federal government... -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Back EPA in Lawsuit over Air Toxics 'Completion' Finding
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A coalition of major industry groups is backing EPA's opposition to environmentalists' lawsuit challenging the agency's finding that it has completed regulation of 90 percent of emissions of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), supporting EPA's position... -
Sanders Backers Face Paradox in Shaping Democrats' Energy Platform
Jun 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Sen. Bernie Sanders pushed Hillary Clinton to the left on energy policy during the primaries, but now his backers face strong headwinds as they fight to incorporate his climate change priorities into the Democratic party platform. -
States Query Haze Planning for Natural Air Pollution, Greater Federal Role
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states are querying how they can craft emissions reductions plans to comply with EPA's regional haze program that would adequately address haze-forming air pollution from natural events... -
Panel to Take up Bill That Would Delay Ozone Rule
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
It won't be until October 2017 that U.S. EPA plans to designate the communities unable to meet its latest ambient air quality standard for ozone. -
GOP Panel to Question McCarthy on Scientific Basis for Rules
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
In what's likely to be a contentious matchup, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy this week will face congressional critics over her agency's use of science. -
Two Can Play at Climate ‘Fraud’
Jun 19, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Eric Schneiderman and Sheldon Whitehouse, call your office. The New York Attorney General and Rhode Island Senator who helped to launch the prosecution of dissent on climate change may not like where their project is headed. Thirteen state Attorneys General have sent... -
It’s Not Worth It, Mr. Ryan
Jun 20, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
When House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) justified his endorsement of Donald Trump on the grounds that the reality television star would, as president, sign some of the House GOP agenda into law... -
Amid Melting Arctic Ice, Kerry Sees Looming Climate Catastrophe
Jun 18, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Standing near Greenland's Jakobshavn glacier, the reputed source of the iceberg that sank the Titanic over a century ago, U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saw evidence of another looming catastrophe.
Congressional Hearings
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
-
Jun 22, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety will hold a hearing entitled, “Examining Pathways Towards Compliance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone: Legislative Hearing on S. 2882 and S.2072.”
-
Hearing on Federal Efforts to Improve Cybersecurity
Jun 20, 2016 | U.S. House Oversight Committee
PURPOSE:To hear private sector views on cyber threats, priority issues for cybersecurity strategy, implementation of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, and issues the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity should consider.
BACKGROUND:On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted the Cybersecurity Act to achieve three key goals:
(1) create a framework for private companies to share cybersecurity threat information with both the federal government and other private entities,
(2) improve Federal network cybersecurity; and
(3) track the cyber capabilities of all federal agencies.In February 2016, President Obama directed his Administration to implement a Cybersecurity National Action Plan (CNAP).A key piece of CNAP was the creation of a Presidential Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity to make recommendations for actions to be taken during the next decade to strengthen cybersecurity.INVITED WITNESSES:
Dr. Eunice Santos
Chair, Department of Computer Science
Illinois Institute of TechnologyMr. Michael Carano
Executive Director
ChicagoFIRSTMr. Gary Horn
Vice President, Technical Services & CTO
Advocate Health CareMs. Patty Hatter
Vice President, Intel Security Group
General Manager, Intel Security Professional Services -
Oversight Hearing on Investigating the Appropriate Role of NEPA in the Permitting Process
Jun 22, 2016 | U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
-
(ACC Mentioned) An Employment Problem Bred of Success
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
Chemical executives are growing concerned about staffing their expanding companies.
Defying dire predictions, chemical companies are advancing a slew of expansion projects on the U.S. Gulf Coast without major shortages in skilled labor. Plants are being built on time, and thanks to low-cost raw materials extracted from shale, executives are anticipating robust sales when they start up.
But those same executives are being warned not to get complacent about finding the workers their firms need to prosper. Baby boomer employees are retiring, and replacing them . . .
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here:
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i25/employment-problem-bred-success.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Records Key for Chemical Information to Stay Confidential
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers protecting proprietary chemical information will have to keep additional types of records under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, according to a Sidley Austin attorney.
Judah Prero, counsel at Sidley Austin LLP and former attorney for the American Chemistry Council, described issues chemical manufacturers and processors should think about as they prepare for changes Congress has made to TSCA. He spoke June 16 during a webinar the law firm hosted about the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576), which will amend TSCA for the first time since 1976.
Having strongly supported the TSCA-reform bill, President Obama isexpected to sign H.R. 2576 into law the week of June 20.
Like the current TSCA, the amended law would allow chemical manufacturers and processors to keep certain proprietary information confidential, such as a chemical's precise molecular identity or the specific concentrations of ingredients in a chemical mixture.
The amended law distinguishes, however, between information that would automatically be protected from disclosure—such as specific manufacturing processes—and information, including chemical identity, that would not. Chemical identity could, however, be protected from disclosure if a manufacturer substantiates its need for confidentiality, as summarized in a Bloomberg BNA analysis.
Whereas chemical manufacturers haven't needed to track their confidential business information (CBI) claims in the past, they will now have to do so going forward, Prero said.
Companies that assert CBI claims to protect the identity of the chemicals they make or import must be prepared to substantiate those claims when the EPA updates the TSCA inventory of chemicals in commerce, as it would be required to do under the legislation, Prero told Bloomberg BNA in a June 17 e-mail. Companies also will have to keep records that demonstrate the need to protect CBI, Prero said.
Prioritization and Other Impacts of TSCA Reform
Within one year of the law's enactment, the EPA will have to issue a final rule describing the process and criteria it will use to designate chemicals in commerce as either high or low priorities for risk evaluations, Prero said during the webinar.
The EPA will be required to evaluate the risks of high priority chemicals, which could lead to use restrictions or other forms of risk management controls, he said.
Companies may want to voluntarily test their chemicals or join consortia that would generate needed data if they don't have sufficient data to support low-priority designation, Prero said.
“It is in industry's best interest to ensure that EPA has all the data and information it needs to support a low priority designation,” Prero told Bloomberg BNA.
Is Paying for an Expedited Review Warranted?
There may, however, be situations when companies would benefit from having the EPA evaluate the risks of a chemical they make or use, Prero said.
For example, there may be a cloud of allegations over a chemical, Prero told Bloomberg BNA.
States or the media could be focusing on a particular chemical, and its manufacturers might prefer to have concerns “settled for the record” as soon as possible, he said.
Companies that use that chemical to make particular products also might want to tackle the safety issue head-on in case reformulation or new production methods would be necessary, he said.
In such cases, the companies could decide to join together and ask the EPA to assess the chemical and pay for the agency to do so, Prero said during the webinar.
Bisphenol A Offers Case in Point
Bisphenol A is a case in point, he told Bloomberg BNA.
States have taken varied approaches to addressing their concerns about the chemical, Prero said. Paying for the EPA to evaluate BPA's risks and make a final determination could ensure a consistent regulatory scheme going forward and prevent market de-selection of new products, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92083294&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92083294&jd=92083294
-
(ACC Mentioned) Corporate America is Killing with Chemicals
Jun 18, 2016 | Richmond County Daily Journal
By Robert Lee
In recent weeks, I have watched several documentaries about the plastic industry. Some of the things that I saw, I already knew about. There were others that I did not and that is the reason for this column. We as the consumers of corporate America’s products have no true idea of what is being put into the products that we consume every day.
Manufactured to last forever, but designed to be used one time and thrown away. That’s our throw-away world that we live in with plastics.
In 1891, a chemical compound called BPA (Bisphenol-A) was developed by German scientists. In the early days of its life, BPA was to be used as a birth control additive. But then it was decided that Estrogen would be a better choice. This came from experiments in 1936. Another compound developed during this time frame was diethylstilbestrol, this turned out to be more powerful as estrogen. BPA was placed on the back burner and not used for much of anything for some years to come. But now, and for quite a while, it has been used in the plastic industry as an additive to make plastic stronger and last longer. You can thank Dow Chemicals, DuPont and a host of other companies for making life so much better for the human race as a whole. You keep on thinking that as you watch your friends and family members die from all types of cancer. Plastic is not evil but breast cancer is.
Chemicals are leaching out of the plastics that we use every day and it is killing off the human race. This is taking place ever so slowly, but it is taking place. The power brokers within corporate America’s plastics manufactures have known this for years but it matters not to them. It was the same within the tobacco manufacturing industry. They were killing Americans every day and still are. I know as an adult you can step back and away from some of these products, that’s a fact. Our children, on the other hand, can not. Corporate America is too large and too powerful for the average citizen to fight. The big thing with the corporations is to deny and delay all in the hope that you will either die or just give up.
I’ve got news for these fat cat’s: that has worked in the past in some cases but not any longer. We see what you are doing to us and our families with the poison you are serving up in your bottles and bags that last forever. You are not only killing the human race but you are killing our oceans. The American Chemistry Council will tell you it isn’t true. Again, keep on believing their lies as you watch your children and their lifespan getting shorter. Americas “Greatest Generation,” those born before we starting putting additives in to our food chain, will be the last Americans to live into their 80’s , 90’s and beyond. We have been tossed to the side in favor of more profits for the powerful of this country. We mean nothing to these people, other than a pocket to be picked.
We have been forced to live off of low wages and buy their high-priced products. Why? We had no choice in the matter.
When I was a child there was no garbage to be thrown away. That jelly jar was turned into a tea glass. If there was a paper box in the house, it was used to start a fire, either to cook on or keep warm with. If you were lucky enough to have store-bought milk, the carton was to be used as a freezer bag — and this was before freezer bags had been invented. That half-gallon carton would hold 2 squirrels or one rabbit. Fill it full of water and freeze it and your meat was good for years.
The freezer bags of today are of low cost, we think. That’s another lie — they will last forever in the landfills. They also leach chemicals into the ground and into our water supply. So you see the cost to the entire human race is not a cheap one at all. We are all paying too high of a price. Our future generations will be the ones that will pay much more.
At this very moment even my generation is dying off at very early ages. The biggest killer is cancer. Every day young men and woman in their 40s and 50s are falling to a wide verity of cancers and most are man-made. Chemicals in some cases are needed but not in all. MSG, look up what it does for you before you eat your next Chinese diner. I still eat it but I know it’s killing me and you. I don’t have much of a choice — it’s in almost everything. I take that back, I can stop eating, I guess. We all know what the outcome of that would be.
My whole point of this column is plastics. Plastics are showing up in the food chain. The fishing industry is being hit very hard. The oceans of the world are the trap-all. Plastics make it to the oceans and then to the inhabitants of the oceans and then to us all in short order. We have to eat, that is a given, and we all know that we will continue to eat regardless of what is taking place in our food chain.
Small plastic chips are being found in fish. These plastic chips have been in the oceans for years and that is part of the overall problem. Those chips have been treated to the sun’s rays. Sunlight brings out chemicals that are very harmful to animals and humans.
Now we go back to BPA. BPA stands for biphenyl A.BPA is an industrial chemical that has been used to make certain plastics and resins since 1960. BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. These types of plastics are used in containers that store food and drinks, such as water bottles. They are also used in other consumer products that we use every day. Epoxy resins are used to coat the inside of metal products, such as food cans, bottle tops and water lines. Corporate America could not kill us with the lead that was used to solder water lines for years so they had to switch to another killer — BPA.
Some dental sealants and composites also contain BPA. BPA based poly is used as a plastic coating for children’s teeth to prevent cavities. Research has shown that BPA can seep into food or drinks from containers that are made with BPA. So you see, the manufactures know this but they have not stopped it. Exposure to BPA is a concern because of the health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. If BPA affects children, then why would you not think that it would effect all of us? BPA has also been linked to high blood pressure.
With all of this known, the Food and Drug Administration has said that BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in food.
B.S.
The FDA is part of the government. Its studies are flawed on this one point that I bring up. People are different in their eating habits. Some people live off what they eat out of cans, while other people might not have to eat these products. The poor are the Guinea pigs as the poor do not necessarily have access to fresh foods all the time. So I feel the FDA’s research is not to be believed.
Not only have these bits of plastics shown up in our food supply tainted with BPA, but also in our every day life. Every time you go shopping and you receive a receipt, that receipt, in almost all cases, is of the new thermal tape. When your receipt was placed in your hand, you just got a good taste of BPA. Through the chemical makeup in you hand, it was drawn into your body. That makeup being the salts and acids that is in all of us. Just another little taste to go with the other products that we use every day.
BPA is now deeply embedded in the products of modern consumer society, not just as building blocks for the plastic industry but also as an ingredient in pesticides, fungicides, antioxidants, flame retardant and rubber of all types. The best part about BPA in plastics is that as it gets older it leaches out in to every thing.
So you see all of these modern day miracles of plastics is nothing more than a curse on the entire planet brought to you by those who are not concerned with your health or well being — but by those who just want the dollars in your pocket at whatever the cost is to the consumer, that being your life.
Robert Lee is a concerned citizen and U.S. Marine veteran who owns and operates Rockingham Guns and Ammo. His column appears here each Saturday.
http://yourdailyjournal.com/opinion/columns/37707/corporate-america-is-killing-with-chemicals
-
Questions Linger On EPA Approach To TSCA Bill's New Chemicals Program
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform advocates say that Congress' landmark overhaul of the 1976 toxics law -- which at press time was awaiting President Obama's signature -- leaves unanswered questions about how EPA will implement the agreement's program for reviewing the potential risks of new chemicals entering the market.
One industry source says that the final bill lawmakers approved comes with a "lack of clarity" on the status of substances on which manufacturers have already submitted pre-manufacture notices (PMN) under current section 5 of TSCA, which allows for a 90-day review period before manufacturing begins. Section 5 of the existing TSCA covers EPA's authority to regulate new chemicals, but advocates have long argued that power is inadequate.
Under current TSCA, after the 90 days, a company may begin manufacturing and sales barring an EPA finding that the chemical "may present an unreasonable risk," but is not required to make an affirmative finding of safety for a substance to enter the marketplace. But it is unclear, the source says, adding that it's "an open-ended question, but one that's very granular," of what happens in the case of currently pending PMNs when Obama signs the bill into law, especially given that the bill appears to take effect immediately upon the president's signature.
An environmentalist says they are withholding a final opinion on the changes to the new chemicals program until "EPA has had a chance to try it out" when it begins to formally implement the overhaul.
While it is "certainly a good thing that EPA has to look at the safety before [a chemical] can go on the market," the source says it will be difficult to assess before the agency implements the new provisions whether EPA will actually have ample authority to gather the information it needs to evaluate new chemicals.
"It's not entirely clear how the whole process will work," that source adds, noting the bill gives EPA additional new authority to compel safety information from companies but that those provisions are untested.
The bill, H.R. 2576, is known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in honor of the late Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) who for years unsuccessfully tried to advance TSCA reform in the Senate. The bill was approved by voice vote in the Senate on June 7 and presented to Obama for signing on June 14. At press time the president had not yet signed the bill into law, but the White House and EPA have voiced support for it.
Much of the focus with the bill has been on the fact that it would overhaul the 1976 TSCA to give EPA sweeping new powers to review and regulate the thousands of existing chemicals grandfathered under the current law.
But the bill would also make a series of significant changes to the agency's new chemicals program under section 5 of current TSCA, which many considered to be one of the more successful parts of the current law.
Chemical Reviews
Current TSCA does not preclude EPA from reviewing new chemicals following submission of a PMN, but there is no formal requirement for EPA to reach any conclusions on those substances' risks before they may enter the marketplace.
The TSCA overhaul would require to review all new chemicals and make an affirmative finding that the substance is not likely to present a significant risk, or to issue an order or rule to bar a chemical from entering the market to impose restrictions if it finds there is insufficient information to make a safety determination. Chemicals found to be likely to present an unreasonable risk will not be permitted to be manufactured and sold.
But proponents of the bill say there are questions that Congress and EPA have not addressed, including how currently pending new chemicals reviews would be managed once the bill takes effect.
"While Lautenberg appears to afford EPA the discretion needed to fashion an appropriate transitional policy for disposing of currently pending and suspended Section 5 notices, it does not require EPA to do this," a May 25 detailed review of the final TSCA reform bill by the law firm Bergeson & Campbell says.
The review advises companies that currently have Section 5 cases pending before EPA should make reasonable efforts to expedite final agency action, and those parties who have cases pending at the time the bill takes effect should seek prompt clarification on how EPA intends to dispose of such cases.
Legislative Intent
In separate GOP and Democratic statements of legislative intent submitted to the June 7 Congressional Record, lawmakers on both side discussed the changes in the new chemicals program with Republicans seeking to downplay the impact of the provisions and Democrats calling the provisions a key part of the pact.
The GOP analysis, in which Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and panel member David Vitter (R-LA) entered into the June 7 Congressional Record a conversation in which they asked each other detailed questions about the TSCA bill and the intent behind various provisions.
Vitter said the "amendments to this section were intended to conform closely with EPA's current practice and maintain the Agency's timely reviews that allow substances to market within the statutory deadlines."
For example, the bill retains the current 90-day review period for EPA to complete a risk-based decision on a new chemicals, and when insufficient information is available on a new chemical for evaluation, EPA must regulate to the extent necessary to guard against unreasonable risk. "These requirements largely reflect EPA's practice today, under which EPA can allow the new chemical on the market but with limits," Vitter said.
Vitter said the bill is "very clear" that EPA should not slow or halt its review of new chemicals while it develops any needed new policies, procedures or guidance for implementing the changes to section 5. Vitter originally introduced the Senate's version of TSCA reform along with Democratic Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).
But the Democrats, who have touted the bill's changes to the way EPA manages new chemicals as a key tenet of the bill, say in their analysis that the bill would make "significant changes to this passive approach under current law."
For the first time, they say, EPA would be required to review all new chemicals and significant new uses and make an affirmative finding of safety prior to manufacture, as opposed to current law, which allows such safety reviews but does not mandate them. "Only chemicals and significant new uses that EPA finds are not likely to present an unreasonable risk can enter production without restriction," the Democrats say.
The Democrats' analysis is signed by Udall, EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and fellow Senate Democrats Edward Markey (MA) and Jeff Merkley (OR).
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/questions-linger-epa-approach-tsca-bills-new-chemicals-program
-
Jackson: Late Senator Scores a Big Win
Jun 19, 2016 | NorthJersey
By Herb Jackson
In a bitterly divided Congress, laws that were once considered routine, like funding the highway system or avoiding a government shutdown, are touted as significant bipartisan achievements.
So a new vocabulary might be needed to describe how conservatives and liberals, and nearly everyone in between, came together on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, an overhaul of environmental regulations unseen for decades.
And it’s not just the New Jersey colleagues of Lautenberg, who was serving his fifth term as a senator from the Garden State when he died in 2013, who are saying so.
The bill overhauls the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, which is universally described as a failure because it did not keep dangerous chemicals away from the public and made it too difficult for the government to step in when problems developed.
“Most Americans believe that when they buy a product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has been tested and determined to be safe, but that is not the case,” Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said before the final Senate vote on June 7. “When this bill becomes law, there will finally be a cop on the beat.”
Before a new chemical is introduced into products, the bill says the Environmental Protection Agency would have to say it is not likely to pose an unreasonable risk. The bill also makes it easier to put the 10,000 chemicals in use under review, and take action against those that are hazardous.
That a Congress controlled by Republicans could pass a bill that Democrats say gives more power to the EPA — an agency the GOP has spent years trying to rein in — illustrates how unlikely passage was.
“As the song said, it has been a long, strange trip getting here, and it has had its share of near-death experiences,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said on the Senate floor.
Lautenberg had started working on an overhaul as long ago as 2005. His office began formal talks in 2011 with Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who said that stakeholders across the political spectrum had agreed for decades the law needed updating.
“There was an often brutal stretch of difficult negotiations and challenging times, testing everybody’s patience,” Vitter said. “Several times we walked away to come back together again. Finally, it did come together.”
During one of those breakups, Lautenberg tried to put his own bill forward, and brought some Hollywood star power to the effort when he joined Jessica Alba at a photo-op/news conference in May 2011. Alba, who was pregnant and had a 3-year-old at the time, said that while she had the time to stay up at night reading labels to make sure products in her home were safe, most mothers could not, and trusted that someone was doing that for them.
Lautenberg’s solo effort did not advance and ultimately he and Vitter introduced a joint bill May 2013. Two weeks later, Lautenberg died. The bill then stalled because Sen. Barbara Boxer objected. Boxer, the California Democrat who was chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the time, sought a stronger bill and was troubled by some of the concessions Lautenberg had made.
‘The 101st senator’
Numerous players in the House and Senate picked up the ball afterward, including Udall; New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone of Long Branch, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee; and Sen. Cory Booker of Newark, who filled the seat Lautenberg had held on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Also providing impetus was what several lawmakers called “the 101st senator” — widow Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg, who was pushing for enactment of what she considered her husband’s legacy.
Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said the lengthy negotiations were partly due to considerations of what Lautenberg would have wanted.
“When naming a bill after Senator Lautenberg, who fought for the environment all his life, the bill must be worthy of his name, and, finally, this bill is,” Markey said.
The final version of the bill was approved in the Senate on June 7 in a unanimous vote, after passing the House, 403-12.
Before it was approved, Boxer, an outspoken environmentalist, praised the work of Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who has questioned the science of climate change.
In an interview, Inhofe said both sides had an interest in seeing the bill pass rather than die. As much as Democrats were pushing to crack down on chemicals, Inhofe said, Republicans were trying to prevent states — which had begun to pass their own chemical restrictions because the 1976 law left the EPA so ineffective — from creating a regulatory minefield for industry.
“On the Democratic side, they keep talking about the safety of the individuals, and on the Republican side we’re talking about how we’re now putting ourselves in a position where we’re not going to chase our employees overseas because there’s no uniformity,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe said he had battled colleagues in his own party who saw the bill as “a power grab by the federal government” by arguing there were some areas, like the standards for interstate highways, for which “you can’t have each state doing it differently, or you shut down business.”
At the same time, Boxer did not want to curtail California’s power to act if the EPA was unwilling or, because of budget constraints, unable to act. The final measure includes several provisions allowing states to act if the EPA does not.
“We were able to tough it out and come up with a bill that I absolutely believe is better than the current law,” Boxer said on the Senate floor.
Ceremony in Paterson
Booker joined fellow Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of Paramus and Ellen Lautenberg, the late senator’s daughter, at a ceremony to mark the bill’s passage last Monday at the Great Falls in Paterson.
Booker was among a group of Democrats who gave the bill new momentum last October when they agreed on a series of revisions. A vegan who said he gave up meat after reading about the way animals grown for food are treated, Booker said one provision that helped sway him would impose new restrictions on animal testing by chemical companies.
Booker said they held the news conference in Paterson because the late senator’s father had worked in the nearby silk mills and died at a young age of cancer that the family attributed to exposure to dangerous materials in the workplace.
“It’s fitting that this progressive champion of New Jersey will now leave us with an additional lasting legacy in this bill,” Booker said.
Staff Writer Scott Fallon contributed to this article.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/jackson-late-senator-scores-a-big-win-1.1618571
-
What's That Toxic Smell? One Father Clashes with the Chemical Industry
Jun 19, 2016 | U.S. PIRG
By Anna Low-Beer
The movie Stink! originated with one pair of children’s pajamas that Director John Whelan bought his daughters for Christmas in 2011. The new pajamas, when taken out of their plastic packaging, smelled overwhelmingly of chemicals.
That one smell prompted Whelan to look deeper into fragrance and the chemical industry’s use of secret and often toxic chemicals in our everyday products. He simply wanted to know – what’s in the stuff we buy? “It seemed like a common-sense question to ask…I’m just trying to find out what chemicals they would put on kids’ pajamas,” he said.
A common-sense question, yes. One with a simple answer? Not so much.
That’s because whether we’re buying pajamas, toys, or lotion, our market is filled with smoke and mirrors. While many companies list ingredients on the back of products, when it comes to personal care products, the term “fragrance” offers a loophole to the chemical industry. Fragrance can be made up of hundreds of different chemicals – including those linked to cancer, neurotoxicity, respiratory problems, and reproductive harm. Because of this loophole in federal law, manufacturers are not required to list these chemicals on labels. This leaves consumers in the dark, with no access to important safety information and, therefore, no way to make an informed decision on which products to buy. Consumers are similarly shut out when it comes to ingredients in other products like furniture, clothing, and electronics, because the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) does not require ingredient labels, and many things can be declared “propriety”—and therefore remain a secret.
For John Whelan, this fight is personal. His wife died of cancer – and while he doesn’t connect her illness directly to any particular chemicals, he does emphasize that the odds of contracting breast cancer today are far higher than they were forty years ago. That’s in part because there are so many chemicals in our daily lives – from our furniture to our hair products – that the collective effect on our society could be catastrophic.
The amount of chemicals we come into contact with regularly is alarming. The average person is exposed to more than 100 chemicals from personal care products – many of them harmful – before leaving the house each morning. That’s because the agencies meant to protect us from toxic chemicals do not have enough authority, and instead of ensuring our products are safe before they hit the market, chemicals are generally presumed safe until proven otherwise.
Different regulatory entities are supposed to ensure different types of products are safe – but each one has key weaknesses and loopholes. The Food and Drug Administration does not do pre-market safety testing on or approval of personal care products, and similarly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is charged with regulating our furniture, toys, plastic goods, and much more, does not require safety testing on chemical ingredients in many consumer products. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been nearly powerless to restrict or ban dangerous chemicals, because of our nation’s weak and ineffective law governing toxic chemicals in commerce, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). (TSCA was just updated by Congress -- find out why this update is one step forward, and two steps back here.) Agencies meant to keep us safe are abundant -- their effectiveness is a major problem.
While the chemical industry often claims that small amounts of potentially dangerous chemicals do no harm, these small toxic exposures can add up over time. Every day, chemicals in our clothing, household goods, and personal care products make their way into our bodies through our skin and lungs.
John Whelan found chemicals suspected to cause cancer and disrupt hormones in his daughters’ pajamas when he sent them to an independent laboratory, confirming his fears. But this issue reaches far beyond the smelly pajamas that prompted Whelan’s exploration. There’s a reason manufacturers of perfume, furniture, and soap, don’t want us knowing exactly what’s in our products: in many cases, we wouldn’t like the answer. And while many people assume there is some mechanism in place to protect us from dangerous chemicals, it’s clear that the rules and regulations that govern the market leave everyday Americans unprotected.
This single dad’s fight for our right to know what’s in our products is inspiring and enlightening, and this Father’s Day, we commend all fathers fighting for a toxic-free world for their children.
http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/what%E2%80%99s-toxic-smell-one-father-clashes-chemical-industry
-
Businesses Warns of Problems from EU Endocrine Criteria
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Crops may be ravaged and diseases spread as unintended consequences of the criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals that the European Commission proposed June 15, the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union said in a June 17 statement.
The chamber described a variety of products that safeguard foods including rodenticides and fungicides. If these products were labeled endocrine disruptors, as would be possible under the proposed criteria, food and feed exports valued at more than 65 billion euros ($73 billion) could be put at risk, it said.
It also said, “The absence of critical antibacterial and antiviral substances could lead to a major increase in hospital-acquired infections and viral contamination.”
Additional criteria the chamber said the commission should use to define endocrine disruption include potency of endocrine activity and severity and reversibility of harmful effects.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92083277&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92083277&jd=92083277
-
One Way to Tackle Our Huge Plastic Pollution Problem: Turn It into Fuel
Jun 17, 2016 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
Plastic pollution is a colossal environmental problem, with millions of tons of it dumped into the ocean every year. And while many nations around the world have made an effort to step up their recycling game in recent years, there’s clearly more work to be done: When it comes to plastic water bottles in the United States alone, for instance, only about one-sixth to one-third of them actually end up being recycled.
A paper out Friday in the journal Science Advances describes a new recycling method aimed to help tackle the issue. The study demonstrates a relatively simple and efficient process that can be used to break down one of the most common types of plastic waste into usable fuel.
“As a chemist, we understand these polymers are extremely inert — they’re very stable — and if you don’t do anything, they can persist in the water or soil for hundreds or even thousands of years without breaking down,” said Zhibin Guan, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Irvine and one of the study’s senior authors. “We thought we should work on something to address this issue.”
The study focuses on a type of plastic known as polyethylene, a material that’s used in many products, including water bottles to plastic bags. The authors of the new study note that it’s the highest-volume type of plastic in the world —some sources indicate that up to 100 million metric tons of it are produced each year.
Plastics, in general, are typically made from petroleum, natural gas or sometimes other organic materials in the first place — so it’s possible to turn them back into fuels or other useful hydrocarbons. The problem with polyethylene is that it’s an extremely stable plastic, meaning it doesn’t react easily with other chemicals. This makes it difficult to break down.
Nevertheless, some processes do already exist to make it happen — and some companies are even trying to put them to commercial use. But they often require extreme temperatures to work and aren’t always that efficient, Guan said.
A process called pyrolysis, for instance, essentially heats up plastic at high temperatures — often over 700 degrees Fahrenheit — causing it to vaporize. Then, it can be condensed back down into a liquid form and refined into a fuel. Alternatively, some scientists have used highly reactive chemicals called radicals to break down polyethylene under less extreme conditions.
But both strategies tend to produce a mixture of products at the end with different chemical formulas, and it’s hard to control for a specific desired end result, Guan said. So he and colleagues from both the University of California at Irvine and the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry at the Chinese Academy of Sciences collaborated to develop a method that would work under mild conditions and would easily produce a desired product — in this case, oils and waxes fit for commercial use.
Such research on simpler methods for the breakdown of plastics is important for the future of plastic recycling, Kevin McDonnell, an expert in energy technology at the University College Dublin, noted by email. “Given the low value of commercial fuel oils, low-cost techniques that can produce a usable product are critical to the successful recovery of plastic waste,” he wrote.
The new method builds on a technique originally developed by other research groups from Rutgers University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for use in building up polymers rather than breaking them down, Guan said. He and his team were able to tweak the method for their own purposes.
The technique uses specific types of hydrocarbons, known as alkanes, to help break up the long chemical chains in polyethylenes through a process known as cross alkane metathesis, or CAM. Polyethylene itself is essentially composed of long alkanes, the researchers noted — the CAM process helps to scramble or rearrange them chemically, ultimately converting them into different products.
The materials used to make the method work can be acquired conveniently from other industrial processes, Guan pointed out. For instance, the researchers found that a substance known as petroleum ether, which can be generated as a side product during oil extraction, can be used in their method— and it’s typically inexpensive and easy to come by, he said.
The method ultimately breaks down polyethylene into both liquid fuels and waxes — and the researchers found that it works on a variety of different types of polyethylenes. Furthermore, the researchers found that the method is also successful when applied to commercial plastic waste (such as water bottles), which typically include extra chemical additives, such as antioxidants, that they’d worried might have affected their process.
The researchers hope that their method will eventually become a commercial success, one that will help make a dent in the huge amounts of plastic waste currently occupying landfills and floating in the seas all over the world.
“At this moment, we are still working on a few issues to make it more efficient,” Guan said. For instance, the researchers would like to increase the amount of fuel they can get out of the process and also conduct more research on the ability to recycle the materials used to conduct the process.
Of course, there’s another environmental consideration here — the fact that fuel produced from plastic is still fuel, meaning it still releases greenhouse gas emissions when burned. Some research has suggested that fuel produced from plastic via pyrolysis may produce fewer emissions than standard gasoline —but, nevertheless, it’s not exactly a “clean” technology.
On the other hand, fossil fuels are likely to remain an integral part of the global energy mix for decades to come, even as alternative energy sources expand. And because plastic production doesn’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon either, conversations about how to deal with the waste in innovative ways are still necessary.
“The global community lifestyle is based on carbon — be that the energy we use, the food we eat, clothes we wear, technology we use — so we are not going to switch off the carbon pipeline easily,” McDonnell pointed out. “Plastic plays a key role in that carbon chain — therefore the more we can recover and recycle the carbon in the plastics we use, the lower the burden we place on the planet from the use of that plastic.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/17/one-way-to-tackle-our-huge-plastic-pollution-problem-turn-it-into-fuel/
-
European SME Body Says Innovation Lower Than Before REACH
Jun 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Ueapme, the European trade body for SMEs, says much more must be done to allow small companies to focus on innovation rather than compliance work. And, it says, Echa has presented a rosy picture of the number of new substances coming onto the market.
Echa's recent report on the operation of REACH and CLP said new substances are being registered "with a steady upward trend", rising from 47 in 2008 to 278 in 2015. And notifications for substances used in product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord) are being made "in similar numbers" to those under the dangerous substances Directive (DSD) before REACH was adopted.
But writing to the heads of Echa, DG Environment and DG GROW soon after the report's publication, Peter Faross, Ueapme secretary general, said he does "not share Echa's optimistic view" on innovation. A lot more needs to be done to put innovation levels back where they were before REACH, he says.
On average the number of new substances notified under the DSD in the 1990s under the so-called NONS scheme was 300 a year. This is double the that of the REACH era, writes Mr Faross.
Comparing like with like
But Cefic REACH director Erwin Annys told Chemical Watch that a comparison between the two regimes is difficult. Whereas REACH requires the registration of substances put on the market in volumes of at least one tonne, he said, the threshold under NONS was much lower – just 10kg.
In response, Ueapme says its argument is backed up if you look at the average number of new substances registrations/notifications rather than the year-by-year trend.
"The number of newly introduced substances which are available on the market decreased since the introduction of REACH from an average of 250-300 per year in the 1990s to less than 200 in the last ten years", says sustainable development director Guido Lena.
He also agrees that the numbers are not totally comparable. Although the DSD had a much lower notification threshold than REACH, current registrations "are not only limited to the placing on the market like it was the case in the previous legislation."
Ueapme also criticise Echa's call for further consideration to be given to including polymers within the scope of REACH registration. "This statement is not underpinned by concrete arguments and appears to be a political opinion … going beyond the mandate of an executive agency", writes Mr Faross.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48121/european-sme-body-says-innovation-lower-than-before-reach
-
As Wind Power Lifts Wyoming’s Fortunes, Coal Miners Are Left in the Dust
Jun 19, 2016 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
After Kullin Orcutt lost his job at the Peabody coal mine this spring, he knew what he needed to do: join the exodus. “Leave Gillette, leave the state,” he said.
Mr. Orcutt is a third-generation miner and one of 592 coal workers who have been laid off here since January. Thousands more job cuts are expected this summer.
More people will follow Mr. Orcutt. While many businesses in Gillette are struggling to stay open, a U-Haul dealer has been nearly sold out since the school year ended this month.
But 200 miles to the southwest, in Carbon County, where Wyoming’s first coal mine opened a century ago, the mood is different. The last coal mine closed a decade ago, but the county may soon be home to the largest wind farm in North America, if not the world.
“Coal is hurting, but wind power is our bright spot on the horizon,” said Cindy Wallace, the director of the Carbon County Economic Development Corporation. “Eventually, we could be the wind capital of Wyoming, the U.S., the world.”
In Wyoming, the country’s biggest coal-producing state, the energy landscape is transforming along with the nation’s, but in a state of 584,000 people, that change is happening at hyperspeed.
That transition has left men like Mr. Orcutt behind. The new positions and financial opportunities offered by wind and other new-energy industries are not replacing all the jobs going up in coal smoke.
Many of the current jobs are out of state, at wind turbine factories in Colorado and Iowa. Millions of dollars’ worth of out-of-state investments are flowing into Wyoming’s wind projects, but much of the profit will flow out of state, as well. The thousands of coal workers who will probably lose their jobs do not necessarily have the technical skills to operate wind farms. In any case, new wind jobs will number in the hundreds, not the thousands.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGECARBON'S CASUALTIESResettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees’ MAY 2, 2016U.S. Denies Permit for Coal Terminal in Washington State MAY 9, 2016Climate Policy’s Advocates Take Page From Same-Sex Marriage Playbook MARCH 29, 2016Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal EmissionsFEB. 9, 2016
So when Mr. Orcutt left Gillette this spring, he did not head for the wind fields of Carbon County. Instead, he moved to Shelby, Mont., for a job at a privately run prison, leaving behind his wife and son in a groaning two-bedroom apartment that they share with Mr. Orcutt’s sister, her husband — a welder who was laid off from the coal mines — and that couple’s three children.
“It’s hard being here without them, but here I have a job,” he said. “In Gillette, those jobs are gone forever.”
The numbers bear out his decision, said Robert W. Godby, an energy economist and professor at the University of Wyoming.
“Wind energy is certainly lucrative,” he said. “That’s why so many investors are interested. But it doesn’t create nearly the economic impact of the fossil fuel industry.”
Today, about 66 percent of the electricity in the United States is produced by coal and natural gas, and just 7 percent is produced by renewable sources such as wind and solar. But market forces and government regulations are rapidly changing that picture.
A glut of inexpensive natural gas has cut into coal’s dominance of America’s power market. And President Obama’s climate changeregulations, known as the Clean Power Plan, take direct aim at coal, the No. 1 cause of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
The Department of the Interior has already declared a halt on new coal mining on public lands, a move with an outsize impact on Wyoming, where a majority of mines are on federal property.
And the international Paris agreement on climate change could make the efforts to end the burning of coal a global campaign.
All of these policies are closing the remaining coal-fired plants and freezing the construction of new ones, but they also aim to aggressively increase the production of renewable power. The Clean Power Plan contains a goal for 20 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from wind, solar and other clean sources by 2030. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has pledged to raise that amount to 33 percent by 2027.
Companies from around the world are looking to Wyoming’s wind to meet that demand.
“There’s enough wind in Wyoming to power the entire country,” said Michael Goggin, the senior director of research at the American Wind Energy Association.
Wyoming’s Republican governor, Matt Mead, is skeptical of human-caused climate change, and has been an outspoken opponent of Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda. Still, he also sees economic opportunity in wind power.
“We’ve been a dig-and-ship state, exporting energy to the rest of the country,” Mr. Mead said in an interview in his office. “With the advances in wind turbines, why shouldn’t we be leading that at the University of Wyoming? Why don’t we do more to bring wind manufacturing to the state?”
Perhaps the biggest winner in Wyoming’s wind boom will be one man: Philip F. Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire and major Republican donor. His company, the Anschutz Corporation, is building the Carbon County wind farm on 200 acres owned by Mr. Anschutz and the federal government.
When completed, the site will be the largest wind power producer in North America, generating enough electricity to light a million homes — far more than Wyoming needs.
Mr. Anschutz is also planning to build the TransWest Express, a 730-mile power line that would take Wyoming’s wind energy to Las Vegas and California. Construction on both projects is expected to begin late this year or early 2017.
On a recent day, Bill Miller, the president and chief executive of the Anschutz Corporation, drove his truck through the Carbon County site’s rocky mesas, which channel near-constant wind across the green plain. The only visible inhabitants were cows, antelopes, prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
Although wind power has traditionally been more expensive than fossil fuels, Mr. Miller said the Anschutz wind project will be large enough to make wind as cheap, if not cheaper, than coal power.
“We can produce wind power here that’s competitive with anything: coal, natural gas,” Mr. Miller said.
Mr. Miller estimates that the construction of the wind farm will create about 900 seasonal jobs over the decade it will take to build it, and about 150 full-time jobs to operate and maintain it.
In the nearby town of Rawlins, he said, a branch of Western Wyoming Community College has already started programs to train wind power technicians.
“You’ll be able to take a coal miner from Gillette — he can go to the community college here for the skills, and get a job as a wind technician,” Mr. Miller said.
But, he conceded, “Am I going to replace 800 lost coal jobs in Gillette with new wind jobs? No.”
Another big winner in the Wyoming wind boom may be a Venezuelan company, Viridis Eolia Corporation, which also plans to build a large-scale wind farm near Carbon County, one second in size in North America only to the Anschutz project.
“It’s the wave of the future,” Juan Carlos Carpio Delfino, Viridis Eolia’s chief executive, said at an energy conference at Little America, a golf resort outside Cheyenne.
“With Obama’s clean power regulations, and the signing of the Paris agreement, it creates a stable market for wind — and this is the best wind in North America.”
That remains cold comfort to Wyoming’s coal community. Mr. Godby estimates that in the coming years, Wyoming could lose up to 10,000 jobs related to the coal industry.
Last month, officials from the Interior Department held a public hearing in Casper to gather input on the current halt on new coal mining on the state’s public lands.
During the meeting, Jillian Balow, the Wyoming superintendent of public instruction, spoke before a crowd of hundreds, her voice cracking.
“We have reached the point where the restrictions and regulations for the industry are past our ability to adapt,” she said. “It has put thousands of hard-working people out of work and is devastating families.”
“Give us a chance,” she pleaded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/as-wind-power-lifts-wyomings-fortunes-coal-miners-are-left-in-the-dust.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
-
Energy Legislation Running Short on Time
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Time is running out for Congress to craft the first broad energy policy bill in nearly a decade.
With a seven-week congressional recess set to begin in less than a month and elections in the fall, analysts are casting doubt on lawmakers' ability to beat the clock.
“They are really short of time,” former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), a senior member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who played a major role in crafting comprehensive energy legislation signed into law in 2005, told Bloomberg BNA. “They made some progress this session, but this is not horseshoes—close doesn't count.”
The Senate voted to pass its version of the bill (S. 2012) on an 85-12 vote in April, drawing support from Republicans with language to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports and Democrats with measures designed to increase renewable energy development and energy efficiency.
‘Strong Vote' Ignored
“My hope is the House takes a look at the strong vote over here and we are able get to work early and quickly and get to that place where we have a conference product that we can bring back, finalize and enact good energy policy reforms into law,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said during a jubilant press conference after the bill's passage.
But then, the House voted along party lines to add a slew of bills opposed by the White House and congressional Democrats as part of an 806-page amendment before sending the measure to the Senate.
In addition to incorporating the text of House Republicans' energy bill (H.R. 8), which was already under veto threat from the Obama administration, the amendment added more bills the White House earlier promised to veto, such as legislation expediting the permitting process for mines and a bill dealing with the California drought opposed by the environmental community.
“I want people to realize we have a very worked-through bipartisan bill with dozens and dozens of well-worked-out products and they are starting with something that is just like a bunch of veto threats, so I want some recognition of the imbalance,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee told reporters.
Informal Meetings, No Votes
The Senate has yet to vote on a formal motion to go to conference with the House bill. Instead, Murkowski invited Cantwell and key players from the House to an informal meeting where they tried to find common ground for a path forward.
“We haven't decided anything,” Cantwell said. Another meeting is expected to occur June 22 or June 23. The congressional recess begins July 15.
Meanwhile people like Damian Kunko, a lobbyist who represents the nascent marine and hydrokinetic industry, which seeks to generate power using experimental technologies like wave converters and underwater turbines, are getting worried.
“My glass is half empty and I don't think there is going to be enough time,” Kunko, who represents the National Hydropower Association and companies such as Siemens subsidiary Dresser-Rand, told Bloomberg BNA.
Energy Guidance Sought
“I feel like Charlie Brown,” Kunko said. “We get this close to moving something and the football gets yanked away. It's disappointing. We haven't had an energy policy bill since 2007, and this country needs guidance and leadership to figure out the best path forward for generating energy.”
In addition to authorizing funding for Energy Department marine hydrokinetic research, the Senate bill includes other measures designed to help commercialize marine and hydrokinetic projects, which Murkowski has long championed for use in her coastal state.
Publicly, Cantwell and Murkowski say they still have plenty of time to work out the differences in the House and Senate bills.
“What day is it today? Do you know how many more days are left in the year? A whole bunch,” Murkowski told Bloomberg BNA. “I would like us to certainly be working on things well before we break for the very long recess. That has been my goal, and that will continue to be my goal.”
Still a Chance for Bill
But speaking in April after the bill passed, Murkowski conceded time constraints would be one of the biggest challenges to getting the bill passed into law.
“One of the concerns that I think we have or the obstacles we have in front of us is time and calendar and the fact that in order to have a conference the House and the Senate have to be in town at the same time,” Murkowski said. “You look at the calendar going forward and we've got some work to do there are some keen differences between the House bill land the Senate bill and we've got our work cut out for us.”
Dorgan, the former senator who now serves as a senior policy adviser at the law firm Arent Fox LLP, said it's still conceivable the bill could go to conference and be passed into law, especially by members of Congress anxious to demonstrate “they can make things work from time to time.”
“I think with motivated chairman and ranking member, you could do a conference in a couple of weeks,” Dorgan said. “This is not a 2005 or 2007 big comprehensive bill with big ideas. It's more like an ice cube that's been passed around. But still it's very much worth doing.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92083290&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92083290&jd=92083290
-
RGGI Expects More Information on Carbon Cap in Fall
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is aiming to finish the current phase of its program review this summer as it tries to improve the effectiveness of the cap-and-trade program.
After the review, RGGI will indicate in the fall what direction it expects to take with its post-2020 carbon emissions cap, Lois New, director of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Office of Climate Change, told RGGI stakeholders June 17.
RGGI is taking public comments on various modeling scenarios until June 22 and will then analyze the comments and decide what further modeling is needed, she said during a web-based RGGI stakeholders meeting.
The webinar was the fourth and last scheduled meeting during RGGI's yearlong program review. The review will help RGGI states determine what changes are needed in the program to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.
The nine RGGI states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—are also looking at ways to meet their long-term climate goals.
Emissions Cap
One of the most important adjustments that RGGI will need to make is in its carbon emissions cap. The cap will be 78 million tons in 2020 and beyond, under the current RGGI structure. The Clean Power Plan's mass-based goal for the nine states is 79 million tons in 2030 for existing sources and 80 million tons for new and existing sources, according to RGGI.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the power sector in each state. States have the option of choosing between a mass-based compliance plan, which would set a cap on the total carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, or a rate-based option, which would set carbon dioxide emissions limits per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. But the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan until it is fully litigated.
RGGI is looking at five scenarios for the program's post-2020 cap, including three in which the cap would decline by 2.5 percent per year and two in which the cap would decline by 5 percent per year.
The modeling scenarios also include projections for RGGI carbon allowance prices through 2030. The price of allowances, which has taken a hit this year, is projected to increase from the current $4.53 each to between $11 and $27 by 2030, depending on the scenario.
All but one of the scenarios would eliminate RGGI's current cost containment reserve, a mechanism designed to prevent spikes in allowance prices by releasing additional allowances for sale when prices hit certain marks.
5 Percent Cut Modeled
Mark Kresowik, eastern region deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, applauded RGGI for modeling a scenario requested by environmental groups that includes a 5 percent annual reduction in the cap.
“The initial modeling shows that much more needs to be done to stay on track to hit states' climate goals,” Kresowik told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “Even the most ambitious scenario modeled fails to put the states on a trajectory to meet their own targets to reduce pollution and avoid the worst impacts of climate disruption.”
Jordan Stutt, a policy analyst at the Boston-based Acadia Center, said the modeling shows that “even the most ambitious cap scenario can be achieved at modest increases to power prices relative to the alternatives.”
“We hope that additional modeling will be conducted on the macroeconomic impacts of these scenarios,” he told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “During the previous program review, such modeling demonstrated that ambitious emissions reductions were not just a benefit for our health and environment, but for the economic wellbeing of our region.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92083287&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92083287&jd=92083287
-
Natural Gas Surpasses Coal as Power Source for 1st Time, BP Report Says
Jun 17, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
U.S. power plants burned more natural gas than coal for the first time last year, one factor that kept global CO2 emissions the lowest in years, a key oil company economist said Thursday.
“You can go back as long as you want in history, coal had always been the dominant source of fuel in U.S. power, until last year,” Spencer Dale, chief economist for British oil giant BP, told Houston business and civic leaders at a presentation of the company’s annual Statistical Review. Dale said t
CO2 emissions grew by 0.1 percent in 2015, according to the report, the lowest growth rate outside of the 2009 recession since 1992. Dale attributed the decline in part to the U.S. boom in shale-drilled natural gas. A glut in production and low demand reduced prices, he said, and made natural gas more economical for power plants.
Dale acknowledged that a weak global economy also helped check emissions. The world’s energy consumption grew by 1 percent, half its annual average over the past five years, according to the report. Chinese demand crept up by just 1.5 percent in 2015, far less than in previous years.
And though global oil use ballooned by 1.9 million barrels per day, or 1.9 percent — nearly double the recent historical average — coal dipped 1.8 percent, the largest decline on record, the report said. In the U.S., coal use dropped by almost 13 percent.
Globally, coal accounted for less than 30 percent of energy consumption, its lowest share since 2005.The continued increase in renewable fuel use also helped curb CO2 emissions, Dale said. Wind, solar and biofuel consumption again grew by 15 percent, slightly below the 10-year annual average of 15.9 percent. Renewables make up almost 3 percent of global energy consumption, according to the report.
But Dale called shale gas pivotal for the world’s transition to low-carbon energy.
“This audience will know more than anybody,” he told the crowd assembled at the Houston branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas for lunch. “U.S. shale gas is enormously important for America. But it’s also enormously important for the world.”
Dale said energy production was riding a “technological wave” in 2015. And the trends that started last year, he said, would likely continue this year
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/06/17/natural-gas-overtakes-coal-as-power-source-for-1st-time-bp-report-says/
-
Tug-of-War Renewed Over Arctic Leasing Plans
Jun 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A federal leasing plan for offshore oil and gas exploration has triggered another round of argument over whether to allow more leasing in waters off the coast of Alaska.
The possibility of leasing and drilling in Arctic waters and Cook Inlet off Alaska drew strong support from national oil and gas industry associations and Alaska business groups as the public comment period ended June 16 for the plan. Many individual citizens echoed environmental advocacy groups in their opposition to such drilling.
The proposed five-year program from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the period 2017-2022 would include 10 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and one each in Cook Inlet, the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea.
The comments on the proposed plan included a renewal of debate over the idea of offshore Atlantic drilling, a possibility eliminated from the proposed plan earlier this year after much public opposition.
The rules on BOEM five-year programs do not allow the agency to restore areas to the plan after they have been dropped out. Because the Obama administration plans to complete the 2017-2022 program before the end of this year, the oil and gas industry will have to wait at least until a new administration and the formulation of a new plan before there is any new prospect of Atlantic drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Activists Want Arctic Leasing Halted
Environmental activists would like to see Arctic leasing dropped from the plan—and possibly a halt to all offshore leasing, as the Natural Resources Defense Council said in its letter.
“NRDC appreciates the decision not to include any lease sale in the Atlantic in the Proposed Program. However, the Final Program must go further and include no new OCS leasing, including in the Gulf of Mexico, and should recommend permanent withdrawal of the Arctic and Atlantic by the President,” the NRDC said.
One citizen comment zeroed in on a basic concern about Arctic drilling—the question of what would happen if a well leaked beneath floating sea ice too thick to break through.
“Drilling for oil in the Beaufort or Chukchi seas is a very bad idea,” Stanley Justice wrote. “Industry has not been able to demonstrate that they can clean up a spill in areas with floating ice.”
Exclusion of Areas Criticized
The arguments over the proposed program were in many ways a recapitulation of comments filed in April and early May on the draft environmental impact statement for the program. Joint comments filed by nine oil industry groups made repeated references to the draft EIS as a problematic part of the five-year plan.
“We have significant concerns with the Environmentally Important Area (‘EIA’) concept that BOEM has introduced within the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Cook Inlet, and Atlantic Planning Areas,” said the groups, led by the American Petroleum Institute.
The draft environmental impact statement “fails to consider the extent to which oil and gas activities might impact, if at all, subsistence hunting or traditional uses of these areas, although it obliquely suggests that impacts to subsistence fishing are at least partially why BOEM would exclude these areas from leasing consideration,” the industry groups said.
“Nearly a century of industry operations in the region demonstrates that exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources in the Alaska OCS can take place in a safe and environmentally responsible manner,” the groups said.
A letter from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, addressing the BOEM on behalf of the state government, also criticized what it saw as an overly broad use of area exclusions from leasing. It noted the existence of a “conflict avoidance” program that allows oil development and native whaling to coexist.
Economic and Security Worries
Many Alaskans, like the national oil industry groups, appeared to worry that the BOEM will drop the Arctic leases from the final version of the program just as the Atlantic prospects were dropped from the proposed version.
“As an Alaskan coalition that represents tens of thousands of jobs for our state's citizens, we cannot overstate how important it is to have consistent lease sales,” said a joint filing by 15 Alaska business and labor groups. “Our state's oil fields have matured over the years, and it is vital that new arenas and development opportunities are realized for the future economic security of our state.”
Unusual allies for the oil industry showed up in the form of a group of retired generals and admirals who hope to see infrastructure development in the Arctic as a matter of national interest beyond the energy supplies or jobs.
“As foreign policy and national security specialists, we support retaining the two Arctic leasing areas when the Program is finalized,” said the letter from 15 retired officers and William Cohen , former defense secretary. “Excluding the Arctic from the Program would harm our ability to protect our interests and to promote cooperation in the region.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92083309&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92083309&jd=92083309
-
Jun 17, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Eric O’Neill
In response to unprecedented cyber-attacks in the past few years including breaches of the Office of Personnel Management, IRS, Federal Reserve, and now the DNC, plus rampart industrial espionage targeting United States industry, the federal government has issued a new law and regulation that seek to tighten cybersecurity in the United States and change the way the nation shares threat information.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2015, which was signed into law on December 18, 2015, is a first step by the federal government toward partnerings private and government industry to address the cybersecurity threat. The act seeks to align private industry and domestic nonfederal entities into a federal information sharing initiative focused on sharing cyber “threat indicators.” To complement the Cybersecurity Act, the government today issued a new FAR regulation (48 C.F.R. Part 4.19) that establishes minimum safeguarding information system requirements for federal contractors.
These changes in the law for federal contracts provide insight into the U.S. federal government’s goals to regulate the patchwork public and private information sharing industry. Understanding the goals of the Cybersecurity Act and the new FAR regulation on information systems are important to prepare for the future of the industry.
By sharing threat indicators, the federal government hopes to encourage the voluntary exchange of cybersecurity threat information between the private sector and the federal government in a system of real-time notification. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already implemented a method to accomplish this called the “Security Cyber Threat Indicator and Defensive Measures Submission System.”
A collaborative approach to defending against cyber-attacks is necessary as attacks have pivoted to targeted malware that is becoming increasingly more sophisticated. However, there are two problems with the government’s approach. First, threat indicators only tell a small portion of the entire story needed to protect against similar attacks in a community. Curated intelligence, or the full behavior pattern of attack (POA) is necessary to empower defenders to close a vulnerability to future infection. The Cybersecurity Act only tells the beginning of the story, when what we need is the entire novel.
Second, the DHS expects to receive and share a vast amount of data under the Cybersecurity Act, but recent breaches of federal systems have shown that trusting the federal government to protect data is a risky affair. To address this, security controls for the handling and retention of sensitive data must be strengthened in both the public and private sectors. Otherwise, the Cybersecurity Act could create an Achilles heel of vulnerability.
To address the weaknesses in current cybersecurity controls, the Cybersecurity Act instructs governmental and private entities to review cyber-threat indicators and related information to identify whether such information contains personally identifiable information (PII) and to remove PII prior to sharing. Because sharing threat indicators is a “pay to play” or voluntary collaboration in which a company must share in order to receive, some companies may not join the collective for fear that their information will be misused.
While the federal government is thus faced with these challenges in its efforts to improve cybersecurity via threat sharing, the private sector is increasingly better equipped to collectively share such information. A system where members collaborate and comment in real time on threats as they develop would provide a more robust and secure solution to the problem. Such an effort should focus on patterns of attack – which identify the behavior, techniques and tactics of the attacker. Patterns are far more difficult for an attacker to change than indicators and provide a deeper level of insight for cybersecurity professionals.
While the new FAR regulation does not require compliance with NIST standards at the moment, it mirrors many of the security requirements listed in NIST SP 800-171 and lists 15 minimum mandatory security controls. Government contractors will need to carefully review their systems to ensure that this higher standard of cybersecurity is met. Some of the key controls required by the new regulation are as follows:
· User auditing and compartmentalization of access to only authorized transactions.
· Separation of public systems from internal networks.
· Monitoring, controlling and protecting organizational communications at the “endpoint” – or the external boundaries and key internal boundaries of the information system.
· Identifying, reporting and correcting information system flaws in a timely manner.
· Implementing protections from malicious code at the endpoint.
· Periodic scans of the information system and real-time scans of files from external sources.
The government’s focus on safely sharing pertinent threat information is an important first step in establishing a stronger security posture for organizations. However, the concerns against sharing threat information with the government and the minimal use that threat indicators will provide may prevent many companies from joining the government’s exchange. Fortunately similar efforts from private industry may sprint where the public sector stumbles.
O'Neill is a former FBI counterintelligence operative and currently national security strategist at endpoint security firm Carbon Black.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/283914-governments-efforts-to-raise-the-standard-for-cyber-security
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Back EPA in Lawsuit over Air Toxics 'Completion' Finding
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A coalition of major industry groups is backing EPA's opposition to environmentalists' lawsuit challenging the agency's finding that it has completed regulation of 90 percent of emissions of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), supporting EPA's position that environmentalists' suit targets underlying air toxics rules years too late.
In an amicus brief filed June 17 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., the Coalition For Clean Air Implementation, including the American Chemistry Council, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Forest & Paper Association, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and others, says the environmentalist challenge is impermissible.
Under Clean Air Act section 112(c)(6), EPA by Nov. 15, 1995, had to list industrial sources for regulation accounting for 90 percent of seven HAPs -- alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. These chemicals are singled out because of their “persistent” and “bioaccumulative” properties.
The agency for years avoided issuing a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking stating that it had fulfilled this obligation, initially issuing a declaratory finding that it had achieved the mandate without first taking public comment, in response to environmentalists' pressure.
Following an earlier suit filed by advocates, EPA was forced to issue a formal rulemaking June 3, 2015. In that rule the agency confirmed its previous “completion” finding.
EPA in briefing has rejected environmentalists' claim that it has failed to regulate 90 percent of emissions of the seven HAPs as required because the air toxics rules it relies on wrongly targeted “surrogate” pollutants instead of directly regulating the HAPs -- and the industry coalition's amicus brief backs the agency's arguments.
The coalition says environmentalists' claims are an “untimely collateral attack on the legal sufficiency” of the underlying toxics rules, filed too late and far beyond the Clean Air Act's 60-day window to sue over final rules.
“After foregoing challenges to the sufficiency of these emission standards, including EPA’s use of surrogate pollutants, when the rules were promulgated, Petitioners cannot have this Court revisit the sufficiency of these existing rules merely because now -- many years later -- EPA has completed a number of unrelated rules that are also on the list of source categories EPA has identified for purposes” of air law section 112(c)(6), the coalition says.
“Petitioners do not really challenge EPA’s final action at issue here: EPA’s determination that all of the source categories accounting for at least 90% of the emissions of [section 112(c)(6)] HAPs have been correctly identified and that these source categories are all subject” to air toxics standards, the coalition says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-groups-back-epa-lawsuit-over-air-toxics-completion-finding
-
Sanders Backers Face Paradox in Shaping Democrats' Energy Platform
Jun 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Sen. Bernie Sanders pushed Hillary Clinton to the left on energy policy during the primaries, but now his backers face strong headwinds as they fight to incorporate his climate change priorities into the Democratic party platform.
The Democratic National Committee’s platform hearing in Phoenix on Friday gave the left wing of the environmental movement a televised forum to promote Sanders’ central goals — ending drilling on public lands, pricing greenhouse gas emissions and banning fracking. But Clinton supporters seized the moment to underline the political risks of going too far in backing a carbon tax or pushing too fast to end fracking — a production technology that has helped create jobs.
Paradoxically, Sanders’ successes in forcing Clinton off the fence on Keystone XL and to adopt more critical rhetoric about fracking may not ultimately help his effort to create a more liberal energy platform. The more doggedly the Vermont senator pushed Clinton on their energy differences, the more apparent became the contrast between Democrats and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax.”
Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce acknowledged the legal difficulty that any president would have in pushing an outright fracking ban, as opposed to the stricter regulations Clinton has championed. "The only daylight I really see between Clinton and Sanders is on fracking — what the executive can actually accomplish,” she told POLITICO.
Kevin Curtis, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, credited Sanders for helping turn Clinton into a stronger environmental candidate. But as the general election contest heats up in earnest, Trump and Clinton are unlikely to battle over the policy details that the Democratic platform debate will focus on, he added.
"It feels like it’s going to be much more about: Do you believe in climate change and the need to do something, [or] not? Do you believe in the EPA, or not? In government regulation, or not?” Curtis said.
Sierra Club and the NRDC Action Fund joined the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund in endorsing Clinton before Sanders’ recent shift toward party unity, giving her campaign some leverage to resist his team's push for further specific concessions on fracking or a carbon tax.
At the Phoenix hearing, former EPA chief and White House climate adviser Carol Browner pointed to the difficulties Clinton would face in enacting her own energy agenda as president — let alone a more ambitious Sanders-style platform — if Republicans maintain control of at least one chamber of Congress.
“The next president will need a Congress” if they want to move beyond what President Barack Obama has done to cut emissions, Browner said. “We cannot continue to elect climate deniers to the Senate.”
At the hearing, Browner drew some skepticism over a carbon tax from California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, who testified about her state’s cap-and-trade climate legislation. “We needed to take a look at how we were using petroleum,” Nichols told the group, before the state would pursue a tax that she likened to “banning the manufacturing of drugs and not doing anything about the demand side.”
Still, Sanders' policy director Warren Gunnels challenged Nichols on the seismic impact of fracking, in addition to engaging climate scientist Michael Mann on the importance of ending fossil-fuel extraction. And also on display in Phoenix was the loyalty that Sanders continues to command from the left wing of the green movement that propelled anti-Keystone protests to victory and re-energized environmentalists inside the Beltway.
Friends of the Earth Action President Erich Pica dismissed Clinton’s proposed climate solutions as insufficient, likening them to a “soft form of denialism.”
“If we are embracing the science and the need to act but then have half-measures in the party platform that don’t get us to where we need to go, we’re still ending up at the same destination — just a little bit slower,” he added.
Democrats' 2012 blueprint touted an “all-of-the-above energy policy” and lauded natural gas as a “clean fossil fuel,” so adopting a negative tone toward fracking and embracing greater urgency about the threat of rising emissions in this year's version would constitute a major shift.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), an early Sanders backer who joined the Clinton camp last week, acknowledged a fracking ban “is going to come up” during the platform debate, but he demurred on whether to push for one in the Democrats’ 2016 vision document. “Having goals for the use of renewables and alternatives, that’s my priority,” he said in an interview.
Another Sanders emissary on the platform committee, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), pointedly declined to draw any lines in the sand on fracking and praised the number “of really progressive folks on the Clinton team.”
Climate Hawks Vote PAC President R.L. Miller, chair of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus, summed up the policy reality that authors of the party's energy platform will be challenged to capture.
Clinton "has not called for a price on carbon, and I doubt she’d embrace the keep-it-in-the-ground movement,” Miller said, but “she’s more of a climate hawk than Sanders' people have given her credit for.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/sanders-backers-face-long-odds-in-shaping-democrats-energy-platform-121082
-
States Query Haze Planning for Natural Air Pollution, Greater Federal Role
Jun 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states are querying how they can craft emissions reductions plans to comply with EPA's regional haze program that would adequately address haze-forming air pollution from natural events like wildfires, and also how their plans might be affected by a greater role for federal regulators that the agency is floating in a proposed rule.
The haze program aims to restore visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, known as Class 1 areas, to natural conditions by 2064. States are required to craft state implementation plans (SIPs) to comply, outlining the emissions control requirements they will impose on industrial sources of haze-forming air pollutants.
For the first phase of the program, from 2008 to 2018, states wrote SIPs to show how they would impose best available retrofit technology (BART) to control air pollution from qualifying sources, primarily power plants. BART is a one-time requirement. Under the next 10-year planning cycle of the program, from 2018 to 2028, states must submit SIPs focused on “reasonable further progress” in reducing haze.
EPA is taking comment through July 5 on its proposal to give states more time to craft plans outlining the emissions reduction measures they will impose to cut haze-forming emissions; bolster the involvement of federal land managers in planning; and other steps.
The agency held a June 1 hearing in Denver on the plan, at which organizations representing Western and Great Plains states expressed disquiet over EPA's handling of naturally occurring air pollution that contributes to haze, such as emissions from wildfire and dust-storms. Such events are covered by the agency's related “exceptional events” rule, which allows for regulatory exemptions from federal air standards and is undergoing revisions.
States have complained that both rules and especially the exceptional events rule are cumbersome to implement, prompting EPA's move to streamline both of the regulations.
Visibility Impairment
In testimony for the hearing, Mary Uhl, executive director of the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) -- which represents 15 states in the region -- said the regional haze rule's goal of attaining natural conditions by 2064 “is not universally achievable unless some revisions are made.”
“Although we can do everything feasible and reasonable over time to make significant reductions in man-made pollution under state and federal control, we are still challenged by visibility impairment from transported international pollution and natural sources of haze such as wildfires, dust storms, and volcanic activity, which can overwhelm the benefits achieved by local, state, and federal controls that reduce anthropogenic emissions,” she said.
The rule does shift focus to reduction of man-made emissions, which Uhl said is a welcome development. “Accounting for the reduction in man-made visibility is critical in the West, because much of the haze observed at Class 1 areas on the haziest days is from natural sources.”
Uhl adds, “Western states are concerned that our achievements in reducing controllable man-made pollution are not being recognized using the 1999 rule construct. By recognizing that reducing anthropogenic visibility impairment should be the focus of the regional haze rule, the proposed rule revision steps in the right direction.”
WESTAR supports two key aspects of EPA's proposal: The proposed delay in submission deadlines for the next round of SIPs from 2018 to 2021, and the agency's proposal to allow reports required midway through the 10-year planning period to be less onerous than formal SIP revisions.
Environmentalists at the hearing strongly opposed the revisions, which they say endanger air quality and public scrutiny of states' haze plans, echoing criticisms made earlier by several groups such as Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association at a May 19 hearing in Washington, D.C.
'Considerable Uncertainty'
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) -- an organization related to WESTAR that provides technical analysis on air quality for the WESTAR states -- in its testimony to the June 1 hearing said, “In planning toward 'Natural Conditions' decades in the future, which imply no human impacts, we face considerable uncertainty regarding the quantity and trends of natural sources of haze in the West. Natural haze, along with internationally-transported pollution, causes impacts together that are often significant and complicate planning to further control state-managed sources affecting western Class 1 areas, which are already quite clear on many days.”
WRAP also fears that its technical work to date may be discarded, saying, “We are concerned that the detailed and complete regional work of the WRAP in the initial round of haze planning may be set aside, depending on what EPA proposes in guidance for creating a new baseline in the yet unseen guidance to accompany the rule amendments.”
Meanwhile, Colorado -- a member of both WRAP and WESTAR -- said in its testimony that EPA's move to boost the role of federal land managers in haze planning could be problematic.
Will Allison, director of the state's Air Pollution Control Division, said, “It appears that states may no longer have a role in the source attribution process. Apparently, the Federal Land Managers would make the certification of visibility impairment and identify the source or sources of such impairment.”
This is a departure from longstanding practice under the haze program's rules governing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI), which is the seldom-used process by which land managers can identify specific air pollution sources that are degrading visibility in a given Class 1 area. RAVI dates from regulations passed in 1980 and predates the current haze program. “Colorado urges that EPA consider retaining the important role of states in the process of assessing and attributing sources of visibility impairment,” Allison said.
'Potential Concern'
“A second area of potential concern relates to the proposed process where a state can request to adjust a Class 1 area’s uniform rate of progress, because of emission impacts from outside the U.S. or from wildland prescribed fire,” Allison says. Uniform rate of progress is the calculation of the uniform “glide path” between baseline visibility conditions at the program's start and its 2064 target end date.
“While Colorado appreciates the flexibility afforded, this process seems to place the demonstration burden on the state without any apparent expectation for involving, in the situation of wildland prescribed fire, the Federal Land Manager who is responsible for the smoke that hampers progress towards improved visibility. Colorado suggests that Federal Land Managers should shoulder much of the demonstration burden, if wildland prescribed fire smoke is slowing the rate of visibility progress,” Allison said.
EPA's proposed rule would boost the role of federal regulators such as officials with the National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau Of Land Management in making key decisions on haze issues. Many Class 1 areas are in Western states, where much of the land is federally-owned, and NPS has direct responsibility for the many parks in the area.
The Central States Air Resource Agencies Association (CenSARA), representing air regulators from Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, in its June 1 testimony also questions the proposed shift in federal land managers' roles.
“One section of the proposed rule that is perplexing is the expansion of the [RAVI] program. . . . the RAVI regulation is the predecessor of the current Regional Haze program. RAVI, therefore, now seems redundant. Especially in light of the proposed rule revisions that further stipulate when states must coordinate with federal land managers (FLMs) when developing both the comprehensive SIP revisions and progress reports, it’s not clear what gap is left that RAVI would fill,” the group says. “If RAVI is deemed necessary, it is imperative that the final rule identify the minimum threshold to be used by FLMs to certify impairment,” CenSARA says.
Agency Consultation
However, Carol McCoy, Chief of the NPS' Air Resources Division, in her testimony said, “We agree with EPA’s proposal to require earlier and more substantive consultation with the Federal Land Managers of Class 1 areas about sources and needed controls under consideration for inclusion in state plans. We urge EPA to include this change in the final rule.
McCoy said “it is critically important that Federal Land Managers continue to have the ability to certify to a state, at any time, that there exists [RAVI] to a Class I area due to emissions from a single source or group of sources.” The device has been used only four times since 1980, McCoy said, but, “While rarely utilized, we believe that certification is a critical tool for Federal Land Managers to underscore the need for emission controls to protect Class 1 areas.”
McCoy said “we support EPA’s proposal that all states, not just states with Class 1 areas within their borders, need to evaluate emissions reductions that are feasible and reasonable to implement. Sources across broad regions and categories contribute to haze, and therefore solutions to haze need to address contributing sources in every state. Regional haze requires regional solutions,” a position environmentalists also support.
NPS says it supports EPA's focus on reducing anthropogenic sources of haze, to include “power plants, industry, oil and gas, highway vehicles, and off-road engines. We also recommend that states evaluate methods to reduce ammonia emissions from agricultural sources because ammonia contributes to fine particles that impair visibility.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-query-haze-planning-natural-air-pollution-greater-federal-role
-
Panel to Take up Bill That Would Delay Ozone Rule
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
It won't be until October 2017 that U.S. EPA plans to designate the communities unable to meet its latest ambient air quality standard for ozone.
But that schedule is already rattling some areas of the country and the politicians who represent them. Earlier this month, the House passed H.R. 4775, which would roll back implementation of the 70 parts per billion standard by eight years and make the first major changes to the Clean Air Act in more than a quarter century.
Although the Obama administration has threatened a veto, a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee chaired by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) plans a Wednesday hearing on S. 2882, her companion bill to the House measure.
"EPA's current approach to setting new ozone standards is a moving target, making it difficult for states to comply," Capito said following passage of the House bill, adding that the legislation "will create a more certain regulatory environment and protect jobs."
Also on the agenda for the hearing by the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee is S. 2072, introduced last September by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to revive a program aimed at helping regional and local governments work with EPA to head off nonattainment designations. In its first incarnation from 2002 to 2007, the "Early Action Compact" program was highly successful, according to Hatch's office, but then ended after a federal court found that EPA had overstepped its legal authority in creating it.
"I'm concerned that the EPA will simply set an air quality standard for ozone that is unattainable for many Western states," Hatch said. Along similar lines, Hatch also pushed for report language with the Interior-Environment spending bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week aimed at prodding EPA to study the potential of "cooperative agreements" with states to meet ozone requirements, a spokesman said Friday.
As of Friday, Capito's office had not released a list of witnesses for this week's hearing, but they are likely to include officials from areas that could struggle to comply with the standard.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, can irritate lung passageways, trigger asthma attacks and aggravate emphysema symptoms. In response to a court-ordered deadline, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the new 70 ppb standard last October, citing fresh research on ozone's effects and her legal responsibility to protect public health.
Already, however, parts of 25 states encompassing 122 million people were out of compliance with the previous 75 ppb threshold set in 2008, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in January. While EPA projects that many of those areas will also fall short of the new standard, emissions of pollutants that contribute to ozone formation are likely to drop because of tighter regulation of power plants and other sources, the report said. As a result, the number of counties that end up in the nonattainment category may be fewer than EPA currently estimates, according to the research service.
With the exception of California, which is expected to need longer to comply, EPA officials similarly predict that most of the country will meet the new ozone standard by 2025. Critics in Congress and the business community question that assumption; they also note that EPA only gave states final instructions for implementation of the 2008 benchmark early last year.
But in threatening the veto of H.R. 4775, the White House said the bill would leave people living in areas with unhealthy ozone levels for years to come.
The administration also jabbed at other parts of the legislation. A provision that would extend the deadlines for EPA reviews of air quality benchmarks for ozone and other "criteria" pollutants from once every five years to once every decade would delay "the requirement that the latest science inform our air pollution standards," the administration said in a statement.
And allowing the agency to take technological feasibility into account as a side factor in setting new standards, the statement said, would permit "a fundamental shift away from the principle that the standards should be based solely on public health and welfare considerations."
Schedule: The hearing will be Wednesday, June 22, at 2:30 p.m. in 406 Dirksen.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/20/stories/1060039041
-
GOP Panel to Question McCarthy on Scientific Basis for Rules
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
In what's likely to be a contentious matchup, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy this week will face congressional critics over her agency's use of science.
The hearing Wednesday in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee could cover a broad range of topics, as GOP critics on the committee have expressed concerns about the scientific underpinning of a number of agency rules.
"The purpose of this hearing is to examine the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent regulatory agenda, the scientific and technical justification for these regulations, and these regulations' impacts on the American people," a Science Committee spokesperson said Friday.
McCarthy last testified in front of the full Science panel in July 2015 in a hearing that committee Democrats blasted as "political theater."
At that hearing, which similarly looked at the science behind a range of agency regulations, the EPA administrator and Republicans traded barbs over the use of private data and committee requests for information (Greenwire, July 9, 2015).
The majority staff spokesperson said that EPA's Clean Power Plan, Waters of the U.S. rule and regional haze program rule could come up at this week's hearing. Lawmakers may also grill McCarthy on the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska.
Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a doubter of man-made climate change, has long raised concerns about the Clean Power Plan, which requires states to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The Supreme Court in February stayed the rule until complex litigation is resolved.
Smith has charged that the Obama administration used "scare tactics, worst-cased scenarios and biased data" to justify the Clean Power Plan. The rule is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's domestic climate change agenda, and EPA has maintained that it will eventually be upheld by the courts.
Committee Republicans have likewise slammed the agency's water rule, which seeks to clarify which waters of the United States receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act, as a federal power grab. Last October, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay of the rule.
Smith and other Republicans on the Science Committee have also criticized EPA for undercutting state authority through its regional haze program, which is meant to reduce visibility-impairing pollutants at national parks and wildernesses.
Smith's home state of Texas is seeking a court-ordered stay of a plan to reduce haze at two national parks in the Lone Star State and a national wildlife refuge in Oklahoma (Greenwire, April 8).
"We look forward to EPA's presence at a future hearing," Smith said in March at a subcommittee hearing on the regional haze program. "EPA will also be expected to answer questions about other regulations that the agency has recently issued or finalized."
EPA's April proposal to update the regional haze program and give states a three-year extension on a 2018 deadline to rework implementation plans may also be discussed.
The proposed Pebble mine in Alaska is likely to be a flashpoint if it comes up at the hearing.
At a hearing earlier this year, Republicans on the Science, Space and Technology Committee accused EPA of conspiring with environmental activists to block the controversial open-pit mine proposal in Bristol Bay. EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran rejected the allegations and defended the agency's assessment of the Bristol Bay Watershed (E&E Daily, April 29).
Recently, Smith has focused on two other agency actions: EPA's review of the herbicide glyphosate's cancer risk and EPA's program for reviewing the safety of chemicals. It's possible that Republicans will use the hearing to grill McCarthy about those topics, as well.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, June 22, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witness: U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/20/stories/1060039048
-
Two Can Play at Climate ‘Fraud’
Jun 19, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Eric Schneiderman and Sheldon Whitehouse, call your office. The New York Attorney General and Rhode Island Senator who helped to launch the prosecution of dissent on climate change may not like where their project is headed. Thirteen state Attorneys General have sent a letter pointing out that if minimizing the risks of climate change can be prosecuted as “fraud,” then so can statements overstating the dangers of climate change.
That’s the news contained in a letter that the Republican AGs of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin dispatched to Mr. Schneiderman and other AGs on June 15.
“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake,” says the letter. “Using law enforcement authority to resolve a public policy debate undermines the trust invested in our offices and threatens free speech.”
It sure does, not least by politicizing fraud prosecutions even more than they already are. Mr. Schneiderman and some 15 other Democratic AGs are targeting only one side of the climate debate—i.e., fossil-fuel companies or think tanks that question climate orthodoxy. Mr. Schneiderman claims that Exxon’s disclosure about the risks of climate change has been inadequate, though the oil company has discussed such risks in its 10-K disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, among other places.
But the AGs’ letter points out that, “If Exxon’s disclosure is deficient, what of the failure of renewable energy companies to list climate change as a risk?” If climate change turns out to be less serious than advertised, then “‘clean energy’ companies may become less valuable and some may be altogether worthless,” the letter adds.
Think SolarCity, or investments made by the venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers where Al Gore is a senior partner. Mr. Gore showed up at Mr. Schneiderman’s March 29 press conference for AGs United for Clean Power and blamed climate change for the spread of the Zika virus, flooding in the Midwest and Hurricane Sandy. “Every night on the news now it’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation,” Mr. Gore said. These unproven claims arguably mislead investors about the value of clean-energy companies.
The letter from the 13 Republican AGs asks, “Should these statements justify an investigation into all contributions to environmental non-profits by Kleiner Perkins’s partners?” They quickly add that they want to undertake no such action. But they deserve credit for pointing out the political Pandora’s box that left-wing AGs have opened by “policing viewpoints” on climate change.
We don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for engaging in political debate, but progressives have shown (see independent counsels) that they’ll cease their abuses only when the same methods are used against them.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-can-play-at-climate-fraud-1466373891
-
Jun 20, 2016 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
When House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) justified his endorsement of Donald Trump on the grounds that the reality television star would, as president, sign some of the House GOP agenda into law, it seemed fair to suppose that Mr. Ryan’s proposals must be truly transformational. What else could possibly justify making common cause with someone whose views and values run so counter to the speaker’s?
But last week , after Mr. Trump hurled bigoted attacks at a federal judge, Mr. Ryan released an exceedingly modest anti-poverty plan.This week, after Mr. Trump accused “the Muslims” in the United States of being complicit in terrorist attacks, Mr. Ryan unveiled an unimpressive regulatory reform plan. Not only do its virtues pale in comparison to the permanent dishonor of endorsing Mr. Trump, but the speaker’s latest plan also contains some bad ideas that no president should sign into law.
Mr. Ryan’s latest rollout, which highlights the way that federal regulations can slow the economy, contains some elements of wisdom. How long it can take to build public infrastructure in the United States is a scandal. Traditional, command-and-control regulation should not be the first choice when less costly yet equally effective, market-based options are available.
But in their anti-regulatory zeal, Mr. Ryan and the House GOP would, among other things, repeal or weaken a host of environmental regulations, particularly those concerning air pollution. They also would end the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to slow global warming, arguing that the climate regulations would have practically no benefit for the planet by dishonestly ignoring the international emissions-cutting these regulations spurred. Unlike on other issues, the proposal does not offer any alternative to replace the climate policy the House Republicans would rip up, even though there are many policies that a true conservative could embrace. Part of the problem is that, on climate change, Republicans are not conservatives: They oppose market-based policies to cut emissions, such as a carbon tax, instead risking the fate of the planet on a decidedly imprudent wish that experts are wrong.
Then again, Mr. Ryan is making a similarly improvident bet on Mr. Trump. No policy or principle Mr. Ryan has articulated comes close to justifying the indelible stain of supporting a dangerous demagogue. Speaking up when Mr. Trump says reprehensible things is more than some Republicans have managed but insufficient. It is not reasonable for Mr. Ryan to say, as he did Tuesday, that he will not “get into the day-to-day habit of commenting” on “what our nominee says.” The speaker says he supports Mr. Trump, so he owes it to Americans to explain whether he agrees with the GOP nominee and, if not, how he can claim to be a man of principle and continue supporting him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-worth-it-mr-ryan/2016/06/18/7e580a40-331e-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html
-
Amid Melting Arctic Ice, Kerry Sees Looming Climate Catastrophe
Jun 18, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Standing near Greenland's Jakobshavn glacier, the reputed source of the iceberg that sank the Titanic over a century ago, U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saw evidence of another looming catastrophe.
Giant icebergs broken off from the glacier seemed to groan as they drifted behind him, signaling eventual rising oceans that scientists warn will submerge islands and populated coastal region.
Briefed by researchers aboard a Royal Danish Navy patrol ship, Kerry appeared stunned by how fast the ice sheets are melting. He was struck by the more dire warnings he heard about the same process underway in more remote Antarctica.
"This has been a significant eye-opener for me and I've spent 25 years or more engaged in this issue," Kerry said on the deck of the ship with Danish Foreign Minister Kristian Jensen during a two-day visit that ended late on Friday.
Kerry made his first visit to this part of the Arctic to witness the effects of climate changes and press the need to implement the Paris climate accord. He has called it "the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction".
The United States chairs the Arctic Council, a forum created in 1996 to tackle issues arising from increased Arctic activity.
The landmark Paris agreement included commitments by most nations to reduce carbon emissions contributing to climate change but lacked any enforcement mechanism, leaving open who will pay costs that will rise into the trillions of dollars.
Current U.S. targets for cuts in greenhouse gases by the Obama administration for 2025 fall far short of what scientists say is needed to rein in rising temperatures.
"What we did in Paris ... is critical now to be implemented, but it's not even enough," he said. "We have to all move faster in order to embrace new energy policies that are sustainable, that are clean, all of which are there for the using if governments and private sector make the right choices."
U.S. Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump has said he would renegotiate America's role in the climate agreement if he becomes president.
HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
By visiting Greenland and the Arctic research post at Ny-Alesund in Norway's far-north, Kerry focused on some of the most visible impacts of climate change.
"There is no mistaking that we are contributing to climate change, we human beings have choices that can undo the damage," said Kerry. "There is profound change throughout the Arctic."
Jakobshavn is one of the world's biggest glaciers and the most active in the Arctic, where ice sheets are melting at a rate faster than ever before.
David Holland, a New York University scientist studying changes on Jakobshavn, explained that the glacier could retreat by about 62 miles (100 kilometers) over the next 100 years if the thawing of its ice sheet continues at its current pace.
If Greenland's ice sheets all melted, that would raise sea levels by about 6 meters (20 feet) over thousands of years. That is modest compared to what could happen if Antarctica thaws, said Holland.
Two developments in recent days show the magnitude of the challenge. For the first time in 4 million years, levels of carbon dioxide - a heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels - hit 400 parts per million in Antarctica, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The threshold shows the rising levels of climate pollution.
Last week, temperatures in Greenland's capital hit a record 24.8 degrees Celsius (76.6 Fahrenheit) for a single day in June, according to records dating back to 1958. Worldwide, 2016 has set repeated monthly records after a record warm 2015.
"GIGANTIC TRANSFORMATION"
"This is gigantic transformation taking place," said Kerry. "You can see it with the naked eye, as you see where the ice has retreated from just in the last 15, 20 years, where the marks are still left."
The Arctic is warming at about twice the global average, partly because the melting of the ice cover has revealed darker ground and water underneath that soak up even more heat.
"Things are changing and we are perhaps the last generation that can do something about it," said Jensen.
This new access to the ground underneath has opened the Arctic to increased political and commercial competition, including exploration for oil and minerals by countries that used to have no access to the region.
Aboard a research vessel at Ny-Alesund, the northernmost non-military post in the world, Kerry warned that exploiting newly accessible resources would undermine the carbon-reduction strategy of the Paris accord. He also said the public was still not sufficiently conscious of the challenge ahead.
"Even where there is awareness, the steps people are taking are not big enough, fast enough. We have a huge distance to travel," he said while visiting Ny-Alesund.
Temperatures there are now between six to 11 degrees warmer than normal, said Jan-Gunner Winther, director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, who wonders whether the changes signal a tipping point.
"We have more questions than answers," says Winther, "We are in the midst of a change that we have no comparison with in history because it is so much more rapid," he said.//www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/06/18/world/europe/18reuters-environment-climate-kerry.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/06/18/world/europe/18reuters-environment-climate-kerry.html
Congressional Hearings
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