Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/23/16
-
(ACC Blog) American Chemistry: Growing the U.S. Economy, Driving Innovation and Providing Jobs
Jun 23, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Dr. Thomas Kevin Swift
Chemistry: It’s in everything – from air and water, to the products and technologies we use every day – and is essential to our everyday lives. -
(ACC Mentioned) Doe Grant Funds Will Help Develop Residential Construction Solutions
Jun 23, 2016 | Builder
By Home Innovation Research Labs
As part of its Building America Program, the DOE has selected eight companies for grants totaling $5.5 million to develop residential construction solutions aimed at providing comfortable living environments and lowering homeowners’ utility bills. -
(ACC Mentioned) Connecticut Joins WRAP Initiative to Increase Flexible Film Recycling
Jun 23, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has announced a public-private partnership with the American Chemistry Council's Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) to boost plastic film recycling. -
(ACC Mentioned) Remarks by the President at Bill Signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
Jun 22, 2016 | News Room America
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Everybody, please have a seat. To begin with, let me thank Lisa for the wonderful introduction. -
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Signs into Law New EPA Power Over Toxic Chemicals
Jun 22, 2016 | Washington Times
By S.A. Miller
President Obama signed into law Wednesday sweeping new power for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate thousands of toxic substances found in everyday products from household cleaners to toys and furniture. -
(ACC Mentioned) Forty Years Later, Toxic Chemical Control Act is Finally Updated
Jun 22, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Aidan Quigley
President Obama is expected to sign new chemical rules Wednesday, 40 years after the previous regulations had been set. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rare Bipartisan Bill to Make Household Goods Safer Becomes Law
Jun 22, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Simone McCarthy
President Obama signed a bill today that will greatly strengthen the federal government's ability to regulate and monitor the chemicals found in American products from cleansers to clothing. -
(ACC Mentioned) What You Need to Know About BPA, the Scary Ingredient You’re Exposed to Daily
Jun 23, 2016 | Style Caster
By Jasmine Garnsworthy
There’s been a lot of talk about bisphenol A—BPA—lately, a synthetic hormone that mimics estrogen and is used in cans, food packaging, plastic bottles and containers, and even the receipts you get at supermarkets. Depending on who you talk to, BPA’s either totally harmless or a cancer and infertility-causing chemical. -
Obama Signs Law to Revamp US Chemical Rules
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The 40-year-old law that regulates new and existing chemicals in the US has finally been reformed. -
The U.S. Takes Action To Minimize Animal Testing
Jun 23, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Lydia O’Connor
Animal rights groups are celebrating President Barack Obama signing a new chemical safety law on Wednesday that includes a groundbreaking condemnation of animal testing. -
President Obama Signs Bipartisan Bill to Reform the Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 23, 2016 | EHS Today
In the the first major update to an environmental statute in 20 years, President Barack Obama on June 22 signed into law H.R. 2576 – the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” – which modernizes the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
What’s In Your Nail Polish? Why Toxic Chemical Triphenyl Phosphate Remains In Cosmetics
Jun 23, 2016 | International Business Times
By Maria Gallucci
Sunny Subramanian always reads the labels of nail polish bottles before applying glossy coats of shimmering pink or tangerine orange. The vegan beauty blogger in Portland, Oregon, says she watches out for toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and toluene and dibutyl phthalate, two materials linked to developmental defects. -
House Amendment Seeks Funding Block on Conflict Minerals Rule Enforcement
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemical Watch
An amendment to an appropriations bill, under consideration in the US House of Representatives, seeks to block funding for enforcement of the reporting rules governing conflict minerals. -
Columbia Sportswear Introduces PFC-Free Rain Jacket
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US company Columbia Sportswear has developed what it calls the industry’s “first high-performance, environmentally friendly” rain jacket made without intentionally added perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). -
Member States Discuss Ideas for Future of REACH
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Reducing exposure to chemicals is of “overarching importance” to the future implementation of REACH and to chemicals policy more broadly – but decisions are currently being made on the basis of limited information on exposure, a recent meeting of national policy officials agreed. -
Science Committee Lashes McCarthy on Clean Power Plan
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Gayathri Vaidyanathan and Emily Holden
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee Republicans yesterday seized on a controversial new report on the Clean Power Plan to sling shots at U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy during a contentious hearing. -
Mich. Gov. Snyder Urges Flexibility in Energy Reforms
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder showed little concern that the state's Legislature adjourned last week without passing energy reforms that have been debated for more than a year. -
Obama Admin Suffers Through a Losing Streak
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The Obama administration has suffered a string of environmental setbacks in court. -
Efficiency Group's Callahan Discusses Challenges Ahead for Energy Bill Conference, Prospects for Efficiency Measures
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As top House and Senate lawmakers work to address hurdles facing an energy bill conference, environmental groups this week called on Democratic senators to vote against going to conference with the House. During today's OnPoint, Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, discusses the political dynamics at play and explains why she believes efficiency measures could help foster a constructive conversation between the two chambers. -
After Legal Fight, BLM Critics Say 'The Court Got It Right'
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
This week's court decision striking down the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule marks a milestone in a long road for states and tribes that have opposed the rule from the beginning. -
BLM Advances Utah Project That Vows 'Net Zero' Air Pollution
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Obama administration is proposing a novel approach to protect air quality in northeast Utah as part of a federal plan to approve a massive new drilling project that would produce millions of barrels of oil and support thousands of jobs. -
Gazprom Strong-Arms U.S. LNG in Pursuit of European Customers
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
U.S. liquefied natural gas is on the move across the Atlantic, but Russia-owned OAO Gazprom is doing all it can to hold onto European markets and force U.S. LNG elsewhere. -
PHMSA Sending Investigators to California Pipeline Spill
Jun 23, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
Federal pipeline regulators are sending investigators to the scene of a pipeline spill in California that is reportedly spewing oil onto the Ventura County coastline. -
Officials Race to Curb Leak Spewing Toward Ocean in Calif.
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Ventura County, Calif., firefighters are working stop a crude oil spill from flowing into the ocean after a pipeline leak in Hall Canyon released up to 210,000 gallons of crude, officials said. -
EU Covenant of Mayors and Compact of Mayors Launch Largest Global Coalition of Cities Committed to Fighting Climate Change
Jun 22, 2016 | European Commission - Press Release
By Jakub Adamowicz and Nicole Bockstaller
Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy will combine efforts and leadership to accelerate climate action at the local level worldwide. -
Sharp Divides Over Ozone Rule Compliance Aired at Hearing
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) expressed interest yesterday in finding "common sense solutions" to implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard after presiding over a hearing that revealed starkly different views of the challenges posed by compliance. -
EPA Sends 'Exceptional Events' Air Waiver Rule To OMB
Jun 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review its final rule revising when and how states can claim Clean Air Act regulatory exemptions for “exceptional” episodes of air pollution, such as wind storms or wildfires, as the agency seeks to streamline implementation of the existing regulation. -
Sen. Carper Open To 'Commonsense' NAAQS Help
Jun 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) says he is open to pursuing “commonsense” options for providing states with assistance to help them attaining EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) such as the agency's recently tightened ozone standard, though he cautioned that the stricter standard issued last year is vital to protect public health. -
Forget Cap and Trade's Detractors, California's Carbon-Pricing Works
Jun 23, 2016 | LA Times
By Dallas Burtraw
California’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change keeps on ticking as it was designed to, defying its critics.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) American Chemistry: Growing the U.S. Economy, Driving Innovation and Providing Jobs
Jun 23, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Dr. Thomas Kevin Swift
Chemistry: It’s in everything – from air and water, to the products and technologies we use every day – and is essential to our everyday lives. Life-saving medicines, clean drinking water, protective packaging materials, stronger adhesives, lightweight automobile parts and more durable and safer tires are only a few of the thousands of innovative products of the business of chemistry. In fact, over 96% of all manufactured goods are directly touched by chemistry.
The business of chemistry is a $797 billion enterprise – that’s larger than the apparel and footwear, motor vehicle or aerospace industries. In addition, the business of chemistry is the driving force behind growth and expansion of the U.S. economy, accounting for 26% of the GDP and 14% of exports, the largest exporter in the U.S.
Additionally, capital investment by the business of chemistry reached nearly $44 billion in 2015, and our industry is providing 810,000 skilled, good-paying jobs. That number stands to grow as new facilities come online, in fact a great example of this is the recent announcement of Shell Chemical’s new ethane cracker in Beaver County, PA, which will employ thousands during construction and 600 during operation. This decision lays the groundwork for the future of supply and demand and opens the door for similar facilities to be built throughout the country.
The business of chemistry continues to encourage expansion, innovation and economic growth through a predictable regulatory environment. This is why we continuously advocated for a balanced and comprehensive approach to updating our nation’s chemical regulatory framework, which just this month was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama – a historic victory for ACC, the chemical industry and American consumers. TSCA reform allows Americans to have greater confidence that the chemicals they come into contact with are safe for their intended use, while also encouraging innovation and protecting jobs.
You can learn more about the business of chemistry and its contributions to the U.S. and world economies in ACC’s 2016 Guide to the Business of Chemistry, our most comprehensive resource profiling the economics of this growth engine industry.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/06/american-chemistry-growing-the-u-s-economy-driving-innovation-and-providing-jobs/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Doe Grant Funds Will Help Develop Residential Construction Solutions
Jun 23, 2016 | Builder
By Home Innovation Research Labs
As part of its Building America Program, the DOE has selected eight companies for grants totaling $5.5 million to develop residential construction solutions aimed at providing comfortable living environments and lowering homeowners’ utility bills. Partners will pilot myriad innovative approaches such as low-cost construction methods, affordable zero-energy ready homes, and highly efficient integrated heating, cooling, and ventilation systems.
As a grant recipient, Home Innovation Research Labs will conduct structural testing of window installation techniques for walls with continuous insulation. Through this research, the company plans to create more detailed industry guidance, help improve usability of energy codes, and enable wider adoption of high-performance walls in residential construction.
“The goal is to develop cost-effective, practical solutions that work across the country in various wall applications and climate zones, and can be embraced equally by trades, builders, code officials, and product manufacturers,” according to Vladimir Kochkin, Home Innovation’s director of applied engineering. “This project will leverage the DOE funding with the resources and expertise of leading industry partners in high-performance building enclosures. We will work closely with the Foam Sheathing Committee of the American Chemistry Council, and window companies represented by the American Architectural Manufacturers Association.”
The other seven groups receiving grant funds from the DOE are: Building Science Corp.; Center for Energy and Environment; Fraunhofer USA; Newport Partners; Southface Energy Institute; Steven Winter Associates; and University of Minnesota Twin Cities.
Typically, heating and cooling account for 40% of a home’s energy consumption—the largest single energy use and more than water heating, refrigeration, and lighting combined. U.S. homeowners in 2014 spent about $70 billion to heat their homes and $24 billion to cool them, according to the DOE. Through the work of these grant recipients, the DOE hopes to significantly reduce these consumer expenditures.
http://www.builderonline.com/building/doe-grant-funds-will-help-develop-residential-construction-solutions_o
-
(ACC Mentioned) Connecticut Joins WRAP Initiative to Increase Flexible Film Recycling
Jun 23, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:
The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has announced a public-private partnership with the American Chemistry Council's Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) to boost plastic film recycling.
This marks the third state after Wisconsin and North Carolina to partner with the FFRG's Wrap Action Recycling Program (WRAP). The FFRG's goal is to double recycling of post-use polyethylene film by 2020.
The goal is to increase education and opportunities for the recycling of a range of plastic bags, wraps, films, and some shipping material.
Dive Insight:
According to the FFRG, collection of plastic film has grown 79% since 2005 and 1.17 billion pounds were recovered in 2014. A study in Vancouver, WA — where WRAP conducted a campaign last year — found a 125% increase in the amount of material dropped off in stores and a 75% reduction in contamination at local material recovery facilities.
Connecticut aims to double its recycling diversion rate to 60% by 2024 and has been looking for new ways to get there as food waste diversion initiatives have lagged. Contamination in single-stream recycling has also been an issue and the state's DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee cited it as a factor in joining WRAP.
"Cleaning up our single stream recycling and making our recyclables more marketable is a very high priority," said DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee. "Plastic bags and other film packaging are recyclable and have real value — just not in our curbside bins."
Figuring out how to manage waste from polyethylene products is a growing area of interest. Though an estimated 18,000 drop-off locations are available for consumers throughout the country, much of the material is still not being captured. Some would rather ban certain categories such as plastic bags entirely, while others are researching new potential uses for it and initiatives like WRAP are trying to encourage more participation in existing programs.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/connecticut-joins-wrap-initiative-to-increase-flexible-film-recycling/421396/
-
Jun 22, 2016 | News Room America
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Everybody, please have a seat. To begin with, let me thank Lisa for the wonderful introduction. And her wonderful family is here. And I just want you to know that advocates like you, who fight every day to make this country a little bit better, are why we’re here today. And we're very proud of you.
Back in the 1960s and ‘70s, Americans were becoming increasingly concerned with the fact that our natural resources and our communities and our health were threatened by pollution and toxins. And science backed it up. So over the course of that decade, Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together again and again to produce landmark environmental victories. The Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The creation of the EPA. All of them have benefited this country greatly. And, to be fair, all of them happened under the initiative and under the watch of a Republican President -- Richard Nixon.
It made an enormous difference in people’s lives. These days, my staff are too young to remember -- I am not -- (laughter.) I remember the first day I arrived in Los Angeles for college, and I had the bright idea of going for a jog. And after about 10 minutes I was feeling this weird thing in my chest, and I was like am I asthmatic now, or what’s the problem? And it turned out it was on an alert day where you weren’t supposed to be outside. So even in the late ‘70s, early ‘80s, for a lot of folks, it was just hard to breathe.
In Chicago, the river was polluted to the extent that people couldn't go in it. And this was true all around the country. And there was a transformation initiated by both parties that actually provided an outdoors that was safer and cleaner and better than what had existed a generation before. These regulations made a difference.
Another law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, was signed by President Ford, and it was a part of this broader environmental effort. Congress passed the law to protect Americans from harmful chemicals in the products that we buy -- cleaning agents, fabrics, plastics, paint thinners. The idea was to make sure that the chemicals we use every day were safe and wouldn’t lead to cancer, or birth defects, or reproductive problems.
Even with the best of intentions, the law didn’t quite work the way it should have in practice. In 1976, some 62,000 chemicals were already on the market. But the law placed demands on the EPA that were so tough, so onerous that it became virtually impossible to actually see if those chemicals were harming anybody.
In fact, out of those original 62,000 chemicals, only five have been banned. Five. And only a tiny percentage have even been reviewed for health and safety. The system was so complex, it was so burdensome that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos -- a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year. I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by all that.
There have been court cases. There has been litigation. But from a regulatory perspective, this was tough. I think most Americans would expect that we could come together to fix this law and do a better job protecting the American people.
Well, here’s the good news. That’s exactly why we’re here today. For the first time in 20 years, we are updating a national environmental statute. For the first time in our history, we’ll actually be able to regulate chemicals effectively. And we’re doing it in the same, overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion as happened with those pillars of legislation to protect our air, and our water, and our wildlife -- the initiatives where Democrats and Republicans first came together to pass laws more than four decades ago. And that doesn’t happen very often these days. So this is a really significant piece of business.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century will make it easier for the EPA to review chemicals already on the market, as well as the new chemicals our scientists and our businesses design. It will do away with an outdated bureaucratic formula to evaluate safety, and instead focus solely on the risks to our health. And it will finally grant our scientists and our public servants at the EPA the funding they need to get the job done and keep us safe.
So this is a big deal. This is a good law. It is an important law. Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know that the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, the mattresses our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them. And just like in the 1970s, when we decided to do something about smog that was choking our cities and our auto industry was able to innovate to make our cars cleaner, just like in the 1990s, when we had the problems with acid rain and our businesses figured out a way to do something about it and still keep growing and thriving, I’m absolutely confident that we can regulate toxic chemicals in a way that’s both good for our families and ultimately good for business and our economy -- because nobody can innovate better than folks here in this country and our businesses.
In fact, we’ve got a lot of industry leaders here today who’ve pushed hard for this law, and I want to give them credit -- from the American Chemistry Council to S.C. Johnson -– because they know that it gives them the certainty they need to keep out-innovating and out-competing companies from other parts of the world. And the public health and environmental leaders who are [here] today -– from March of Dimes to the Environmental Defense Fund –- know that this law will help protect Americans, especially those who are particularly vulnerable to chemicals -- and that includes children, and pregnant women, and the elderly, and poorer communities.
I have to say this has been years in the making. You don’t get all these people in the same room without a few late nights on Capitol Hill. I know there were times when folks questioned whether or not all the parties involved would be able to reach this agreement. I’ve been told that this process gave a lot of folks who worked on this law much greater appreciation for the zebrafish. (Laughter.) But that’s what public service is about –- pushing through disagreements, forging compromise, especially when it’s hard, and especially when it’s about something as important as the health and safety of our kids and our families.
I want to especially to thank Bonnie Lautenberg, who’s here. Bonnie carried the torch on this issue, cementing her late husband’s legacy as one of our nation’s finest environmental champions. I had the great privilege of knowing Frank. I served with him. This bill was being worked on when I was on Frank’s committee and Barbara’s committee -- the Environmental and Energy Committee -- 10 years ago. And Frank was passionate about this. And those of you who knew Frank, he was passionate about a lot of things -- especially Bonnie. (Laughter.) But this bill may have come in a close second. And he was just a wonderful man. He was a great friend to me. For him to be able to see this legacy completed must be greatly satisfying. He’s looking down on us and feeling pretty good right now. And Bonnie, who kept on pushing on this, I think deserves enormous credit, as well.
I also want to thank EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and her whole team. They put a lot of technical work into making sure that this thing was going to be effective. It’s now their task to implement it. We are very proud of them.
There are too many members of Congress to name individually, but I just want to thank -- everybody on this stage worked very, very hard to make this happen. There were countless staffers who pushed this across the finish line. And I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work. It’s possible. We can keep families safe and unleash the engine of American innovation. We can protect the planet and keep creating jobs. If we can get this bill done, it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well. (Laughter.)
So this is a good day. And with that, I think it’s time to sign the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. Let’s do it. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.)
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/580646.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Obama Signs into Law New EPA Power Over Toxic Chemicals
Jun 22, 2016 | Washington Times
By S.A. Miller
President Obama signed into law Wednesday sweeping new power for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate thousands of toxic substances found in everyday products from household cleaners to toys and furniture.
It marks the first major overhaul of the toxic substance law since it was originally passed 40 years ago and an unexpected bipartisan achievement in an election year.
The law sets safety standards for a host of toxic substances, including asbestos, formaldehyde and Bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA.
The EPA also will be able to evaluate chemicals against a new, risk-based safety standard that places special consideration on the risk to vulnerable people such as children and pregnant women.
The new law does have detractors.
Some environmental groups said it doesn’t give the EPA enough new power. Some conservatives said it gives the federal regulators too much new power over the states.
But businesses mostly backed the law and supported federal standards to replace a hodgepodge of state regulations.
“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Mr. Obama said at a bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”
The president was joined on stage by more than a dozen lawmakers from both parties.
“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” he said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was named for the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the toxic-substance law before his death in 2013.
Sen. Tom Udall who spearheaded passage of the legislation said the president’s signature marked “a historic step forward that will improve the health and safety of every American family.”
“This isn’t the last step,” he said. “We must ensure the new program is a success. And as the lead Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the EPA’s budget, I’m putting the EPA and the industry on notice: I will be watching.”
Carl Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, a top trade association for chemical manufacturers, called the new law “a historic bipartisan achievement at a time when such achievements are increasingly rare.”
“Under it, chemical evaluation and regulation will meet new 21st century standards, which will improve the lives of American families, support American manufacturing and bolster U.S. economic growth,” he said.
The CAA has been pushing for reform of the toxic substance law since 2008.
John B. Morris, president of the Society of Toxicology, also applauded the law, saying it “contains strong, objective, scientific underpinnings and will protect public health for years to come.”
“We are heartened to see the inclusion of sound toxicological principles and risk concepts, including an emphasis on exposure as well as hazard, in the bill,” he said.
In a statement announcing Mr. Obama’s intention to sign the legislation, the White House said it was not a perfect bill, but “meets the high goals set by the administration for meaningful reform.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/22/obama-sign-law-new-epa-power-over-toxic-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Forty Years Later, Toxic Chemical Control Act is Finally Updated
Jun 22, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Aidan Quigley
President Obama is expected to sign new chemical rules Wednesday, 40 years after the previous regulations had been set.
The bipartisan legislation updated rules for tens of thousands of everyday chemicals as well as setting safety standards for more dangerous chemicals such as formaldehyde, asbestos, and styrene. The bill will also set a nationwide standard to govern the $800 billion-per-year industry, the Associated Press reports.
The bill updates the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which was criticized for being outdated and unenforceable. It was the only environmental law that had never been updated, and was largely viewed as ineffective, evidenced by the EPA's failed efforts to restrict the use of asbestos under the act in 1991.
Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of environmental policy at Tufts University, told The Christian Science Monitor in 2014 that the TSCA was outdated and left the EPA with little recourse to take action until a chemical was found to cause harm.
"The way TSCA was developed, it’s mostly a reporting mechanism," he said. "Industry uses its own information even if it’s no information when they are reporting to the EPA that they have this chemical."
The new bill gives the EPA deadline-based, written guidance on how and when to act, and it limits companies' use of propriety claims to avoid disclosing chemical recipes, which prevented the EPA from completely evaluating the chemicals.
This is a major difference from the current conditions, as Dr. Krimsky described.
"Depending upon EPA staffing and how much time they have, they can review these things," he said. "But if they don’t, then they’ll take a very cursory look at it, and they will let it through. That’s why we see many, many chemicals in this system that don’t have adequate toxicological information."
The bill, which Congress spent more than three years working on, passed the Senate in a rare voice vote, as it was supported by members of both parties.
Business groups had sought to eliminate the complexity of dealing with uneven state regulations, and although the bill gives the EPA more authority, it was supported by most Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky was a vocal opponent of the bill, saying it was a "sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation" which should have been left to the states.
On the other hand, some environmental groups raised concerns that it did not go far enough to regulate toxic chemicals.
Lawmakers from both parties will join President Obama for the ceremony Wednesday. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the bill is an outlier in today's political climate.
"Any time you see Democrats and Republicans come together on a piece of legislation, it does reflect a measure of compromise, which means that there may be some people who will criticize it because it's not perfect," Mr. Earnest said.
The American Chemistry Council, one of the bill's vocal backers, said described the bill as bringing "chemical regulation into the 21st century."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0622/Forty-years-later-toxic-chemical-control-act-is-finally-updated
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rare Bipartisan Bill to Make Household Goods Safer Becomes Law
Jun 22, 2016 | Christian Science Monitor
By Simone McCarthy
President Obama signed a bill today that will greatly strengthen the federal government's ability to regulate and monitor the chemicals found in American products from cleansers to clothing.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is the first-ever update to the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 1970s relic, which environmental groups called "one of the worst environmental laws on the books," reports The Washington Post.
"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," said Sen. Tom Udall (D) of New Mexico, one of the bill's chief sponsors, according to the Post. "But that isn't the case."
The bill, which Obama signed into law in a ceremony at the Oval Office, was named after late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) of New Jersey, who had worked to update TSCA for decades until his death in 2013, reported Lucy Schouten for The Christian Science Monitor. The Senate passed the legislation earlier this month in a voice vote, after it received rare bipartisan support in a tumultuous election cycle.
That point was not lost on the president, who, prior to signing the bill, commented that "even in the current polarized political process here in Washington, things can work," adding his hopes that "somewhere on the horizon we can make politics less toxic as well," reports the Post.
The new law creates the first safety standards on chemicals like Bisphenol A (BPA), formaldehyde, and styrene, which were previously unregulated. It will allow the Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidelines and deadlines to companies and require them to disclose ingredients.
In the past companies could offer what Richard Denison, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, calls a "trade secret" excuse to avoid disclosing what chemicals are actually in their products, says the Post.
Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of environmental policy at Tufts University, in Medford, Mass., explained to the Monitor in 2014 that the TCSA law was more of a "reporting mechanism" than an EPA mandate to evaluate chemicals.
"That's why we see many, many chemicals in this system that don't haveadequate toxicological information," he said.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement that her agency is "excited to get to work" putting the new law into action.
What this means for the short-run is an evaluation of at least 10 possibly toxic chemicals that are found in cars, sofas, clothing, detergents, and cleansers, for example. The Post reports that this initial batch of chemicals under review will include asbestos, formaldehyde, and flame retardants.
Some environmental groups feel that the new law does not go far enough. While others, like Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, feel it goes too far as a "sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation." However, as Schouten reported earlier this month when the bill passed, the base of support is broad and includes industry groups such as the National Association of Chemical Distributors, Exxon Mobile, and the American Chemistry Council which have indicated they would support a bill that would standardize chemical regulation.
And while the White House released a statement about the bill's passing saying that the new law is "not perfect," it voiced a sentiment that was felt on both sides of party lines: It embodies "meaningful reform."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0622/Rare-bipartisan-bill-to-make-household-goods-safer-becomes-law
-
(ACC Mentioned) What You Need to Know About BPA, the Scary Ingredient You’re Exposed to Daily
Jun 23, 2016 | Style Caster
By Jasmine Garnsworthy
There’s been a lot of talk about bisphenol A—BPA—lately, a synthetic hormone that mimics estrogen and is used in cans, food packaging, plastic bottles and containers, and even the receipts you get at supermarkets. Depending on who you talk to, BPA’s either totally harmless or a cancer and infertility-causing chemical.
Some reports about BPA border on hysterical, warning against ever eating packaged foods or takeout for fear of consuming BPA, while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and American Chemical Council both continue to tell us to relax, there’s no risk of the chemical leaching into food and causing harm. Then, there’s other research suggesting that BPA-free alternatives might even share the same risks, so you should just avoid plastic and cans all together.
The back story to BPA is this: It’s relatively cheap to synthesize, and is great for making hard plastics that won’t fall apart when the temperature changes (like in the fridge or microwave.) However, it was actually first developed and investigated in the late 1800s for use as a synthetic estrogen—it wasn’t until the 1930s that we decided to forget about its hormone-disrupting qualities and use it to make plastic.
Regardless on which side of the fence you sit right now, the fact remains that there’s a ton of conflicting—and confusing—information swirling around about bisphenol A. So here’s what you really need to know‚ from the products that contain the chemical, to the possible risks, and why the FDA hasn’t banned it.
What products am I using that have BPA?
Cheryl Rosenfeld is an associate professor of biomedical science at the University of Missouri, and told us BPA is found in in many household items, including “plastic containers, food cans (such as soup, canned vegetables, and even cat and dog food cans), cardboard items, dental sealants, and print receipts.” Nonprofit EWG just released a list of products that may contain BPA, publishing a searchable product database with a whopping 16,000 products from 926 brands. It found brands Campbell’s and Goya to be two big offenders when it comes to packaging with BPA. If you prefer to er on the side of caution, this database is a big deal, considering that right now companies using the chemicals don’t have to include any warnings about BPA on their packaging.
How serious is the risk?
There have been around 1,000 animal studies on BPA, and most of them show that the chemical’s linked to scary health issues, from changes in fertility to increased risk for cancers and heart issues. Rosenfeld says the risks are numerous and include “reproductive disorders in males and females, neurobehavioral disruptions, including learning and memory disorders, increased aggression in children, heightened anxiety, and social deficits that are similar to those observed in autistic children.”
Other studies show an increased likelihood for cancer, metabolic disorders (including greater risk for obesity and diabetes), and cardiovascular changes. Some research even suggests you only need to consume low dose to be at risk.
Last year California officials added BPA to the list of about 800 chemicals requiring Proposition 65 notices, which basically means products with BPA will also have to show a warning that they contain a chemical known to cause cancer or infertility. Since that decision the state has dragged its heels on enforcing the decision, but it still goes a long way to show just how dangerous BPA can be.
Why isn’t it banned?
Despite all of the independent research pointing to the dangers of BPA, FDA’s own studies haven’t proven any risks associated with BPA for adults (although it is currently restricted from baby products.) In 2012 FDA flat-out rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to ban BPA from food packaging, citing that the studies suggesting a risk were too small to be conclusive, and weren’t based on human results. “There remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA wrote in a statement following its ruling. Meanwhile other countries have been quicker to act—France, for example, bans all traces of BPA in food packaging.
How do I completely avoid BPA?
Yes, it’s scary stuff, but there are things you can do to limit exposure to BPA. Sophia Ruan Gushee is the author of A to Z of D-Toxing: The Ultimate Guide to Reducing Our Toxic Exposures and has dedicated years to researching toxins like BPA. She suggests avoiding packaged products whenever possible—including takeout, sorry!—and eating more organic whole foods. “Avoid canned foods and foods that are packaged in plastics,” she suggested. “Instead, eat fresh, whole foods that may also boost your body’s natural defenses against toxic exposures.”
Also, she says not to take cash register receipts when you don’t need them. “While some governments have banned BPA from cash register receipts, BPS (bisphenol S) has often been the replacement chemical, which may cause even more hormone disruption than BPA,” she said.
Instead of using plastic containers to store your food and water, opt for glass or stainless steel. “BPA can leach from food containers into your food; and the leaching process is accelerated by detergents, extreme temperatures (such as heat from dishwashers and microwaves), and normal wear and tear,” Gushee said. If you decide to keep plastic food containers, discard worn pieces from your home.
http://stylecaster.com/beauty/what-is-bpa/
-
Obama Signs Law to Revamp US Chemical Rules
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The 40-year-old law that regulates new and existing chemicals in the US has finally been reformed. President Obama signed the new law to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) yesterday, more than two weeks after it passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and almost a month after being overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives.
During the signing ceremony, Obama said TSCA didn’t work properly in practice. ‘In 1976, some 62,000 chemicals were already on the market, but the law placed demands on the [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] that were so tough, so onerous, that it became virtually impossible to actually see if those chemicals were harming anybody,’ the president stated. In fact, out of those original 62,000 chemicals, he confirmed that only a ‘tiny percentage’ has even been reviewed, and only five have been banned.
‘This system was so complex, it was so burdensome, that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos – a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year,’ Obama said. The updated TSCA will make it easier for the EPA to review chemicals, the president explained. ‘For the first time in our history, we will actually be able to regulate chemicals effectively,’ he said. ‘It will do away with an outdated bureaucratic formula to evaluate safety, and instead focus solely on the risks to our health, and will finally grant our scientists and our public servants of the EPA the funding they need to get the job done and keep us safe – this is a big deal.’
Representatives of the chemical industry, as well as public health and environmental organisations backed the legislation and were present when it was signed into law. ‘This is proof that even in the current polarised political climate here in Washington, things can work – it is possible,’ Obama stated. ‘If we can get this bill done, it means that somewhere out there on the horizon we can make our politics less toxic as well.’
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/06/obama-signs-us-chemical-law-toxic-substances-control-act
-
The U.S. Takes Action To Minimize Animal Testing
Jun 23, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Lydia O’Connor
Animal rights groups are celebrating President Barack Obama signing a new chemical safety law on Wednesday that includes a groundbreaking condemnation of animal testing.
The revised Toxic Substances Control Act, which Obama signed with bipartisan support, had not been updated for more than 20 years. It now includes a provision discouraging the use of chemical testing on vertebrate animals and requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to create and promote a database of alternative testing methods.
The provision marks the first time Congress has ever issued an “explicit decree ... to minimize animal testing and to create a clear preference for the development and use of alternative methods and strategies,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.
The updated law “will almost certainly accelerate the movement away from animal tests for chemicals, pesticides, biocides, cosmetics, and other potentially dangerous substances in risk assessment protocols or for safety substantiation,” he wrote in a blog post.
The provision gives the EPA two years to create and implement a plan promoting the development of alternative testing methods.
“TSCA reform will not only spare hundreds of thousands of animals from enormous suffering, but will also encourage the continued modernization of chemical testing and the development of alternatives,” Crystal Schaeffer, the outreach director for the American Anti-Vivisection Society, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.
Examples in the law’s new provision include using in vitro methods to test isolated human cells against chemicals, computer modeling the chemicals’ effects and using data to better identify which chemicals we already know are safe.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has a long track record of urging compassion for animals, spearheaded the animal testing provision. In recent years he has co-sponsored acts strengthening laws against soring show horses — the practice of inflicting pain to a horse’s legs so that they walk with a higher gait — and banning horse slaughtering.
The Dodo noted he also opposed the Sportmen’s Act last year, which would have “lowered protections for federal lands and wilderness areas, encouraged hunting of threatened polar bears and blocked checks on toxic lead ammunition, which can hurt animals and the environment.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tsca-animal-testing_us_576acf86e4b09926ce5d5c14
-
President Obama Signs Bipartisan Bill to Reform the Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 23, 2016 | EHS Today
In the the first major update to an environmental statute in 20 years, President Barack Obama on June 22 signed into law H.R. 2576 – the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” – which modernizes the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
TSCA was first passed in 1976 to help keep dangerous chemicals off the market and avoid making consumers and employees sick. It particularly focused on chemicals that were known to cause serious health impacts, such as cancer, birth defects and reproductive harm.
At the signing, President Obama remarked: “Back in the 1960s and ‘70s, Americans were becoming increasingly concerned with the fact that our natural resources and our communities and our health were threatened by pollution and toxins. And science backed it up. So over the course of that decade, Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together again and again to produce landmark environmental victories. The Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The creation of the EPA. All of them have benefited this country greatly. And, to be fair, all of them happened under the initiative and under the watch of a Republican President: Richard Nixon.”
TSCA, which was signed by President Gerald Ford, was intended to be one of those foundational environmental laws, but years after TSCA was enacted, there remains thousands of chemicals on the market that have never been evaluated for safety because TSCA did not require it. And the original law set analytical requirements that were nearly impossible to meet, and this left EPA’s “hands tied,” according to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, “even when the science demanded action on certain chemicals.”
President Obama said that at the time TSCA was signed, there were 62,000 chemicals already on the market. “Out of those original 62,000 chemicals, only five have been banned. Five,” said President Obama. “And only a tiny percentage have even been reviewed for health and safety. The system was so complex, it was so burdensome, that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos – a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year. I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by all that.”
In a June 22 blog post on the EPA web site, McCarthy wrote: “While the intent of the original TSCA law was spot-on, it fell far short of giving EPA the authority we needed to get the job done.” https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/06/tsca-reform-a-bipartisan-milestone-to-...
“It became clear that without major changes to the law, EPA couldn’t take the actions necessary to protect people from toxic chemicals,” she continued. “Diverse stakeholders, including industry, retailers and public health and environmental experts, recognized these deficiencies and began to demand major reforms to the law.”
McCarthy specifically mentioned asbestos, noting, “The dangers of inaction were never more stark than in the case of asbestos, a chemical known to cause cancer through decades of research. During the first Bush Administration, EPA tried to ban asbestos under TSCA, but the rule was overturned in court. In the law’s 40-year history, only a handful of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the market when the law passed have ever been reviewed for health impacts, and only 5 have ever been banned.
Because EPA was not empowered to act on dangerous chemicals, American families were left vulnerable to serious health impacts. At the same time, some states tried to fill the gap to protect their citizens’ health—but state-by-state rules are no substitute for a strong national program that protects all Americans. Chemical manufacturers, consumer retailers, and others in industry agreed: reform was sorely needed.”
She added that “as with any major policy reform, this one includes compromises.” However, McCarthy called the bipartisan bill “a win for the American people.”
In a statement, Scott Faber, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said, ““While this legislation falls short of what’s needed, we’re hopeful that President Obama will give the EPA the direction and resources needed to quickly review, regulate and, if needed, ban the most dangerous chemicals in commerce. Unless EPA acts to quickly remove chemicals linked to cancer from everyday products, the burden will continue to falls on states and consumers.”
Highlights of TSCA Reform
The new law requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals, with clear and enforceable deadlines. Under the old law, thousands of chemicals already in existence in 1976 were considered in compliance, without any requirement or schedule for EPA to review them for safety.
EPA now is required to systematically prioritize and evaluate chemicals on a specific and enforceable schedule. Within a few years, EPA’s chemicals program will have to assess at least 20 chemicals at a time, beginning another chemical review as soon as one is completed.
Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a broad coalition of health, environmental, labor and business organizations, noted limitations in H.R. 2576, and said the president’s signature on the bill “marks both the end of a long process, and the beginning of a new chapter as the EPA puts its new authority to work. The chemical backlog is enormous. It’s vital that EPA starts strong and extracts the maximum public health benefits possible from the new law.”
Under the new law, EPA will evaluate chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks they pose. The old law was so burdensome that it prevented EPA from taking action to protect public health and the environment, even when a chemical posed a known health threat. Now, EPA will have evaluate a chemical’s safety purely based on the health risks it poses – including to vulnerable groups like children and the elderly, and to workers who use chemicals daily as part of their jobs – and then take steps to eliminate any unreasonable risks it finds.
Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, said, ““While this legislation falls short of what’s needed, we’re hopeful that President Obama will give the EPA the direction and resources needed to quickly review, regulate and, if needed, ban the most dangerous chemicals in commerce. Unless EPA acts to quickly remove chemicals linked to cancer from everyday products, the burden will continue to falls on states and consumers.”
Finally, the new law provides a consistent source of funding for EPA to carry out its new responsibilities. EPA will now be able to collect up to $25 million a year in user fees from chemical manufacturers and processers, supplemented by congressional budgeting, to pay for increased evaluations of chemicals.
http://ehstoday.com/epa/president-obama-signs-bipartisan-bill-reform-toxic-substances-control-act
-
What’s In Your Nail Polish? Why Toxic Chemical Triphenyl Phosphate Remains In Cosmetics
Jun 23, 2016 | International Business Times
By Maria Gallucci
Sunny Subramanian always reads the labels of nail polish bottles before applying glossy coats of shimmering pink or tangerine orange. The vegan beauty blogger in Portland, Oregon, says she watches out for toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and toluene and dibutyl phthalate, two materials linked to developmental defects.
“It makes sense to be as conscious about what we put on our bodies as we are about what we put in our bodies,” she said, adding that she often makes her own beauty products from scratch in lieu of store-bought versions. But Subramanian, who runs the website Vegan Beauty Review, said she wasn’t aware until last fall that triphenyl phosphate had joined the ranks of potentially worrisome ingredients in common nail care products.
The synthetic compound, known as TPP or TPHP, helps to boost the flexibility and durability of nail polishes by brands such as Sally Hansen, Revlon and OPI. It’s also used as a flame retardant in foam couch cushions, electronic equipment and other flammable objects. A growing body of early research suggests that TPP might be an endocrine disruptor, meaning it may tamper with human hormones, metabolism and reproductive systems when it enters the bloodstream.
The vegan blogger said she’s since sworn off TPP and won’t use nail polishes that contain it. Yet even as consumers grow more wary of TPP in everday products, in Washington the synthetic compound is facing a mixed fate.
President Barack Obama this week signed a landmark overhaul of U.S. chemicals regulations, which could bring heightened scrutiny to TPP as it’s used in furniture and other household items. But the rule changes won’t affect how the chemical is used in nail polishes and other cosmetics that line store shelves.
The split has to do with how federal agencies regulate consumer products and their ingredients. Under the newly reformed Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the Environmental Protection Agency can review and evaluate thousands of chemicals used in formulated, fixed-shape and other consumer products — from detergents, cleaners and varnishes to furniture, cookware and auto brake pads. Cosmetics, however, fall under the watch of the Food and Drug Administration, which has limited authority over the $60 billion personal care products industry.
“The big issue is that cosmetics really aren’t regulated. The FDA’s hands are kind of tied,” said Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. “It’s so hard to know what’s in your products and what risks they pose.”
Product makers maintain that TPP is safe at the tiny doses used in everyday products and doesn’t pose a threat to human health. The chemical “has been widely and safely used across many industries around the world,” the Personal Care Products Council, a national trade group, said in a statement provided by email. “The nation’s makers of nail polish take great pride in their products’ long history of safe use.”
Reforms to the EPA’s 40-year-old toxics law could affect how TPP is used in sofas and other flammable products, if the agency later determines the chemical is hazardous. The outcome will have no direct impact on nail polishes and manicuring supplies, however. To regulate TPP in personal care products, Congress will need to adopt a sweeping reform of the FDA’s own outdated rules, legal experts said.
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators is already pushing for such a change. A Senate billwould transform the Great Depression-era law that governs cosmetics, toothpastes, deodorants, lotions and the multitude of personal care products we use each day.
Benesh said the FDA and EPA reform efforts reflect a growing uneasiness among American consumers that regulators aren’t doing enough to ensure the chemicals we encounter every day are safe for human health and development. “Both chemical manufacturers and lawmakers have realized this is something that consumers really care about,” she added.
Testing TPP in Sofas — But Not Nail Polish
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act framework, the EPA has flagged TPP as one of 90 “high-priority” chemicals that it intends to evaluate and regulate ahead of thousands of other chemicals.
The EPA in 2014 identified TPP as a potential hazard due to its high aquatic toxicity, meaning it poses a possible threat to marine life when it reaches waterways. Yet a handful of recent studies have also linked exposure to TPP with reproductive and developmental toxicity, metabolic disruption and other potential health effects in humans.
A 2012 study by South Korean researchers that looked at human cell lines and zebrafish found TPP and other organophosphate flame retardants could alter the balance of estrogen and testosterone, the key female and male hormones. Another study by U.S. researchers from North Carolina and Ohio found that mice exposed to Firemaster 550 — a mixture that contains TPP — experienced weight gain, early onset puberty and heart effects at levels relevant to human exposure. The studies offer clues to how TPP might behave in human bodies, although scientists agree that more testing and research is needed to understand the full effects of short- or long-term exposure.
The EPA will have up to three years to review TPP once it takes up the chemical. Regulators will try to determine if TPP is hazardous to humans and the environment, and if it is, at which concentrations, periods of exposures and uses. The EPA could then try to ban the material or restrict its uses in the types of products that the agency regulates. But since the EPA doesn’t regulate cosmetics, that decision will not directly affect the ways that nail polishes are produced and sold under the FDA’s watch, even as consumer advocates grow more concerned about TPP’s use in cosmetics.
A recent study by Duke University and Environmental Working Group found evidence of the chemical in women who had recently painted their nails. More than two dozen participants had a metabolite of TPP in their bodies just 10 to 14 hours after applying polish. Their levels of diphenyl phosphate, which forms as the body processes TPP, increased nearly sevenfold, the researchers said in an October 2015 paper.
Subramanian of Vegan Beauty Review said it was this study that alerted her to the potential risks of TPP in nail polish.
“I was pretty aware of most of the common toxic chemicals found in conventional store-bought nail polishes, but TPP honestly hadn’t been on my radar until the study came out,” she said. “Right after this story broke, I swore off TPP in a heartbeat.”
Cutting out all products that contain TPP requires a bit of homework. More than 1,500 nail polishes and treatments contain the compound, or about half of the 3,000-plus nail products listed in Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep cosmetics database. That doesn’t include the nail polishes that may contain undisclosed amounts of TPP.
FDA regulations require cosmetics (as well as food and drink) companies to list product ingredients on the bottle or packaging, in order of highest volume to lowest. In some cases, though, manufacturers can lump specific ingredients together as “fragrances” in order to protect trade secrets. If TPP or other plasticizers are used to help with a product’s scent, then those ingredients might be listed within the catch-all group.
The Personal Care Products Council, which represents leading nail polish manufacturers, said consumers have no reason to worry about TPP in their nail polish. The trade group said the Duke-Environmental Working Group research is “speculative, misleading and does not use sound science to assess the safety of an ingredient which has a long and well-documented history of safe use,” according to the emailed statement. “The makers of nail polish stand behind their products.”
Revlon, however, which uses TPP in some of its nail enamels, said it was in the process of reformulating its products to exclude TPP entirely. “This is a part of our ongoing commitment to continuously improve upon our product formulas,” a Revlon spokeswoman said.
'Consumers Need to Be Hawk'
Beyond requiring companies to list ingredients on labels, the FDA is broadly limited in what it can do to regulate cosmetics under a 1938 law.
The FDA is not allowed to ask companies to test products for safety or provide safety data about the ingredients. The agency is also prohibited from regulating most cosmetics and beauty supplies before they hit store shelves. Only after a product hits the market — and the FDA or consumers finds evidence of health risks — can regulators step in to require additional labeling or take other measures.
Subramanian said she was upset that the FDA isn’t even allowed to regulate terms like “all-natural” or “non-toxic” that are increasingly popping up on labels as manufacturers market to consumers’ fears of harmful ingredients.
Lauren Sucher, a spokeswoman from the FDA, said the agency tries to find “as many ways as possible” to gather and share information about cosmetics and other personal care products. “We try to be proactive and work with both industry and consumers,” she said.
For example, the FDA has set up a program for companies to voluntarily share data that the agency can’t force them to provide. The FDA regularly reviews peer-reviewed scientific literature on chemicals in the products it regulates, and it can perform its own studies or monitoring of products currently on the market. The FDA’s own review of phthalates, which are also suspected endocrine disruptors and used in nail polishes, concluded that “it’s not clear what effect, if any, phthalates have on human health.”
Cosmetics manufacturers can also exchange safety information and scientific literature through the Cosmetics Ingredient Review, an industry-sponsored panel of scientific and medical experts. The FDA says it takes the panel’s reviews into consideration when evaluating the safety of cosmetic ingredients.
Now that Obama has signed the reforms to EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act, consumer safety advocates are turning their focus to overhauling the FDA’s 78-year-old cosmetics regulations. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, in April 2015 co-sponsored the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which was referred to the Senate’s health committee in April.
The bill would allow the FDA for the first time to review the safety of ingredients used in thousands of bath and beauty products, starting with formaldehyde-releasing chemicals and a long-chained paraben that may pose risks to human health and development. The act would also require cosmetics companies to disclose all the ingredients they use to the FDA and to register their facilities with the agency, enabling it to inspect factories and collect records.
Personal care manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Unilever — all of which support the bill — would pay the FDA $20.6 million in annual fees to help fund cosmetic safety activities.
Benesh of Environmental Working Group said the momentum surrounding the EPA’s toxics reforms could embolden the push to transform regulations of nail polishes, manicuring products and all the types of creams, soaps and powders that Americans put on their bodies.
“The movement to reform [EPA’s law] and this cosmetics bill are both coming from the same place of consumers demanding their right to know and to have a better regulatory regime in place to keep people safe,” Benesh said. But she added, “Even if we are able to get more federal regulations and oversight, consumers are still going to need to be the hawks and push for the changes they want to see.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-your-nail-polish-why-toxic-chemical-triphenyl-phosphate-remains-cosmetics-2384973
-
House Amendment Seeks Funding Block on Conflict Minerals Rule Enforcement
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemical Watch
An amendment to an appropriations bill, under consideration in the US House of Representatives, seeks to block funding for enforcement of the reporting rules governing conflict minerals.
Amendment 34 to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017 (HR 5485) was introduced by Representative Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), who serves as the chairman of the House financial services subcommittee on monetary policy and trade. It states that no funds appropriated by the bill could be used to “implement, administer, or enforce” provisions in Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
This is the section that requires publicly traded companies which use tungsten, tantalum, tin and gold (3TG) to conduct due diligence, to determine whether the sourcing of the minerals supports armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and to report on those diligence efforts.
NGOs Global Witness and the Enough Project issued a joint statement urging a no vote on the amendment.
“Defunding this provision [Section 1502] would undermine important progress that has been made by numerous companies, private sector initiatives and regional governments to help clean up the minerals trade,” they said.
The measure had been scheduled for consideration on 22 June, but a “sit in” by House Democrats, seeking debate on gun control, blocked it from coming to the floor.
The appropriations bill is expected to come up again, when the House returns from its recess on 5 July.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48238/house-amendment-seeks-funding-block-on-conflict-minerals-rule-enforcement
-
Columbia Sportswear Introduces PFC-Free Rain Jacket
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US company Columbia Sportswear has developed what it calls the industry’s “first high-performance, environmentally friendly” rain jacket made without intentionally added perfluorinated compounds (PFCs).
In recent years, the outdoor industry has largelyconverted from long-chain (C8) to short-chain PFCs in durable water repellent (DWR) treatments. But many manufacturers have resisted calls from environmental groups to immediately move away from bioaccumulative fluorinated chemistries, saying that current alternatives do not offer adequate performance.
In a statement, Columbia said the issue of PFCs in rainwear was "an environmental problem that has been widely acknowledged by top brands in the industry, but none of them have been able to solve the issue without impacting performance, until now.”
Technical aspects
The company’s OutDry Extreme ECO technology, available from spring 2017, uses a durable waterproof membrane that does not rely on an outer fabric layer treated with a topical coating of DWR.
An abrasion-resistant waterproof membrane has been placed on the outside of the garment, replacing the outer fabric layer. According to a company spokesperson, this removes the risk of the jacket “wetting out” like traditional rainwear does when the DWR wears off.
The jacket’s fabric is 100% recycled polyester. It is also not dyed, which the company says reduces the water, energy and chemical use in the manufacture process. It said the jacket’s technology took three years to develop.
Going PFC-free
Columbia says it is “very conscious” that while the new product gives the company a PFC-free alternative, “it does not solve the problem PFC issue entirely.” The company will continue to use short-chain PFCs in “a majority” of its waterproof products, it says.
Nor is Columbia the first brand to introduce a PFC-free rain jacket. UK brand Páramo Directional Clothing, for example, has eliminated PFCs from its supply chain, and signed up to Greenpeace’s Detox campaign.
But the company told Chemical Watch that the waxes, oils and silicones that may be used in place of a PFC-DWR “can be penetrated by oil, including lotions and oils from skin, and are very susceptible to wet out.” Because Columbia’s technology places the membrane on the outer layer of the garment, it does not require DWR to prevent wet-out. This results in higher performance than those using PFC-free DWR, it says.
When some manufacturers reference “PFC-free”, it added, they’re speaking only about the DWR treatment, which may not account for the fact that there are PFCs in the membrane.
Broader view
Beth Jensen, director of sustainable business innovation at the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), said Columbia’s technology is “an excellent example of the re-thinking of the traditional product design process” that members of the organisation seek for transitioning away from PFCs.
The next steps, added Ms Jensen, will be to determine the scalability of the solution – such as costs, manufacturing capability and availability, and its compatibility with other types of products and performance requirements. “The industry is eager to implement less impactful solutions for the products’ waterproofing needs,” she said.
Mirjam Kopp, project leader for Greenpeace’s Detox Outdoor project, said Columbia's new product has “many great features” that represent a “first step from Columbia to tackle the issue of PFCs in their products and supply chain”.
But she said it is “proof that tech innovation to eliminate toxic chemicals, such as PFCs, is already available in the outdoor and textile sector”. Greenpeace has called on the company to catch up with frontrunners in the industry, like Páramo.
Columbia said it is its "challenge and opportunity to educate consumers about why PFC alternatives matter, and why it’s in our collective interests to pursue [alternative] solutions”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48212/columbia-sportswear-introduces-pfc-free-rain-jacket
-
Member States Discuss Ideas for Future of REACH
Jun 23, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Reducing exposure to chemicals is of “overarching importance” to the future implementation of REACH and to chemicals policy more broadly – but decisions are currently being made on the basis of limited information on exposure, a recent meeting of national policy officials agreed.
Representatives of 18 member states and Norway, plus European Commission and Echa officials discussed the further development of chemicals policy, with a focus on REACH, at a conference hosted by the Dutch EU presidency on 1 June. The outcomes were discussed on Monday at the latest meeting of EU environment ministers.
The officials agreed that REACH has achieved significant progress towards the EU’s goal of creating a non-toxic environment but that the steps taken so far are insufficient. A focus on REACH alone would not be enough, and it is important that the REACH Review, due to be completed next year, identifies ways to enhance innovation and strengthen connections with other policy areas, such as occupational health and safety and the circular economy package.
To help reduce exposure to hazardous substances from consumer products, substance data sets generated by REACH should be used “across all relevant legislation and policies to ensure efficiency, consistency and transparency”. In particular, this would help reduce exposure to SVHCs through controlling emissions to air and water.
The officials agreed that because it is impossible to assess the combined effects of chemicals by looking at all conceivable combinations, the pragmatic approach of limiting permitted exposure to a proportion of the current limit values for individual substances should be considered.
To improve registration dossier quality, compliance checks should continue after the last registration deadline in 2018, agreed the participants. And they backed the recommendation in Echa’s recently published report on REACH and CLP that registrants needed a greater incentive to update their dossiers, possibly by introducing mandatory requirements through an implementing Act, and by rewarding good dossiers.
In cases where the necessary information to demonstrate use is not provided or available, restrictions could be adopted or authorisation applications rejected. And ways to reduce the cost to national authorities of compiling restriction proposals – in addition to the recent improvements – could help increase the number of restrictions that are adopted.
Substitution and innovation
Although there are “clear signals” that REACH already promotes substitution of toxic substances, the conference agreed there is “little evidence” so far that it stimulates “more fundamental development of alternative technologies, new business models and non-chemical solutions, as innovation is predominantly market driven”.
To do this, chemicals policy stakeholders will need to engage with their counterparts in R&D and economic policy through “R&D hubs, academic communities and discussion boards”. The safe design of chemicals and products “should become an integral part” of EU innovation programmes and legislation.
A grouping approach targeting similar chemicals – something discussed at the Commission’s recent workshop on its forthcoming non-toxic environment strategy – could prevent regrettable substitutions. And governments should “move beyond their regulatory role”, linking with industry-led initiatives and stimulating partnerships between government, business and NGOs.
Delegates also felt that a legally required format for exposure scenarios could help improve the quality and usability of extended safety data sheets.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48215/member-states-discuss-ideas-for-future-of-reach
-
Science Committee Lashes McCarthy on Clean Power Plan
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Gayathri Vaidyanathan and Emily Holden
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee Republicans yesterday seized on a controversial new report on the Clean Power Plan to sling shots at U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy during a contentious hearing.
The report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce interprets new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to find that economic growth would stagnate, electricity bills would rise and almost 400,000 jobs would be lost over the next 15 years under the Obama administration's rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.
"It is nice to have the administration at war with itself," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the committee and an opponent of the Clean Power Plan.
McCarthy disputed the idea of a disagreement between EIA and EPA on the benefits of the administration's climate change regulation and rejected the argument that Americans would be adversely affected by it.
"That is exactly opposite of what we believe will happen based on our independent analysis," she said.
The hearing was conspicuous for its near-absence of Democrats, who were staging a sit-in on the House floor to demand votes on gun control (E&E Daily, June 23).
Other Republicans accused EPA of interfering with the markets, with which McCarthy also disagreed. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) stressed that Republicans are not anti-environment.
"I think, sometimes, folks on our side of the aisle get painted with the perspective that we don't care about the environment," he said. "We care very much about the environment, but we care about being good stewards of the taxpayers' money and making sure that the policies that are implemented in the administration are policies that are in the best interests of the country."
Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) told McCarthy that his state may not be able to meet EPA's requirements on the Clean Power Plan due to the potential shutdown of two nuclear power plants. The Clinton and Quad Cities plants may be shut down in 2017 if new state legislation propping up the reactors does not get enacted soon (Greenwire, Jun. 2). A bipartisan group of Illinois lawmakers wrote a letter to Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) urging legislative action.
McCarthy said that EPA has already warned states about the potential closure of older nuclear power plants.
"I do not think we have made the Clean Power Plan standard so challenging that states cannot address the changing circumstances," she said.
EIA found only moderately higher electricity prices
The Chamber of Commerce report that Smith cited claims the federal government doesn't accurately weigh losses in gross domestic product against climate and health benefits.
The organization is pushing back against estimates from EIA that the greenhouse gas regulation could cause only moderately higher electricity prices. EIA found that retail prices could be about 3 percent higher under the rule, in certain implementation scenarios (ClimateWire, June 21).
The U.S. Chamber claims that the assessment doesn't point out that GDP losses could outweigh climate and health benefits claimed by EPA.
EPA pegs the public health and climate benefits of the rule at $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030.
The U.S. Chamber used EIA's analysis and applied social cost of carbon levels used by the federal government to find that while GDP levels could be $529 billion lower because of the rule, global climate and health benefits would equal $333 billion, leading to a net loss of $196 billion. Just looking at domestic benefits would make that net loss even bigger, $303 billion. That's because costs are felt locally, but climate benefits are spread globally.
The business group believes the net loss could be even higher and notes that it thinks the federal government's social cost of carbon estimates are inflated.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039294
-
Mich. Gov. Snyder Urges Flexibility in Energy Reforms
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder showed little concern that the state's Legislature adjourned last week without passing energy reforms that have been debated for more than a year.
"We're still working on this legislation, but that's OK," Snyder said during a keynote address at the Midcontinent Independent System Operator's annual meeting in Detroit.
The second-term Republican compared long-term investments in energy and transportation infrastructure to a mortgage. The price tag is daunting, but paid for in monthly installments over decades, it is affordable and can yield long-term benefits.
In crafting policies to support multiyear investments, Snyder stressed the importance of flexibility. Laws and regulations must be able to be adapted to continual changes in federal energy policy, "or lack thereof," and the evolution of technology and markets, he said.
Perhaps no state is undergoing as significant a change in fuel mix right now as Michigan, where dozens of coal plants are being retired. Jackson, Mich.-based Consumers Energy just shut down its Classic Seven coal units in April, and DTE Electric, the largest utility in Michigan, will turn over half its generating fleet during the next seven years.
The challenge of replacing infrastructure was among the issues in a panel discussion among utility executives that followed Snyder's speech.
The electric industry faces a wave of capital investments in the coming years, from cleaner forms of generation to replace aging coal plants to new transmission lines that link them to cities. At the same time, utilities are having to modernize their distribution grids to accommodate more rooftop solar and energy storage.
Nationwide, hundreds of billions of dollars of investment is needed. And those costs must be passed through to consumers at a time when electricity demand is flat or declining.
For most utilities, which recover at least a portion of their investments in the grid through volumetric energy charges, those costs will spread over fewer units of energy.
That challenge has utilities looking at the future of how rates are designed, and it has exacerbated a simmering debate over solar net metering.
In some states, regulators and legislatures are being asked by utilities to change net-metering policies that provide credits at retail rates for excess generation put back onto the grid.
Solar installers say retail net metering is fair and essential to help jump-start markets where solar penetration is minimal. Many utilities say the policies jeopardize fixed cost recovery and lead to cross subsidization among customers.
"We want to make sure that those who are able to afford these distributed resources aren't doing so on the backs of those who can't," said Melody Birmingham-Byrd, president of Duke Energy Indiana.
Trevor Lauer, president of Detroit-based DTE Electric, said the utility industry should embrace disruptive technologies like rooftop solar but that any subsidies put in place should be made clear.
"I don't think we need to be at war with solar advocates, but we do need to fairly recognize the value of what different generation is bringing to the grid and who ultimately does have the responsibility to pay for it," Lauer said. "Under today's tariffs, we have a lot of subsidization that goes on."
The transformation of the utility industry is not only being pushed by technological innovation but also by an upheaval in energy markets thanks to the surge in shale gas production. Changes in federal policies are also helping accelerate the shift away from coal.
Key among those federal policies is U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The rule, if it survives legal challenges, requires a one-third reduction in 2012 power plant carbon dioxide emissions over the next decade and a half.
Utility executives said the emissions reductions required in the rule are not an issue.
"Clean Power Plan or no Clean Power Plan, the resource evolution is underway," said Teresa Mogensen, senior vice president of transmission at Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc.
But the rate at which the transition occurs could be a source of tension.
"We need to pay attention to the pace, because pace defines affordability," Lauer said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039296
-
Obama Admin Suffers Through a Losing Streak
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The Obama administration has suffered a string of environmental setbacks in court.
Most recently, an Obama-appointed federal judge in Wyoming this week sharply rebuked the administration's efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands. The gutting of that rule came on the heels of a string of other big defeats surrounding some of the administration's signature environmental policies, including courts' decisions to put the brakes on major climate and water regulations.
The legal battles over some of President Obama's marquee environmental rules are far from over. But lately, the news hasn't been good for the administration.
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, a Republican involved in lawsuits attacking the administration's environmental rules, sees the recent court moves as a win for Obama's critics.
In the administration's rush to establish an environmental legacy, there are concerns that U.S. EPA and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management -- which issued the fracking rule -- "are rushing things and cutting corners as they do so."
Now, they're paying the price in court, Stenehjem said, "and they should."
Suzanne Murray, a partner at Haynes and Boone LLP in Dallas who was regional counsel in EPA's Texas-based regional office until last year, thinks the administration will be "dismayed" by the recent court outcomes. She noted that the court setbacks come after the administration "very consciously made really aggressive policy decisions."
This week, Judge Scott Skavdahl -- an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming -- killed BLM's fracking rule, ruling that the agency has no authority over fracking. The government will almost certainly appeal the decision, and the Interior Department has framed the decision as merely a "delay" (EnergyWire, June 22).
Still, the judge's language that BLM acted "in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law" is a blow to the administration.
Just last month, Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled against the government in a case deciding when landowners can challenge certain decisions about water permits in court. That decision opens the door for widespread court fights the government was hoping to avoid (Greenwire, May 31).
Perhaps the biggest defeat for the administration's environmental regime this year came in February, when the Supreme Court intervened to block EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The administration and supporters of the regulation are quick to note that neither the high court nor a federal appeals court has yet waded into the merits of the rule to limit greenhouse gases from power plants.
EPA boss Gina McCarthy bristled at the suggestion that her agency had lost when the Supreme Court unexpectedly intervened to halt the climate rule. "We didn't lose anything yet," McCarthy said in April as she downplayed the significance of the move (Greenwire, April 26).
Still, EPA and its backers were troubled by the move. Courts typically agree to freeze regulations if they think the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits of the case.
The momentous Clean Water Rule from EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is also on hold after two federal judges moved to block that rule.
A North Dakota district judge last August blocked implementation of the rule in 13 states. A Cincinnati-based federal appeals court blocked the regulation nationwide in October, and it remains stalled.
Admin confident it'll prevail
Administration officials say they are confident they will successfully defend these environmental rules.
John Cruden, the Justice Department's top environmental lawyer, said his office "will continue to vigorously defend federal agency rule-making like the EPA's Clean Power Plan, Waters of the United States, and the Department of the Interior's fracking rule. These rules are extraordinarily important with exceptional and significant environmental benefits."
Cruden said he's "extremely proud" of the administration's environmental track record and he expects to win in court.
"We are confident we will prevail when the [Clean Power Plan] has its day in court," EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said today in a statement. And the administration looks forward to "vigorously defending the merits of the Clean Water Rule, which the agencies continue to believe is fully consistent with the law and based on the best available peer-reviewed science."
Both the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule are widely expected to wind up in the Supreme Court, where their fate could be decided by the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.
"Ultimately it wouldn't surprise me to see the Supreme Court upholding both of those," said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA.
The decision knocking down the BLM fracking rule appears likely to be appealed to a federal appeals court. That challenge could also make its way to the Supreme Court eventually.
Carlson said the recent decisions seem to be "more episodic than a trend," noting that in general, "courts are pretty deferential to environmental agencies." She added, "I think it's more a question of who's hearing it. ... It does show that who makes the decisions makes an enormous difference."
While the administration has had setbacks recently surrounding big agency programs, "they've also won some," said Jim Rubin, an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney and a former Justice Department official.
He pointed to the Obama administration's legal victories surrounding a rule to curb interstate air pollution and court rulings that largely kept EPA's greenhouse gas permitting regime in place. EPA's rule to curb power plants' toxic emissions was knocked down by the high court but held in place while the agency tweaked its regulation.
The hurdles the administration has faced in court recently aren't unexpected "in places where the agencies are pushing executive authority," Rubin added.
"There's a limit to how much you can push with courts," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039322
-
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As top House and Senate lawmakers work to address hurdles facing an energy bill conference, environmental groups this week called on Democratic senators to vote against going to conference with the House. During today's OnPoint, Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, discusses the political dynamics at play and explains why she believes efficiency measures could help foster a constructive conversation between the two chambers.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy. Kateri, it's nice to see you as always.
Kateri Callahan: It's so good to see you again, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Kateri, a Senate vote on an energy bill conference could happen as early as this week, and environmental groups have called on Senate Democrats to vote against going to conference due to the content of the House energy bill. Should Senate Democrats vote to go to conference?
Kateri Callahan: You know, I wouldn't sit here and pretend that I have an ability to tell senators what they should or shouldn't do, but what we are saying to the Senate, and to House leaders as well, is that if we're going to have a good product and we're finally going to get to an energy bill, comprehensive energy bill which we haven't had in nine years, the way forward, the path forward is to start with the energy efficiency title in the Senate bill. It is a title that will deliver big savings to American consumers and businesses on their energy bills, will avoid a lot of pollution, and most importantly has demonstrated huge bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House of Representatives as well. So we believe that if the conversations can start, whether they're -- and they are going on now -- outside of a conference and then getting to a conference, if they start talking about those sweet spots, those areas where there's bipartisan agreement and where we can do good for the country, then we think that they can find a path to getting a bill to the president's desk that he can sign.
Monica Trauzzi: But talking about efficiency doesn't necessarily solve some of those more challenging issues. I mean, do you -- are you hopeful and do you think it's actually possible that if they do go to conference they'll be able to get over those hurdles?
Kateri Callahan: You know, I'm hopeful that they will. I think -- you know, I take people at their word, and Congressman Upton, Congressman Bishop have said that they don't want to waste their time and they want to get a bill to the president's desk that can get signed and put into law, and the president's been very clear about what he's willing to sign and what he's not. And again, the Senate found a way to get to a bill that got a vote of 85 to 12 on a comprehensive energy bill, and hats off to Senator Murkowski, who's an honorary member of our board, and Senator Cantwell for getting that job done. So they demonstrated it can be done in one chamber. There's a stated intent in the other chamber to do the same thing. So, you know, I'm hopeful. I'm -- you know me, Monica, I'm pretty optimistic, but I'm hopeful that we can get to that point. It's really -- it's owed to the American people. The energy efficiency title that I talked about, Title I in the Senate bill, that's been being discussed and being debated for five years now, and the bipartisan support for it is huge. It came out of the Senate on a 20 to 2 vote, which is even a stronger vote than the comprehensive energy bill had, so I think it's the right path, and I think it's -- it shows that we can do things on energy that help the American public, and we can do it as Republicans and as Democrats.
Monica Trauzzi: But with the House in particular potentially at play in November, would it make sense for Democrats to opt to hold off and maybe revisit this next year?
Kateri Callahan: That's politics. I mean, you know, it's -- every day we delay is a delay in the savings and on the efficiency title that we could get. I mean, there's been work that's been done by ACEEE, a sister organization, and we could deliver $60 billion back into the economy with that efficiency title and the efficiency provisions that are in the Senate bill. We could avoid pollution equivalent to taking all the cars and trucks off the road for an entire year from this -- these sets of what are very modest and very low-cost provisions. Why delay on that? It doesn't -- to me, that just doesn't make sense that we wouldn't go ahead and do something that is good for the economy, is good for the environment, is good for American consumers and businesses and, you know, I think at least take that piece of it, move it on and let's get that behind us and go on to other things.
Monica Trauzzi: So you're confident if they go to conference that a bill that the president would be willing to sign would emerge.
Kateri Callahan: Oh no, I didn't say that. You put words into my mouth. I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that it would. And I mean, again, that's the stated intent on both sides. So there's a long way to go, and the -- you know, there are obviously more differences in the House and Senate bill than there are similarities, and in fact, the alliance itself is opposed to H.R. 8 as it currently stands because it actually rolls back efficiency gains that we've made in this country, and the assessment is that it would cost $20 billion in extra energy costs, wasted energy that we don't need to use, and that translates into a lot more pollution, a lot more energy use, 10 more quads of energy it would add onto our energy consumption currently. Why go in that direction?
Monica Trauzzi: ... want to see that conversation getting started.
Kateri Callahan: I think if the conversation starts, and again, I think if people pay attention to where the public and where the businesses support energy policy, they're going to find their way to energy efficiency and they're going to find that they can meet on common ground and work together. There's no more magic in the Senate version of the energy efficiency title than the House. The House has done it. McKinley -- Congressman McKinley, Congressman Welch, again board members of the Alliance to Save Energy, they put their version of that bill forward. It's attracted strong bipartisan support. There's no reason not to go ahead and do it.
Monica Trauzzi: Predictions of whether a bill gets to the president's desk this year.
Kateri Callahan: So I said at the beginning I'm very optimistic, and I think we get something to the president's desk if it's built around that energy efficiency title, and let me say that people ought to give me some odds on that. It's not all long odds. We did get last year S. 535, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, to the president's desk, and I was so honored to be there in the Oval Office and watch him sign it. That's the first bipartisan energy bill that's been put to his desk in all of his eight years in office, then it was seven years, but given that, I think we can do it again. I see no reason why we can't find a path that gets us there, and if there are other provisions that go along with it that the president -- that can do good for the country and the president will sign. That's great, but even if it ends up that's all that the comprehensive energy bill is, it's a big good package for the American people.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it there. I know you're always engaging and having conversations behind the scenes with all the relevant parties, so a lot to watch here. Thanks for coming on the show.
Kateri Callahan: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2143/transcript
-
After Legal Fight, BLM Critics Say 'The Court Got It Right'
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
This week's court decision striking down the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule marks a milestone in a long road for states and tribes that have opposed the rule from the beginning.
Tribes and pro-drilling policymakers in Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota and Utah have been criticizing the idea of federal fracking regulations since they were first discussed in 2010. For five years, they submitted comments, testified in congressional hearings and beefed up their own regulations.
But when the final rule was released in March 2015, none of their biggest concerns had been addressed. To the Ute Tribe, the rule still illegally encroached on tribal sovereignty; to the states, the rule trod on their regulatory turf.
A year of litigation later, and their arguments have won the day.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming on Tuesday ruled that Congress expressly assigned authority over fracking to the states -- leaving no room for federal meddling (EnergyWire, June 22).
"For the past year, we've successfully made the case that these rules unlawfully interfere with Colorado sovereign right to responsibly and safely regulate the oil and gas industry," Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) said in a statement yesterday.
Now, Coffman and her counterparts can take a moment to celebrate a win they consider a broader statement on the rights of states and tribes to regulate themselves.
"At the heart of this case are the proper mechanisms for the passage of law and regulations," Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) said in a statement. "Without Congressional authority, the BLM endeavored to expand its mandate to include environmental regulation in an area reserved to the states and other federal agencies."
Ute Chairman Shaun Chapoose celebrated the ruling as a win for all tribes and a rebuke to "federal paternalism" toward American Indians.
"The Court not only prohibited the fracking rule from taking effect on the Ute Reservation, but on all tribal land throughout the United States," he said in a statement. "This case serves as a testament to the Tribe's determination to protect its resources and exercise its jurisdiction and sovereign authority."
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) echoed that warning: The states are not finished challenging rules they consider an overreach.
"The court got it right," he said. "This is of particular importance not only to Wyoming but the country. I have and I will continue to aggressively assert Wyoming's authority when threatened by federal overreach."
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (R) made a nearly identical promise earlier this week, vowing to "continue to defend the state against this type of illegal federal overreach."
It won't be long before Stenehjem and the other challengers have to make good on those promises. Environmental groups defending the rule have already announced plans to appeal the district court's decision, and Interior is expected to do the same.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039298
-
BLM Advances Utah Project That Vows 'Net Zero' Air Pollution
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Obama administration is proposing a novel approach to protect air quality in northeast Utah as part of a federal plan to approve a massive new drilling project that would produce millions of barrels of oil and support thousands of jobs.
The Bureau of Land Management has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Monument Butte Area Oil and Gas Development Project in a heavily drilled section of the Uinta Basin that contains more than 3,000 producing oil and gas wells.
BLM's "preferred alternative" in the final EIS proposes allowing as many as 5,758 new oil and gas wells to be drilled in the next 16 years.
The wells would cover more than 10,122 acres of mostly federal land within a 119,000-acre planning area, according to an advance notice posted in today's Federal Register.
U.S. EPA will formally publish the final EIS in tomorrow's Register, kicking off a 45-day public review period running through Aug. 8.
A record of decision approving the project is expected this fall, said Stephanie Howard, a BLM project manager in Vernal, Utah, who is overseeing the Monument Butte project.
But the Uinta Basin is a region that has been dealing for years with a stubborn wintertime ground-level ozone pollution problem.
Air monitors in the region have measured ozone concentrations that exceed the federal eight-hour standard of 75 parts per billion set by EPA. Ozone concentrations above the EPA threshold can trigger asthma attacks and inflame the conditions of those with bronchitis and emphysema.
A two-year study led by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, with EPA and partly funded by $2 million contributed by members of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, concluded that oil and gas drilling operations are the primary source of the ozone problem.
That study indicated that as much as 99 percent of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 61 percent of the nitrogen oxides in the region -- the two main components of ozone -- came from oil and gas operations (EnergyWire, Feb. 20, 2013).
Environmental groups including Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment in Salt Lake City and WildEarth Guardians raised concerns about impacts to air quality when the draft EIS was released in December 2013.
But BLM's final EIS will require the project proponent, Newfield Exploration Co., to locate other oil and gas wells, compressor stations and gas processing plants in the already heavily drilled region and employ techniques or pay for pollution controls that reduce VOC emissions, Howard said.
Newfield Exploration will be required to do that before it can drill any of the proposed wells, or build and place into operation any of the 21 compressor stations, gas processing plant or 12 gas and oil separation plants proposed in the project, Howard said.
The company has also committed to a schedule of monitoring and inspecting new wells and other equipment to find leaks and to fix them when found, she said.
The goal is for the Monument Butte project to have a "net zero" effect on air pollution in the region, Howard said.
"This [final EIS] has the most advanced strategy we've ever come up with for addressing air quality issues for a specific project," Howard said. "It's a very advanced strategy that they've committed to, so kudos to Newfield."
The air protection measures were necessary in order for BLM to authorize the project, which also includes building 226 miles of new roads and pipelines, as well as 318 miles of new pipeline adjacent to existing roads, the agency said.
"Given the air quality concerns in the Uintah Basin and the potential for a non-attainment designation, protecting air quality was a primary concern as we developed this EIS," Jenna Whitlock, BLM Utah's acting state director, said in a statement. "As a result, the EIS contains strong measures to control emissions that lead to ozone formation, a major air pollution concern."
Whitlock also noted that the final EIS "contains extensive mitigation strategies to protect threatened plants, water quality, and soil resources."
BLM's preferred alternative would limit surface impacts "through the use of directional drilling technology" that will also limit the number of well pads in the project area, according to the advance notice.
BLM revised the project's surface footprint within two conservation areas designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service for two protected plant species: the Uinta Basin hookless cactus and the Pariette cactus.
The advance notice does not include estimates of how much oil and gas could be tapped by the project. But Newfield Exploration has estimated in the past that the project could produce more than 330 million barrels of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the next 16 years.
In addition, the Western Energy Alliance has calculated that the project would have an economic impact of $2.1 billion annually and create 10,800 jobs.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039328
-
Gazprom Strong-Arms U.S. LNG in Pursuit of European Customers
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Energywire
U.S. liquefied natural gas is on the move across the Atlantic, but Russia-owned OAO Gazprom is doing all it can to hold onto European markets and force U.S. LNG elsewhere.
A wave of U.S. LNG exports is expected to reach Europe starting in 2017, but Gazprom hopes to push some of that toward Asian markets.
"Longer term, Asia will remain more attractive for U.S. gas. No U.S. businessman in the right state of mind -- being already heavily indebted and having put all his assets as collateral with banks -- will deliver gas to Europe at a loss," Gazprom's deputy chief executive, Alexander Medvedev, told Reuters last week.
And yet Gazprom's earlier predictions that U.S. shale production didn't pose a threat were wrong and cost the company.
The European Union has discouraged Russian energy imports using discounts, renegotiations and gas auctions, but Gazprom has a firm grasp and low prices.
Gazprom has enough extra production capacity ready to supply a quarter of Europe's annual needs, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. A weakened ruble has also cut Gazprom's operating expenses and given the company more to withstand and compete with low gas prices.
Still, the company can't lower prices for European supply too much without facing concerns about anti-competitive market behavior.
For now, Gazprom will likely keep supplies at current levels and hope it is enough to stave off a U.S. LNG fleet of gas imports, according to Anna Galtsova, associate director of Russian and Caspian energy at IHS.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039277
-
PHMSA Sending Investigators to California Pipeline Spill
Jun 23, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
Federal pipeline regulators are sending investigators to the scene of a pipeline spill in California that is reportedly spewing oil onto the Ventura County coastline.
A Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration official told POLITICO that the agency is aware of the incident and is sending investigators to aid in the response. But because it does not cross state lines, the pipeline is not under PHMSA's jurisdiction.
Ventura County Fire Department spokesman Mike Lindbery said on Twitter that the pipeline break spilled an estimated 700 barrels of oil, dramatically lowering his previous estimate of 5,000 barrels. He added that area residents have been alerted, but there have been no evacuations. Lindbery did not immediately respond to a request for further details.
While the Los Angeles Times reported that firefighters are working to stop the oil from flowing into the ocean near the spill site in Prince Barranca valley, Marisol Rodriguez, a Ventura County firefighter, told POLITICO that there is "no threat to the ocean." She added that the spill has been stopped and the pipeline owner, Crimson Pipeline, has shut off the flow of oil through the line.
Rodriguez said the oil spread about a half-mile from the pipeline but has not affected any homes in the relatively rural area.
A spokeswoman for Crimson Pipeline did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The spill comes just over a year after a massive pipeline accident near Santa Barbara spilled more than 3,000 barrels of oil, some of which flowed into the Pacific.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy
-
Officials Race to Curb Leak Spewing Toward Ocean in Calif.
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Ventura County, Calif., firefighters are working stop a crude oil spill from flowing into the ocean after a pipeline leak in Hall Canyon released up to 210,000 gallons of crude, officials said.
The leak was spotted around 5:30 a.m. local time today, and later in the morning, the oil was flowing out near the beach at Sanjon Road and U.S. Route 101, Ventura County Fire Department spokesman Mike Lindbery said.
The oil belongs to Aera Energy LLC, the largest onshore producer of crude in Ventura County. It was flowing through a pipeline owned by Crimson Pipeline LLC, which operates over 1,000 miles of oil infrastructure in the state.
The company shut off the pump, but gravity is forcing the crude into a natural catch basin, which officials hope will hold the oil until they can build larger barriers on the oceanside.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/23/stories/1060039320
-
Jun 22, 2016 | European Commission - Press Release
By Jakub Adamowicz and Nicole Bockstaller
Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy will combine efforts and leadership to accelerate climate action at the local level worldwide.
Today, the world’s two primary city-led climate change and energy initiatives, the EU Covenant of Mayors and the Compact of Mayors, announced the formation of a new, first-of-its-kind global initiative of cities and local governments leading in the fight against climate change. This single initiative will create the largest global coalition of cities committed to climate leadership, building on the commitments of more than 7,100 cities from 119 countries and six continents, representing more than 600 million inhabitants, over 8% of the world’s population. The launch of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy comes six months after the historic Paris climate change conference, where cities were crucial voices in shaping and advocating for a strong global agreement, and is a historic and powerful response by the world’s local leaders to the urgent climate challenge.
The Covenant of Mayors was launched in 2008 by the European Union after the adoption of the 2020 European Union Climate and Energy Package. The Compact of Mayors was launched in September 2014 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael R. Bloomberg and mayors from global city networks C40, ICLEI and UCLG. Both initiatives have supported participating local governments in setting ambitious climate reduction goals, taking ambitious action to meet those objectives, and measuring their progress publicly and transparently.
The new Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy will be the world’s largest coalition of mayors promoting and supporting voluntary action to combat climate change and move to a low-carbon economy.
European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič said: "The EU Covenant of Mayors shows that when mayors share a vision of a low-carbon future and roll up their sleeves, things get done. Bottom-up and close to the citizens: that is the strength of the European Covenant. As of today, this will become the strength of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, a coalition that is truly unique on the global scene. Never before have so many cities joined forces, eager to inspire each other and committed to collectively taking the path to a low-carbon, resilient society."
“Today, the world’s cities are uniting their efforts to fight climate change behind a single global organization, something that has never before happened," said UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael R.Bloomberg, who will Co-Chair the new Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy. “In unity there is strength, and this new Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy will help accelerate the progress cities are making and magnify their influence on the global stage. This is a giant step forward in the work of achieving the goals that nations agreed to in Paris."
By aligning city-led efforts, the Global Covenant of Mayors of Mayors for Climate & Energy will allow for greater collaboration between cities across the world, bridging gaps and building connections, as well as increasing funding to support and empower city action on sustainable energy and climate change. This merger will harness the convening and investment powers of the European Union and Bloomberg Philanthropies, as well as the critical global city network partners of each initiative, including C40, ICLEI, UCLG, Eurocities, Energy Cities and Climate Alliance – allowing for a stronger presence and visibility of local authorities in the on-going work of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The new initiative will provide a common platform that brings together relevant data on cities' energy and climate actions reported to the current EU Covenant platform and the platforms supporting the Compact of Mayors (CDP Cities and the carbonn Climate Registry), allowing for comparison of cities' achievements to other cities and towns all around the world, and make them publicly available through a new Global Covenant of Mayors website, to be launched by January 2017.
Combining the two initiatives will streamline and consolidate efforts to increase and capture the collective impact of city action and build even greater momentum for locally-led climate action. A single coalition will also simplify city participation, freeing cities to focus on a single commitment with both local relevance and global impact. It will provide greater clarity for cities and ensure more consistent and comparable data — giving investors the ability to see that the actions cities have been taking are having lasting, verifiable, and most importantly, investable impact. One of the political priorities of the Juncker Commission's Energy Union strategy is resilient and forward looking climate policy that facilitates transition to a low-carbon, secure and competitive economy. The new initiative will be an important tool for achieving this goal.
For more information, please visit the Compact of Mayors website, and the Covenant of Mayors website.
About the Compact of Mayors
The Compact of Mayors is a global coalition of mayors and city officials pledging to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, enhance resilience to climate change, and to track their progress transparently. The Compact was launched in September of 2014 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, Michael R. Bloomberg. The Compact was activated under the leadership of the global city networks — C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40), ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) — and with support from UN-Habitat, the UN’s lead agency on urban issues.
About The Covenant of Mayors
Created in 2008 to implement the EU's 2020 climate and energy targets, the Covenant of Mayors has firm commitments of over 6800 cities in 58 countries resulting in Action Plans with an investment of over €110 billion. In 2015, Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete has launched the integrated Covenant of Mayors incorporating also adaptation to climate change and extending it to the 2030 timeframe. Covenant signatories voluntarily pledge action to support implementation of the European Union 40% greenhouse gas-reduction target by 2030 and the adoption of a joint approach to tackling mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The EU Covenant of Mayors is funded by the European Commission and currently operated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), Climate Alliance, Energy Cities, EUROCITIES and the European Federation of Agencies and regions for Energy.
-
Sharp Divides Over Ozone Rule Compliance Aired at Hearing
Jun 23, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) expressed interest yesterday in finding "common sense solutions" to implementation of U.S. EPA's new ozone standard after presiding over a hearing that revealed starkly different views of the challenges posed by compliance.
"Hopefully we can get together and find some easier methods for some folks who are having more difficulty," Capito said.
But such solutions seemed elusive at yesterday's hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, which Capito chairs.
The hearing's agenda featured her bill, S. 2882, to postpone implementation of the new ozone standard for eight years. Also on the agenda was a bipartisan measure by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would resurrect a program to let local and regional governments hammer out "compacts" with EPA as a means of avoiding potentially damaging nonattainment designations.
Hatch did not attend the hearing, which lasted a little more than an hour. In a statement afterward, he said that his bill, S. 2072, would give communities the chance to propose "local, proactive solutions, in cooperation with the EPA, to improve air quality without risk." The original version of such a program ran from 2002 to 2007, when EPA scrapped it following litigation by what Hatch called "far-left environmental activists."
Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung-damaging gas created by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. In children, ozone can help trigger asthma attacks; in older adults, it can worsen emphysema symptoms. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lowered the standard last October to 70 parts per billion in response to new evidence of ozone's health effects. The previous limit, set in 2008 under George W. Bush's administration, had been 75 ppb.
While EPA predicts that most of the United States will meet the new benchmark by 2025, parts of 25 states encompassing 122 million people are still out of compliance with the 75 ppb threshold, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in January.
Concerns about compliance are highest in California, which suffers from some of the nation's most stubborn air pollution problems, and the Mountain West, which tends to have higher levels of naturally occurring background ozone.
Mark Raymond, a county commissioner from eastern Utah, backed both bills, saying they would allow his area to deal with elevated winter ozone levels "without the scarlet letter of nonattainment." Also supportive was Andrew Chesley, executive director of the San Joaquin Council of Governments in California. The region will need to cut pollution levels by more than 90 percent over the next two decades to meet the new standard, Chesley said.
Taking a more optimistic view was Kurt Karperos, deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board. "Absolutely, they're achievable goals," Karperos said, although he stressed the need for stricter federal emission standards on trucks and locomotives.
Dr. Mary Rice, a pulmonary physician testifying on behalf of the American Thoracic Society, warned that any delay in implementation of the new ozone limits could harm public health. Rice also objected to a provision in Capito's bill that would require EPA to review the standards for ozone and other major pollutants only once every decade instead of every five years.
The odds of any final congressional action to slow implementation of the latest ozone standard are slight, both because of a tight election-year calendar and the Obama administration's opposition.
Capito's bill is a companion to H. 4775, which passed the House earlier this month despite a White House veto threat. Even if S. 2882 gets a committee markup, Democrats are unlikely to let it advance to the floor.
In offering to work on a common sense approach, Capito was responding to an overture from Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the subcommittee's ranking member. Neither broached any detailed thoughts on areas where compromise might be possible, however.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), meanwhile, voiced willingness to address local challenges to meeting the new standard but showed no interest in wholesale changes. Because Rhode Island suffers from downwind pollution, Whitehouse said, "anything that takes a broad cut at the baseline standards ... puts states like mine in real peril. It's very frustrating."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/23/stories/1060039285
-
EPA Sends 'Exceptional Events' Air Waiver Rule To OMB
Jun 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review its final rule revising when and how states can claim Clean Air Act regulatory exemptions for “exceptional” episodes of air pollution, such as wind storms or wildfires, as the agency seeks to streamline implementation of the existing regulation.
The final rule sent to OMB June 22 seeks to simplify the process for states to claim exceptional events, clarifying definitions of key regulatory terms, according to the White House's website. EPA also sent a guidance document on implementation of the exceptional events for OMB review the same day.
OMB review typically takes up to 90 days, but can be shorter or longer depending on the circumstances. OMB's website lists the projected release date of the final rule as September.
Under the exceptional events policy, states can exclude air monitoring data from determinations of whether they meet federal air standards if the data were gathered during unplanned events that can lead to spikes in air pollution, such as wildfires.
States and federal agencies are placing a growing focus on improving estimates of air pollution associated with wildfires to address an increasing number of fires due to climate change, and potentially higher estimates could affect EPA rules including boosting demand for exemptions from ambient air limits due to wildfire pollution.
Historically, the existing exceptional events rule that EPA finalized in 2007 has proved cumbersome and slow for states, who faced a backlog of exceptional events claims accumulated at EPA regional offices, especially Region VI that covers California and other areas of the West.
However, the rule could be crucial to Western states' efforts to comply with EPA's Oct. 1 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone of 70 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the previous limit of 75 ppb. This is because Western states experience higher levels of naturally occurring background ozone than other states. The rule could be important for these states so they can exclude air monitoring data gathered during high-ozone events and therefore avoid a “nonattainment” designation that would trigger costly pollution control mandates.
EPA's proposed version of the exceptional events rule update issued last year aims to structure the rule around three Clean Air Act provisions that the agency says are fundamental: That the event affected air quality in such a way that there exists a clear causal relationship between the specific event and the monitored NAAQS exceedance or violation; the event was not reasonably controllable or preventable; and that the event was a human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a natural event.
The agency proposes significant changes to the existing rule, such as revising the definition of exceptional event by allowing states to consider the combined effects of an event and the resulting emissions, a new concept.
EPA further proposes to eliminate a current requirement that states show they would have complied with a NAAQS “but for” the exceptional event causing high levels of pollution, which states have complained is too difficult to prove.
The agency is also proposing to find that states automatically meet the requirement that the event was “not reasonably controllable or preventable” if they have in place measures to prevent pollution from the affected sources under an EPA-approved state implementation plan (SIP) for NAAQS attainment or maintenance. SIPs are blueprints demonstrating how states will comply with Clean Air Act requirements.
EPA proposes to subsume an existing rule requirement that an event “affected air quality” under the “clear causal relationship” requirement, on the basis that affecting air quality is evidence of a causal relationship.
States in their comments on the proposal asked EPA to ensure that its pending final rule treats areas attaining NAAQS in the same manner as areas out of attainment for purposes of making exceptional events claims.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Sen. Carper Open To 'Commonsense' NAAQS Help
Jun 22, 2016 | Inside EPA
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) says he is open to pursuing “commonsense” options for providing states with assistance to help them attaining EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) such as the agency's recently tightened ozone standard, though he cautioned that the stricter standard issued last year is vital to protect public health.
Speaking at a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) clean air panel hearing June 22 on ozone issues, Carper defended EPA's the ozone NAAQS, which is set at 70 parts per billion (ppb). The agency tightened the standard down from the prior 2008 limit of 75 ppb based on scientific data on ozone's health impacts.
However, Carper also said “I am not unsympathetic” with the plight of states such as Arizona, which according to state officials and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) faces an “impossible” task in meeting the new standard.
In written testimony to the committee, witness Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said that his state “simply cannot implement a 70 ppb standard.”
Hamer said that pollution from Mexico, California and natural ozone-forming emissions -- none of which the state can control -- all undermine Arizona's ability to meet the NAAQS.
Flake told the hearing that the new ozone limit “demonstrates complete tone deafness” on the part of EPA, which has ignored the warnings of Western states and industry over the stringency of the standards.
Carper suggested that he would be prepared to pursue some “commonsense” ideas to assist states like Arizona in meeting the NAAQS, but offered no specifics on the type of assistance.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), chair of EPW's clean air panel, said she is willing to examine ways to “massage” implementation of the ozone NAAQS.
Capito is the sponsor of S. 2882, the Senate companion bill of H.R. 4775, a bill that would delay implementation of the new ozone standard, and shift the statutory review cycle for all NAAQS pollutants from five to ten years, among other changes. The White House has already threatened to veto that bill.
GOP senators at the hearing also praised a related bill, S. 2072, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The bill would reestablish the Early Action Compact program that gives states the ability to avoid nonattainment designations, extending compliance deadlines, so long as they take early steps to curb pollution.
Full EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in a written statement called the original compact program, run by EPA, “highly successful and effective in the past and could be a welcomed alternative for many impacted entities today.”
The program ran afoul of the courts, however, and EPA abandoned it in favor of an “ozone advance” program that offers states assistance in meeting NAAQS with early steps toward compliance without the legal pitfalls of the Early Action Compact.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Forget Cap and Trade's Detractors, California's Carbon-Pricing Works
Jun 23, 2016 | LA Times
By Dallas Burtraw
California’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change keeps on ticking as it was designed to, defying its critics. Cap-and-trade programs are considered to be among the most effective ways to reduce pollution, in particular carbon emissions, from power plants and other sources. These programs first cap pollution at reduced levels but also enable participating emitters to buy and sell allowances, or emissions permits, to achieve the required reductions in the least expensive way possible.
Lately, cap-and-trade detractors have warned that the California program is failing. Their dire assessment is in large measure based on the most recent auction of allowances, in May, in which only 11% of available permits were sold.
What the May auction really portends isn't the demise of the state's cap-and-trade project, but rather its success. Cap-and-trade programs have one goal: To reduce harmful pollution. And that is what is happening.
In truth, carbon emissions have fallen faster in California than anticipated, reducing the demand for emissions allowances and highlighting the achievements of the state's overall strategy to reduce pollution. California has been a national and global leader in pioneering smart and workable environmental solutions that produce real results. And that tradition is continuing with its cap-and-trade efforts.
The results of the May auction show that the state’s emissions pricing mechanism adapted beautifully to the reduction in the demand for allowances. The program sets a minimum price, below which allowances will not be sold. So when demand for allowances falls (which means fewer are sold and even less greenhouse gas will be emitted), the gains are realized for the environment rather than in falling prices for permits to pollute. Some earlier carbon trading programs — including the largest one, set up by the European Union — do not have a minimum price. That has threatened the efficacy and stability of those efforts.
There are multiple causes for the reduced demand for allowances. One is the improved efficiency of California’s economy, which is growing at the same time that it’s using less fossil energy and emitting less greenhouse gas. Another is the contribution from companion policies that directly reduce pollution, such as efficiency standards and infrastructure development for green electricity and transportation. A third is legal uncertainty. There is a pending lawsuit challenging the cap-and-trade program; although most lawyers expect the suit to be unsuccessful, the possibility that the challenge will succeed makes holding allowances seem like a risky bet. Again, the program’s minimum price shielded the market against too strong a reaction to this uncertainty.
Although the program is working as designed in California, there is a corollary problem associated with weak demand for emissions allowances: a decline in revenue from the auction. That in turn threatens the beneficiaries of those revenues, including energy-reduction programs in disadvantaged communities and the state's high-speed rail project.
The point of cap and trade, however isn’t to raise money, it is to reduce emissions. The Legislature could address lower-than-expected auction revenues by directly funding the programs in question or reducing the supply of emissions allowances, which would increase their price enough to expand revenues.
Yet if California gets too far out ahead of other states in exacting a price for carbon emissions, it will see a loss of business activity. The give and take inherent in the market created by cap and trade — constrained by the minimum price and helped by other anti-pollution policies — is what allows the state to pioneer a green economy without killing growth.
The lack of a cap-and-trade crisis should not translate into complacency. California’s climate policies would be more successful and introduce less uncertainty for business if the Legislature would strengthen their footing. Especially relevant is the re-authorization of California’s landmark AB 32, which established the cap-and-trade program and set a limit on the state’s carbon emissions through 2020. That legislation was passed under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and implemented by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. Passing the next iteration of AB 32 should be a priority and an opportunity for a new generation of California climate change leaders.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-burtraw-cap-and-trade-reduces-emissionsornia--20160623-snap-story.html
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