Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/11/16
-
Meeting on Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jul 11, 2016 | Rules Committee
Location: H-313 Capitol / 5 PM -
'Concerns' On House Jurisdiction Blocked Green Chemistry From TSCA Law
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law lacks much-lauded language to boost federal support for green chemistry efforts after the provision fell victim to “concerns” in the House that it would require input from another committee and could derail efforts to reach a compromise Congress would approve, says a congressional staffer. -
Congress Finally Modernizes The US Toxic Chemicals Law
Jul 10, 2016 | PRI
By Adam Wernick
Congress has passed a long-awaited update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. The new legislation provides, for the first time, uniform federal standards for thousands of everyday chemicals. -
Why Test Chemicals On Animals If We Don't Have To?
Jul 8, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By The Times Editorial Board
The overhaul of a 40-year-old law governing the testing of chemicals used in industrial and commercial products has won a lot of praise recently for giving the Environmental Protection Agency far more regulatory control over many more substances. -
Environmental One Point - Chemical Regulation Update
Jul 8, 2016 | Lexology
By Wendy Wilkie Parker
On June 22, 2016 President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the "Act"), which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). -
Stronger Rules Needed To Protect Babies, Fetuses From Toxic Chemicals
Jul 10, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Jeanne Conry
“Every Woman. Every Time.” That’s a straightforward health mantra for well-woman care, but recently I’ve realized that it extends to children and families in the context of toxic substances. -
The Race to Build the World's First Totally Green High-Performance Gear
Jul 8, 2016 | Outside Online
By Mary Catherine O'Connor
Gear and apparel manufacturers are big chemical users. A new overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act has them scrambling to innovate—minus the toxins. -
Senator Hears PFOA Fears
Jul 8, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand met Friday with Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh residents, hearing from them about the impact of their water being contaminated with a hazardous man-made chemical, and pressing for medical monitoring similar to that provided to 9/11 first responders. -
House GOP Probes EPA, New York On PFOA Responses
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
House oversight panel Republicans are alleging that EPA and the state of New York delayed taking action to warn residents of a New York community about unsafe levels of the emerging contaminant perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in their drinking water, probing EPA and the state for records on its responses to the matter. -
Prop 65 Listing Takes Effect For Six Triazines
Jul 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has set 15 July as the date for the following six triazine substances to be listed under Proposition 65 as reproductive toxicants:atrazine;aimazine;des-ethyl atrazine (DEA);des-isopropyl atrazine (DIA); and2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine (DACT). -
Getaway Week Could Prove Pivotal For Energy, Spending Bills
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Congressional leaders are set to work this week to revive a flailing appropriations process and set the stage for the first major energy reform law in a decade. -
Obama Moves To Undercut Greens In Drilling Fight
Jul 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is fighting back against environmental activists and trying to blunt the impact of a massive campaign against federal oil and natural gas lease sales. -
Panel To Focus On Massive Gas Play In The West
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
Much of the nation's gas development has been focused on the East Coast, but Congress this week will turn its focus to Colorado's Mancos Shale play, the single largest shale deposit in the West. -
Most States, Utilities See Carbon Regulation As Inevitable
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Electric utilities have not stopped working through scenarios for complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan should it survive legal challenges, in the view of Michael Tubman, director of outreach at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. -
EPA Removal of Civil Penalty Shield Triggers Utility Lawsuit
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to remove a provision that shielded utilities from being penalized for excess emissions caused by unavoidable equipment malfunctions drove a power industry trade association to sue the agency (ARIPPA v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1168, statements filed 7/8/16). -
Gas Pipeline Rule to Cost $33 Billion, Industry Says
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Proposed safety regulations for pipelines transporting natural gas would cost industry $33.4 billion—more than 50 times the amount estimated by the Transportation Department when it unveiled them earlier this year, according to the American Petroleum Institute. -
House To Take Up Rider-Laden Interior-EPA Bill
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Amanda Reilly
The House this week will take up a fiscal 2017 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA that would gut many of the Obama administration's signature environmental regulations. -
Bill Would Bar Use of Social Cost of Carbon in Rulemakings
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Legislation introduced in the House July 7 would bar the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department from using tools designed to estimate the costs to society from greenhouse gas emissions as a way to justify regulations -
Cheap Carbon May Thwart Climate Change Efforts
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr and Joe Ryan
Carbon markets, the free-enterprise solution to saving the world from global warming, are now in danger themselves. -
Texas Air Regulators Seek 'Truly Balanced' EPA Particulate NAAQS Review
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Texas air regulators are urging EPA to change its plan for reviewing its particulate matter (PM) air standards to address what the state sees as a perceived bias toward finding greater health impacts and a need for stricter regulation, calling instead for a "truly balanced" review on the adverse effects associated with the existing limit. -
D.C. Circuit Sets Oral Argument In EPA DSW Rule Suit
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set oral argument for Oct. 21 in consolidated litigation filed by industry groups and environmentalists over EPA's definition of solid waste (DSW) rule.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News -There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Meeting on Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jul 11, 2016 | Rules Committee
Location: H-313 Capitol / 5 PM
-
'Concerns' On House Jurisdiction Blocked Green Chemistry From TSCA Law
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law lacks much-lauded language to boost federal support for green chemistry efforts after the provision fell victim to “concerns” in the House that it would require input from another committee and could derail efforts to reach a compromise Congress would approve, says a congressional staffer.
"There were some jurisdictional concerns, because of where the bill got sent in the House," the staffer tells Inside EPA. "The bulk of the bill went to" the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had jurisdiction over the lower chamber's version of TSCA reform, H.R. 2576.
Yet the green chemistry language would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the source says, and that committee would have had to review the bill in order for the language to be included in the final version.
However, there were concerns that involving another committee would complicate already delicate negotiations between House and Senate representatives over two very dissimilar TSCA reform bills, the source says.
"Nobody wanted to step on anybody's toes," the source says of the jurisdiction issue. "Pretty much everything else in [Energy and Commerce's] jurisdiction or was sufficiently small enough" to not raise concerns.
"There were a lot of concessions on all sides" to reach a final TSCA reform agreement, the source says, and the green chemistry language was omitted from the final agreement signed into law June 22.
The green chemistry language in the Senate version of the TSCA reform bill, S. 697, would have created a new, inter-agency sustainable chemistry program, aiming to "promote and coordinate Federal sustainable chemistry research, development, demonstration, technology transfer, commercialization, education, and training activities."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) secured green chemistry provisions in S. 697 after previously introducing a broader standalone green chemistry bill, S. 1447, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) in May 2015.
About half of the provisions of S. 1447 were included in S. 697, and were largely devoted to funding research and development of green chemistry.
"One of the contributions that I made to this bill was the sustainable chemistry research and development act, a separate bipartisan bill that grew out of my experience as a chemist in Delaware and my work with the Delaware sustainable chemistry alliance to lay the foundation for real progress in sustainable chemistry," Coons said last October.
Green Chemistry
Speakers at a Capitol Hill briefing that Coons hosted last January outlined the goals of green chemistry: To have chemists with an understanding of toxicology and environmental sciences develop alternatives to traditional, generally petroleum-based products that can be environmentally harmful or toxic. The resulting green or sustainable chemicals are intended to be nonhazardous across their lifecycle, including production, use and disposal.
S. 697 called for the program to study ways in which the federal government can incentivize sustainable chemistry processes and products, expand collegiate chemistry training to include sustainable chemistry, and support "economic, legal and other appropriate social science research to identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of sustainable chemistry."
Additionally, the bill section sought for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to create an interagency working group on the subject, co-led by EPA's research chief and the director of the National Science Foundation. The group would have been responsible for coordinating federal sustainable chemistry activities and spending, and providing a report to Congress two years after its inception on its progress.
The Senate's TSCA reform bill would also have created an advisory council to assist the interagency working group, comprised of industry, academic, state, tribal and non-government organization experts.
However, S. 697 excluded other components of S. 1447, such as a grant program to fund sustainable chemistry partnerships between industry and universities and a National Academy of Sciences study.
Pending Legislation
It is unclear what will happen to the green chemistry legislation. S. 1447, the standalone bill, has yet to move out of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee -- despite supporters such as the American Chemical Society and the Yale Center for Green Chemistry & Green Engineering, among others. The bill has no House companion.
The congressional staffer says that "we'd like to see this get into law somehow. Obviously, we are running out of time to do that in this Congress. We may try again in the next Congress."
At the Capitol Hill briefing in January, speakers described green chemistry as the latest advance in chemistry and said it could drive new businesses and new jobs.
But they also spoke to barriers to this advancement, both in limited opportunity for training new chemists in sustainable design principles and limited leadership from government in commercializing the field.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/concerns-house-jurisdiction-blocked-green-chemistry-tsca-law
-
Congress Finally Modernizes The US Toxic Chemicals Law
Jul 10, 2016 | PRI
By Adam Wernick
Congress has passed a long-awaited update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. The new legislation provides, for the first time, uniform federal standards for thousands of everyday chemicals.
President Barack Obama is expected to sign the measure into law. When he does, the Environmental Protection Agency will gain more powerful and broader authority to review and regulate new and existing chemicals.
The chemical industry had resisted any changes to the law until fairly recently. But, according to Cheryl Hogue, assistant managing editor of Chemical and Engineering News, the industry began to see an erosion of trust among consumers. This motivated them to get involved with rewriting the law.
“The industry wants consumers to feel good about their products and the chemicals that are in the products that we use every day, whether it's laundry detergents or toys or just solvents that we might use to get grease off of things,” Hogue says.
Most people don't realize that no government agency supervises the safety of the thousands of chemicals that go into making consumer products, Hogue notes. The industry “wants to get a stamp of approval from the federal government to tell consumers a product is safe to use as intended — that these have been looked at and determined that they are OK to use.”
The new legislation differs from the original Toxic Substances Control Act in several significant ways, Hogue says. EPA can now get detailed information about chemicals so it can assess them. This has been very difficult for the agency to do, Hogue says, simply because the old law made it difficult.
The new law also gives EPA clear authority to regulate a chemical if it finds it poses a risk to human health or the environment. “It can ban it, it can restrict it, it can require labeling — that’s something that was in the old law, but in practical terms EPA couldn't use that authority,” Hogue explains. "The fact that EPA will actually be able to take some of these chemicals off the market is huge."
The sheer number of chemicals now on the market remains an obstacle, however. Estimates range as high as 50,000 to 70,000. If those numbers are accurate, it could take up to 35 years to test them all.
Under the new law, the EPA can determine how many of these are actually in use. Hogue says she has heard estimates as low as 8,000. “With this new authority, EPA will be able to ask chemical companies, ‘Hey, are you still selling this stuff?’ [When] they get that information, we’ll have a better number,” Hogue says.
The law was a compromise, however, and the chemical companies also got a lot of what they wanted, Hogue says. Some consumer groups are concerned, for instance, that the new law will handcuff states. Once EPA starts looking at a chemical, states can’t take any action. “They think that states need to be the great backstop for when EPA doesn't take action, just like they have for the last 10 years,” Hogue explains.
But, by and large, environmental groups view the law as significant progress.
The Environmental Defense Fund says: “We are very pleased that we can say that each major section of the final bill offers real improvements, and taken together, the final bill is a major improvement over current law. At long last, EPA will have stronger tools to protect Americans from toxic chemicals that impact the health of millions of Americans.”
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-10/congress-finally-modernizes-us-toxic-chemicals-law
-
Why Test Chemicals On Animals If We Don't Have To?
Jul 8, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By The Times Editorial Board
The overhaul of a 40-year-old law governing the testing of chemicals used in industrial and commercial products has won a lot of praise recently for giving the Environmental Protection Agency far more regulatory control over many more substances. But it is also being praised by animal welfare advocates for a landmark provision that could reduce dramatically the use of animals in the process of testing chemicals for safety. The rewritten law, signed by President Obama late last month, requires the EPA to help develop scientifically sound alternative methods to animal testing and to encourage chemical companies to follow them. This new regulatory philosophy is not just humane; it is also smart, prudent and a reflection of the remarkable advances in chemical testing that are producing better results than those obtained by torturous testing over the years on rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice.
The new law revamps the Toxic Substances Control Act, which covers chemicals found in paints and thinners, wood varnish, plastics, and furniture, among other products. It instructs the EPA administrator to “reduce and replace” the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemicals by encouraging and facilitating alternative methods. It also urges joint testing by multiple companies to avoid duplication of tests. The agency must do some of its own studies to accelerate the development of new test methods, and it must create a list of methods companies can use. And when companies do any voluntary chemical testing — the result of which they want to submit to the EPA — they will be required to try, first, a non-animal method if the EPA lists it as a feasible alternative for the study being done.
There was a time when dosing and contaminating animals with often toxic levels of chemicals was horrible for them but imperative for human health and safety. But now that our safety can be protected without inflicting pain or death on an animal — whether rabbit or rat — continuing to do these tests would simply be cruel and inhumane.
The changes in the EPA guidelines have been well-received not only by animal welfare organizations but also by the chemical industry. And industry officials have said that they are willing to share the technology involved in alternative testing with each other.
Just as the National Institutes of Health retired its chimpanzees from research because state-of-the-art science had found alternatives to testing on them, scientists have now found alternatives in many cases to animal tests for chemical substances. Testing chemicals for skin irritation no longer requires that rabbits be subjected to toxic levels of the substances. These days, researchers can grow human skin cells in vitro test the chemicals on them. The results are more relevant to human safety since they were tested on human cells, not rabbits. Similarly, eye irritation tests don’t require a live animal’s eyes anymore. Corneas can be cultured in vitro for testing. Or the eyes of animals already slaughtered for food can be used for testing.
There remain some areas of safety testing for which there is no alternative other than to test on animals. Testing the carcinogenicity of a chemical is still generally done by chronically exposing animals to it. However, scientists are working on methods that don’t involve constantly dosing a rat or mouse for a year or two then killing it to see if there are signs of tumors.
The purpose of this new law is not to make animal welfare a priority over human safety. The idea is to discourage animal testing when there are better alternatives. That’s not just good for animals, that’s good for people.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-epa-animal-testing-20160710-snap-story.html
-
Environmental One Point - Chemical Regulation Update
Jul 8, 2016 | Lexology
By Wendy Wilkie Parker
On June 22, 2016 President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the "Act"), which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). The Act became effective upon the President's signature. Last week, EPA published its first year implementation plan as a roadmap for EPA's major activities in the first year of implementing the Act.
Risk and Safety Evaluation
TSCA was first enacted in 1976 and provides EPA with authority to require reporting, testing, and restriction of chemicals in the United States, including importation of chemicals. Since 1976, EPA has restricted only a few chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.
The new Act imposes mandatory requirements for EPA to evaluate chemicals. The Act requires EPA to make an affirmative finding on all new chemicals or significant new uses of chemicals before the chemical enters the market. The EPA must evaluate whether such chemicals present an "unreasonable risk." EPA must establish a process for identifying chemicals as high or low priority. A high priority chemical is one that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. High priority chemicals must be evaluated by EPA within certain deadlines.
EPA must identify ten (10) chemicals for risk evaluations by December 2016 and must then release the scope of each risk evaluation by June 2017. EPA must increase its on-going evaluations from ten (10) to twenty (20) chemicals within three years. While the risk determination will be made without consideration for cost, EPA's actions to address unreasonable risks must take into account the cost and availability of risk management options. EPA must promulgate risk management options within two (2) years of the completion of the risk evaluation of a chemical. An extension of up to two (2) years will be available.
Manufacturers may request that EPA evaluate specific chemicals but must pay for some or all of the costs for such evaluation. EPA retains discretion in granting a request for review by a manufacturer. Reviews at manufacturer request may be no more than half of the on-going reviews by EPA.
Confidential Business Information
The Act requires EPA to review all Confidential Business Information ("CBI") claims to make sure that the claims are substantiated. The Act requires EPA to review past as well as future CBI claims. All CBI claims expire after ten (10) years unless the company reasserts the claim.
State Authority
The Act clarifies when a state law will be preempted by TSCA. The Act preempts state restriction of chemicals under review by EPA or chemicals that have been determined by EPA not to pose an unreasonable risk. The Act does not preempt state laws imposing chemical restrictions that were enacted prior to April 22, 2016.
Going Forward
Manufacturers (including importers) and processors should become familiar with the Act and EPA's first year implementation plan. All companies should consider whether and how the Act will impact their business, and monitor EPA's guidance and regulations under the Act. The new requirements for chemicals will likely impact downstream users as well as the manufacturers and processors. All companies should consider prior claims of Confidential Business Information and evaluate whether the substantiation provided with such claims was sufficient and whether such claims should be reasserted.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=01f1185e-bb2c-4d28-99c1-24ffd8fd7c1f
-
Stronger Rules Needed To Protect Babies, Fetuses From Toxic Chemicals
Jul 10, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Jeanne Conry
“Every Woman. Every Time.” That’s a straightforward health mantra for well-woman care, but recently I’ve realized that it extends to children and families in the context of toxic substances.
The impacts of well-known chemicals like DDT, asbestos and lead are recognized for their negative impacts on health. But amidst the tens of thousands of chemicals listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory, only a minority have been tested for toxic effects – and only a fraction of those have been evaluated for effects on brain development in children.
The evidence is clear: Brain development, during pregnancy and childhood, is harmed by certain chemical compounds. However, many of those chemical compounds remain in consumer products and other materials that are used daily across the country. It is time for the government to step up and improve chemical regulation, and it is time for companies to stop relying on dangerous compounds and to stop finding equally dangerous workarounds.
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I know that pregnancy is a critical window of vulnerability, meaning that exposure to potentially toxic chemicals can have a long-lasting impact on health. Exposure during pregnancy can significantly interfere with a child’s ability to reach his or her full potential throughout childhood and into adulthood.
Data show that behavioral or intellectual impairment, such as those that contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD, are linked to certain pesticides, flame retardants, air pollutants, lead and mercury. By reducing or preventing the use of these chemicals, we could see benefits in terms of improved child brain health and contribute to prevention of disorders.
Yes, some restrictions are in place regarding use of these chemicals. A new law, for example, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, modernizes the chemical safety and approval process, and amends the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act. Most importantly, new protections were introduced to safeguard pregnant women, infants and children from the effects of toxic chemicals. But there are also limitations in this law, and most importantly, its success will be determined by how EPA carries it out.
Besides the comparatively few regulated chemicals, there are thousands and thousands of other toxic substances in our environment. We can be certain that we are missing opportunities to prevent exposure.
This is why a wide range of experts ranging from obstetrician-gynecologists like me to pediatricians, endocrinologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists and public health experts have come together to create Project TENDR – Targeting Environmental NeuroDevelopmental Risks – to call for change from the government whose job it is to protect us and from the manufacturers who have the power to do better.
Our regulators need to overhaul their approach to developing and assessing evidence on chemicals to which pregnant women and children are exposed. These chemicals may be interfering in brain development, and this is particularly important to the vulnerabilities of the fetus and child. Regulators need to focus on the cumulative effects of exposure to multiple chemicals and the lack of a safety threshold while addressing and mitigating exposure to chemicals that are in the environment.
Moreover, the businesses that make and use these chemicals must eliminate all neurodevelopmental toxins from their products, eschewing the workarounds that continue to put us in danger.
Decades of exposure have affected countless Americans. Witness the Flint, Mich., lead exposures that help us realize that ongoing exposures to chemicals can impact the health of the next generation. Investing in health now is an investment in the future. Ongoing exposure continues to affect children, because these chemicals are already part of their environment.
We cannot continue to gamble with our children’s health, as their futures represent the future of this country.
“Every Woman. Every Child. Every Family. Every Time.”
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article88254047.html#storylink=cpy
-
The Race to Build the World's First Totally Green High-Performance Gear
Jul 8, 2016 | Outside Online
By Mary Catherine O'Connor
Gear and apparel manufacturers are big chemical users. A new overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act has them scrambling to innovate—minus the toxins.
You might have missed it, but last month President Obama signed into law a bill that many consider the most significant environmental legislation to pass Congress in 25 years. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a 40-year-old statute that, in theory, empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the use of toxic chemicals in the stuff we buy. In practice, it failed miserably.
If you ask environmental and public health advocates what was wrong with TSCA, they’re likely to respond with another question: what wasn’t? The Environmental Defense Fund posted a good run-down here, but the highlights are that TSCA gave the EPA very limited powers to test chemicals for toxicity and that even when the science showed clear hazards—i.e., “this stuff causes cancer”—the agency often failed to get a ban to stick because a federal court might side with industry groups that complained the ban would hurt their business. That’s what happened when the EPA tried to ban asbestos.
The reforms allow the EPA to evaluate the environmental and health risks that chemicals pose based only on the best available science, without having to also show a cost-benefit analysis of a proposed ban. The new law also includes an important change that can impact outdoor gear and apparel manufacturers, because while the old TSCA allowed the EPA to regulate the sale and use of discrete chemicals, it did not require it to regulate the products in which those chemicals are used. Now, the EPA is tasked to do so, in order to limit consumers’ exposure to hazardous chemicals through the use of those products—and this is important for all manufacturers of non-consumables (products other than food and drugs, over which the FDA has purview). Gear and apparel manufacturers are actually big users of chemicals, so these new regs may impact what chemicals go into their products.
The new TSCA could accelerate the regulation of two main groups of compounds that the EPA has been eyeing for a while: perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and flame retardants. PFCs play a central role in durable water repellent (DWR) coatings, which are applied to outerwear and footwear. (It’s worth noting that these represent a drop in the PFC bucket—the chemicals are also used in carpets, food packaging, upholstery and other products we use daily.)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8 in reference to the eight strongly-bonded carbon atoms in its molecular structure, is a byproduct of PFC production and numerous studies have concluded it is toxic to animals and a likely human carcinogen. Flame retardants are applied to tents in compliance with fire safety requirements.
The Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) has special working groups studying both PFCs and flame retardants. “We need to design products that meets specific performance requirements and protects users from the elements and from harm,” says Beth Jensen, OIA’s director of corporate responsibility.
But high-performance chemicals are a double-edge sword. With tents, brands are precariously sandwiched between state laws to meet flammability standards and other state laws (sometimes from the same states) that restrict the use of certain flame retardants. One class of flame retardants—polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)—has been phased out due to their toxicity, but not much is known about their replacements (a class called organophosphates). A study published this yearmeasured campers’ exposure to flame retardants (most of them organophosphate types) and found that after setting up their tents, they had 29 times as much of the chemicals on their hands as prior to setting them up. The test also showed the chemicals are inhaled while users are in the tent.
An organophosphate called TCEP is likely one that EPA will prioritize for evaluation under the new TSCA regulations, so its days could be numbered.
“We're gathering data on whether we even need to add these [chemicals],” says Jensen, noting that only seven U.S. states and Canada require the use of flame retardants in tents. “We're trying to gather data on tent fire events in Europe, versus those in the U.S. and Canada. If we see that [flame retardant] chemistry is not saving lives, we can work with the Canadian and U.S. governments to remove the requirements.”
On the PFC front, Patagonia, Columbia, The North Face, and other apparel brands have been researching alternatives to C8-based DWR formulations for years. The North Face eliminated C8 from its DWR last spring, while Patagonia did the same this spring. DWRs made with short-chain PFCs, based on a C6 molecule are far less toxic and are the predominant substitute, but are not quite as effective performance-wise. The North Face says it has developed a non-fluorinated (PFC-free) DWR that has comparable performance to C6, which it plans to use on 30 percent of its waterproof-breathable apparel by this coming 2017. It says none of its apparel will use fluorinated DWR by 2020.
Patagonia has invested $1 million in Beyond Surface Technologies, which is developing a bio-based DWR. BST’s CEO Matthais Foessel says the firm is still working on a formula that could perform as well as C8 PFCs, and does not have a launch date. Patagonia also partnered with the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business to hold a competition in which teams of graduate students were challenged to design a PFC-free DWR.
Columbia made progress with OutDry Extreme, which still uses PFCs but not C8, and just last week it introduced OutDry Extreme Eco, a shell jacket that uses zero PFCs and which we think performs pretty darn well. The Eco’s interior is polyester and its outer membrane is made of polyurethane combined with proprietary components.
The Eco jacket appears to be the first high-performance and PFC-free coating in the industry, but of course it is proprietary to Columbia. Jeff Mergy, Columbia’s director of innovation, says that just keeps brands working toward a solution. “Competition breeds better products,” he says. “I’m sure our competitors are working on something right now, and that’s great for the environment and great for the industry.”
http://www.outsideonline.com/2096321/new-bill-toxic-substances-will-clean-your-gear
-
Jul 8, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand met Friday with Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh residents, hearing from them about the impact of their water being contaminated with a hazardous man-made chemical, and pressing for medical monitoring similar to that provided to 9/11 first responders.
Many in the Hoosick Falls Central School auditorium viewed the discussion — which included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — as a way for Gillibrand to grasp the depth of the problem. Others criticized the fact that it took place when many residents couldn't attend because of work.
Gillibrand wiped tears from her eyes as Emily Marpe of Petersburgh told of a call from the Rensselaer County Health Department saying, "I'm calling you early on a Saturday morning. You need to stop brushing your teeth right now."
Marpe said she received a letter in the mail soon thereafter alerting her that her 10-year-old daughter's PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) blood level was more than 100 times the national average. Studies link above-average PFOA levels to increased risk of testicular cancer and found potential links to kidney and thyroid cancers, according to the American Cancer Society. "My kids, they're my world," Marpe said, fighting through tears.
Heather Clifford, a Hoosick Falls single mother of two boys, said the lack of answers about the effects of PFOA was making the problem worse.
"What does it mean when your 17-year-old son opens up a letter and it says 87?" she said, referring to the PFOA parts per billion in his blood, more than 40 times the national average of 2.03. "What does that mean? And none of us know, and I think that's what's causing the chaos."
Gillibrand said that because so little is known about the effects of PFOA, especially when young children are exposed, legislators should "rewrite the law" that allows for medical monitoring of 9/11 first responders to include residents affected by water contamination.
"A lot of these illnesses like cancers take 20 years to develop, but because they've done this medical monitoring, they now know exactly which cancers are caused by the toxins that were released at the 9/11 site," Gillibrand said. "And so we have something that we can model, hopefully, our state law after."
Sue Fenton, a federal representative for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, responded to residents who asked for concrete answers about the effects of increased PFOA levels. She said that as long as exposure does not continue, PFOA levels in adults decrease by half every three years.
"We have been studying the health effects for such a short time that we can't say what the long-term outcomes will be for children," Fenton continued. "The younger you are when you're exposed — you carry a different burden of that exposure."
Anna Wysocki, a member of the panel who graduated this spring from Hoosick Falls High School, called Hoosick Falls "an amazing little town" and expressed fear that her younger friends would not be able to experience the same joys that she did.
"Despite my leaving and going to college, Hoosick Falls will always be my home, and I hope that people in Hoosick Falls and even people across the world are able to learn from this experience and never let something like this happen again," Wysocki said. "We will move forward and we will be strong because we now have a voice in Senator Gillibrand and we have a community to support that voice."
Standing outside of the school, Army veteran Gregory Restino of Hoosick Falls and Rob Cottrell of Petersburgh, an active member of the Army, said the roundtable was "a first step," but it was poorly planned and the format ended with more questions than answers.
Cottrell said that because many companies in the area have overlapping first and second shifts, people who wanted to attend the discussion could not make it to the school in time.
"You wouldn't be able to park near that road if this was after work hours, six o'clock," he said, pointing to the school parking lot, which was less than half full. Cottrell added that the roundtable format helped residents share their experiences, but gave them no tangible information.
"What you got up there was a panel of people who had stories," he said. "What you've got out here is a crowd that wants answers. I don't want to give you a story, I want to give you a question."
As the audience of 110 people filtered into the auditorium before the discussion, they were encouraged to write questions for Gillibrand on pieces of paper and place them in a basket. Only one person was selected to ask her question to the senator, but Gillibrand said she would have all the questions sent to her office and someone would respond by email.
The senator told reporters after the discussion, which ran over its scheduled one hour, that the listening session was important. "I think all people in public life should do more listening than talking," she said.
Gillibrand also said that PFOA should be tested under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which had not been revised in 40 years until the Senate passed an update in June.
"I'm asking, specifically, to have PFOA be one of the first chemicals tested under the new TSCA law to say, is it safe or not? Because we need answers — we don't have answers," Gillibrand said. "A lot of our requirements only kick in if your water system feeds 10,000 people. What about the smaller communities that maybe only feed 5,000 people? That's a problem."
Also Friday, the state Senate announced it would hold hearings on the contamination crisis in Rensselaer County, including a session in Hoosick Falls.
In a statement, Republican Majority Leader John Flanagan said the hearings would allow the Senate "to explore the sources of water contamination, examine state and federal oversight issues, and determine how we can prevent this from happening in the future."
The Democratic leadership of the Assembly, which like the Senate had previously been resistant to holding hearings, announced on Wednesday it would schedule two sessions on water quality issues.
Flanagan said it "goes without saying that we welcome the opportunity to partner with the Assembly to maximize the focus on this important issue."
The news represented a reversal by Flanagan and Sen. Kathy Marchione, R-Halfmoon, who both faced pressure to hold hearings — especially after this week's news that Congress had asked Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to produce materials on the state and federal response to the PFOA crisis.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Senator-hears-PFOA-fears-8349229.php
-
House GOP Probes EPA, New York On PFOA Responses
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
House oversight panel Republicans are alleging that EPA and the state of New York delayed taking action to warn residents of a New York community about unsafe levels of the emerging contaminant perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in their drinking water, probing EPA and the state for records on its responses to the matter.
In July 6 letters to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and interior panel Chairman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) query whether the state went even further and gave misleading information to residents of Hoosick Falls, NY, indicating that their drinking water posed no health risks, contrary to test results.
The oversight committee seeks records related to the agency and state's communications and responses to PFOA contamination in the village of Hoosick Falls, where PFOA was identified in drinking water supplies through tests commissioned by citizens and the village after government officials were non-responsive, the panel says.
PFOA, a persistent, toxic non-stick chemical, was used in a slew of consumer and industrial applications, and has been linked to adverse health effects, including kidney and testicular cancers.
"Documents and public statements about the crisis in Hoosick Falls show EPA knew that the village water supply was contaminated in December 2014, but did not take any action until nearly one year later, in November 2015," the letter to McCarthy says. The fact that EPA headquarters either knew or should have known about the problem, "and failed to communicate with their counterparts in [R]egion 2, raises serious questions, considering the health and safety of the resients of Hoosick Falls was at stake," the letter says. They note that EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck has said that she was first notified about the high PFOA levels in November 2015.
The discovery of drinking water contamination in Hoosick Falls ignited heavy pressure on EPA headquarters earlier this year to issue long-awaited, updated final health advisory levels for PFOA. Pressure particularly built after EPA Region 2 in January advised residents in Hoosick Falls to refrain from consuming private well water with PFOA levels higher than 100 parts per trillion (ppt). The 100 ppt level was a much more stringent advisory than the 400 ppt EPA had set out in a provisional, short-term exposure advisory that advocates for citizens argued was too lax.
In May, EPA tightened the level, setting lifetime exposure health advisory levels at 70 ppt for both PFOA and a related perfluorinated chemical known as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). EPA also recommended that the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS, if found together in drinking water, not exceed 70 ppt. The levels apply to both short-term and chronic exposures, according to EPA.
In the committee's letter to Cuomo, it says the local and state health departments took months to inform residents about the high levels of PFOA in drinking water and over a year to inform the public of health risks.
The committee says the state downplayed the results of the contamination until EPA's Enck advised the mayor of Hoosick Falls in November 2015 to have the town use an alternative drinking water source and warned residents the next month that the water was unsafe for drinking or cooking. Enck's advisory countered the state's issuance of fact sheets in late 2015 stating health effects were not expected to occur from "normal use of the water.”
There are "serious questions that the county and state would continue to assure residents the water was safe to drink even though the federal government had already warned residents to the contrary," the committee says.
The panel says it "is seeking information as to why the state and county delayed in acknowledging the health risks of PFOA exposure in Hoosick Falls and continued to provide the public with false and confusing information.”
They ask both EPA and New York for all documents and communications to or from employees related to Hoosick Falls and/or PFOA since May 1, 2014.
Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) sought the congressional inquiry, saying in a July 7 press statement that his constituents "are deeply concerned about ongoing health risks and delayed and confused responses by state and federal agencies.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/house-gop-probes-epa-new-york-pfoa-responses
-
Prop 65 Listing Takes Effect For Six Triazines
Jul 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has set 15 July as the date for the following six triazine substances to be listed under Proposition 65 as reproductive toxicants:atrazine;aimazine;des-ethyl atrazine (DEA);des-isopropyl atrazine (DIA); and2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine (DACT).
When Oehha first provided notice that the substances would be listed, it set a 3 August 2015 effective date.
A legal challenge by Syngenta delayed the substances' listing status. This ruled in favour of Oehha. The company is appealing against this, but the agency says no stay of the listing has been granted. As a result, it has set the new date.
Separately, the agency has recently restarted the process for establishing safe harbour levels for the substances. A 100 micrograms per day maximum allowable dose level (MADL) has been proposed for each.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48498/prop-65-listing-takes-effect-for-six-triazines
-
Getaway Week Could Prove Pivotal For Energy, Spending Bills
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Congressional leaders are set to work this week to revive a flailing appropriations process and set the stage for the first major energy reform law in a decade.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will be working to convince colleagues to join the House in a conference committee to merge competing versions of an energy bill.
"We've got one more week here before we break for August, so my hope is that we'll be able to see some resolve on this," Murkowski said last week.
Murkowski must overcome Democratic skepticism of provisions in the House bill. But launching a conference now, she said, would allow aides to address thorny issues during the seven-week-long recess.
"There's a lot of legwork that has to go on that will entail staff, just kind of getting organized," she said. "We'd like them to be able to do that."
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said it would be a "horrible mistake" if lawmakers fail to launch negotiations.
"It would be horrible if we at both houses have come this far and done this much effort and not complete it," he said.
Bishop said there should be no pre-conditions to negotiations -- many Democrats would like to see some House provisions off the table -- but he said there was plenty of "low-hanging fruit" and priorities that everyone could agree to address.Spending bills
The House is set to debate and potentially finish the Interior Department and U.S. EPA spending bill this week. House leaders giving any lawmaker a chance to introduce amendments and secure a vote will likely keep poison pills away (see related story).
But last week Senate Democrats made good on their threat to derail the appropriations process, a priority for Republicans campaigning on their ability to restore regular order on Capitol Hill.
Democrats denied the majority votes to move forward with the defense spending bill, accusing Republicans of breaking last year's budget compromise by pushing controversial riders and failing to secure parity between defense and domestic spending.
Fueling the Democrats' argument is a provision in legislation to provide $1.1 billion in funds to help fight the Zika virus. It would also pause some permitting requirements for spraying pesticides.
Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Amy Pope said during a conference call with Democrats last week that the president had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to urge a "bipartisan approach," which she said the GOP had "failed to present."
Pope said the administration had set aside money for Zika but needed Congress to do its part as cases will likely increase during hot months. Lawmakers know the time for action is before recess.
But so far neither side appears ready to budge. Republicans accuse Democrats of threatening pubic health for blocking the Zika bill and national security for blocking the defense bill.
"The Department of Defense funding bill will support our armed forces and strengthen their ability to defeat current and future threats," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune of South Dakota.
"This legislation should not be held hostage to the political antics of the Senate minority," he said.Taxes
Also on this week's agenda is legislation to pre-empt state labeling requirements for foods produced with genetically modified organisms (see related story) and reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration.
The FAA legislation was once the preferred vehicle for a host of tax provisions, including for renewable energy sources, particularly those left out of last year's spending and tax deal.
But Republican leaders had already indicated such a task would be too tough a lift with a limited amount of time available. And, as expected, a compromise FAA bill unveiled last week did not include energy tax provisions.
On Friday, Reid revealed that Republicans offered to include the renewable provisions in exchange for riders to block Obama administration environmental priorities -- sage grouse management plans and a coal mining stream protection rule.
"Democrats refused to do unnecessary harm to our environment," Reid said in a statement. "Republicans should not hold American workers and businesses hostage with far-right riders."
And because GOP leaders had promised to address the tax provisions left out last year, Reid said they "should follow through on their original promise without expecting Democrats to cave in to their unrelated, partisan demands."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/11/stories/1060040021
-
Obama Moves To Undercut Greens In Drilling Fight
Jul 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is fighting back against environmental activists and trying to blunt the impact of a massive campaign against federal oil and natural gas lease sales.
Greens have tried to disrupt auctions for drilling rights on federal land and in offshore waters. In response, the government is delaying or relocating lease sales and advancing plans to hold them over the internet to skirt the protests.
The fight is putting the Interior Department in the difficult position of defending the industry and congressional Republicans who back the lease sales and denouncing demonstrations from groups that have long supported the administration on other issues.
Both the government and drillers say the protests are turning the usually sleepy process of selling drilling rights into chaos.
In one high-profile action in March, hundreds of activists protested a pair of offshore auctions in New Orleans organized by Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, yelling over the bid information announcements.
“Unlike previous sales, these two had a large and disruptive group of protesters in attendance,” Walter Cruickshank, the bureau's deputy director, recalled at a House hearing this week on holding online auctions.
“The protesters ignored the posted rules of behavior, climbed onto the stage, damaged property and attempted to stop the lease sale,” he said. “Although no one was injured and the lease sale continued to a successful conclusion, the situation created a potential safety hazard for all present.”
The demonstrations are part of a movement dubbed “keep it in the ground,” largely led and organized by climate activist groups like 350.org and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Their ultimate goal is to stop fossil fuel production, and in the interim, the groups want the federal government to cease all new lease sales offshore and on federal land.
The movement got a major boost last year when President Obama rejected Keystone XL, declaring in part that, “if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.”
That, along with last year’s Paris climate change agreement and a growing urgency over climate change, emboldened anti-fossil fuel advocates and increased their clout.
Their first major victory against a lease sale came in November, when the threat of bringing hundreds of protesters to an otherwise sleepy Bureau of Land Management oil and gas auction in Utah spurred the agency to abruptly postpone the event and seek out a larger venue.
“We were surprised by the level of interest,” Neil Kornze, BLM’s director, said of protesters at a House hearing in March about online sales for the agency.
“Historically, these have been very quiet affairs, 15, 20 people, sitting together, conducting sales,” he said, noting that press releases instead had the agency expecting hundreds of people at that particular sale.
The agencies usually have public meetings for auctions, using a system that the industry and many lawmakers find outdated. BOEM’s is particularly quaint, with each bidder required to prepare bids in sealed envelopes, and an official announcing the winners out loud.
Interior says that it values the transparent, public nature of auctions for taxpayers’ mineral resources. But with ample opportunities to formally comment and object to sales, there are limits to how far officials want to let activists go.
Congress gave BLM authority recently to conduct online auctions, and it plans to start doing so this year for some sales. A bill from Reps. Garret Graves (R-La.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) would mandate online sales for BOEM too.
Cruickshank said his agency already has the authority to conduct online sales, though it didn’t commit to them.
“To help reduce costs and ensure the safety of its employees and the public, BOEM is seriously considering the use of live streaming to provide public viewing of our next lease sale, scheduled for August,” he said. “Earlier this year, BOEM chartered an electronic bidding team to explore the use of an electronic-based lease sale process.”
Industry groups have been pushing for online sales for years. But the protests have made the lobbying more urgent.
“There has been some frustration with the disruptions that have been happening,” said Dan Naatz, head of government affairs at the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
“You can look at some solutions like online auctions that would not only be reasonable, but would make for a more robust auction system. If they can do that, it would make sense,” he said.
Naatz welcomed the push from the agencies to move toward online sales on their own, but was cautious about giving the Obama administration too much praise.
“They understand that they have a situation, they have a problem on their hands,” he said, noting that regularly occurring lease sales are required by law. “Nobody wants to have what happened down in the Gulf lease sale, where basically the protesters took over, that’s not a workable solution in any way, shape or form.”
Greens see online sales as a way for the industry and the administration to be less accountable to protesters. But they aren’t deterred.
“We know that their lobbyists really want online auctions,” said Jason Kowalski, policy director at 350.org. “They know that when they fight behind closed doors, they win, and when they fight us in public, they lose.”
Kowalski also characterized the decision to shift away from public auctions as the administration taking the side of industry against climate.
“President Obama has a choice to make: he can sign with the industry on this, or he can side with the climate movement.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287087-obama-moves-to-undercut-greens-in-drilling-fight
-
Panel To Focus On Massive Gas Play In The West
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
Much of the nation's gas development has been focused on the East Coast, but Congress this week will turn its focus to Colorado's Mancos Shale play, the single largest shale deposit in the West.
The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, whose chairman hails from the Centennial State, will explore the opportunities and challenges of developing the gas deposit.
The hearing is notable in light of the U.S. Geological Survey's recent finding that the field contains more than 40 times more shale gas than initially thought.
USGS last month found that Mancos contains 66 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, compared to a 2003 estimate of 1.6 trillion cubic feet.
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman of the panel, is expected to focus on what policies are at play at the Bureau of Land Management that affect the development of the Mancos formation and how the agency plans to incorporate the USGS findings.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, July 12, at 10:30 a.m. in 1334 Longworth.
Witnesses: Rose Pugliese, a commissioner for Mesa County, Colo.; Robert Downey, vice president of production and business development for Gunnison Energy LLC; Robbie Guinn, vice president of land for SG Interests; and Walter Guidroz, energy resources program coordinator for USGS.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/11/stories/1060040031
-
Most States, Utilities See Carbon Regulation As Inevitable
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Electric utilities have not stopped working through scenarios for complying with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan should it survive legal challenges, in the view of Michael Tubman, director of outreach at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
"They want to make sure that whatever their plans are make sense over the long term," he said.
Tubman will be part of a panel on the EPA carbon rule tomorrow in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual conference.
In an interview, Tubman provided a preview of what he intends to say, in particular trying to explain "what the responsibilities of states are when it comes to the Clean Power Plan and the underlying Clean Air Act."
"For many states, it's the first time that air directors and environmental commissioners have worked closely with public utility commissioners or energy office officials. And that's really positive, not just for the CPP but state planning overall," Tubman said. "The relationships that have developed over the last 18 months or so have really been positive.
"There are a couple of states that are truly not doing anything at all. And there are a couple of states that are continuing on as if nothing had happened. But the vast majority of states are continuing to think or work on the plan in some fashion," he said.
"I think most states and utilities and other stakeholders believe the stay will be lifted and at some point there will be regulation of carbon from the power sector and they don't want to be caught flat-footed. They want to take this additional time to think more and learn more about what a good compliance plan is," he said.
Over the weekend, legislators from Southern states met in Lexington, Ky., on a wide range of issues including energy and environment. On Saturday, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power and a harsh critic of EPA, led a discussion of energy and politics in an election year.
Yesterday, Republican state Rep. William Sandifer of South Carolina led a discussion on "Clearing the Air: An Update on the Clean Power Plan" that featured Washington attorney Roger Martella, who was general counsel at EPA under President George W. Bush. EnergyWire's Kristi E. Swartz is covering the meeting.
The Energy Information Administration's 2016 Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., tomorrow will feature a morning panel on the Clean Power Plan that will explore state and regional perspectives. It will be moderated by EIA Deputy Administrator Howard Gruenspecht and feature EPA senior counsel Joseph Goffman and Tubman at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
Also tomorrow, the National Town Meeting on Demand Response and Smart Grid in Washington, D.C., will include a panel discussion by state regulators from Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Washington state and Maryland on changes underway in the electricity system where the potential effects of the Clean Power Plan cannot be ignored.
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060040032
-
EPA Removal of Civil Penalty Shield Triggers Utility Lawsuit
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to remove a provision that shielded utilities from being penalized for excess emissions caused by unavoidable equipment malfunctions drove a power industry trade association to sue the agency (ARIPPA v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1168, statements filed 7/8/16).
The EPA removed the civil penalty shield, known as an affirmative defense, from its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for power plants in an April rule that made “technical corrections” to the standards. The agency is in the midst of removing affirmative defense language from various air pollution rules in response to a 2014 federal appeals court decision that found the inclusion of a similar civil penalty shield in hazardous air pollution standards for cement kilns to be outside the scope of the agency's Clean Air Act authority (Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 78 ERC 1369, 2014 BL 108218 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
The Utility Air Regulatory Group, which filed one of the three active lawsuits over the technical corrections rule, said in a July 8 court filing that it intends to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review whether the EPA acted illegally in removing the affirmative defense for malfunctions. Specifically, the trade association raised the question of whether the EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it removed the civil penalty shield without otherwise taking malfunctions into account in the standards setting process.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, issued in 2012, required the utility industry to spend billions on pollution controls to reduce emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
Refuse, Startup Provisions Challenged
The technical corrections rule (RIN:2060-AS41) also is the subject of litigation from ARIPPA, a trade association that represents coal refuse power plants. In a separate July 8 filing, ARIPPA raised a number of legal questions related to the EPA's decision to revise the regulatory definition of the term “coal refuse” under the power plant mercury standards.
ARIPPA said it will ask the court to consider whether the EPA acted illegally when it characterized the revised definition as a clarification, even though the new definition will have “material substantive consequences” on the scope of the power plant standards. The power plant trade association argued in 2015 comments submitted to the agency that the revised definition of coal refuse should be considered a substantive regulatory change that would warrant a reevaluation of emissions limits established under the mercury rule to determine if the limits would apply to additional pollution sources.
Work practice standards that apply during power plant startup are the focus of litigation brought by a coalition of environmental organizations that includes the Sierra Club. The environmental petitioners, in a July 7 filing, questioned whether the agency failed to meet threshold requirements of Section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act for establishing work practice standards for facilities to meet in the place of numerical emissions limits.
The environmental coalition also suggested that the EPA may have violated the Clean Air Act by establishing startup work practices that are not consistent with the provisions of Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Temporary Halt Requested
The technical corrections rule marked the third time the EPA revised the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards since they were issued. The two prior revisions to the rule also are under review by the D.C. Circuit and are currently being held in abeyance (Chesapeake Bay Found. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 13-1200, report filed 6/17/16; Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, No. 15-1013, D.C. Cir., motion filed6/15/16).
The parties involved in litigation over the technical corrections rule, including the EPA, filed a July 8motion to hold the consolidated cases in abeyance for 60 days.
The parties filed the request in order to obtain additional time to consider how litigation over the technical corrections rule should proceed, whether some of the issues at hand can be consolidated with the other pending cases and whether some issues can be resolved through alternative means.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group is represented by a team of attorneys with Hunton & Williams LLP, led by Lauren Freeman. ARIPPA is represented by Bart Cassidy and Katherine Vaccaro, partners with Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox LLP. The environmental petitioners are represented by Patton Dycus and Eric Schaeffer with the Environmental Integrity Project, as well as Earthjustice attorneys James Pew and Neil Gormley.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93268491&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93268491&jd=93268491
-
Gas Pipeline Rule to Cost $33 Billion, Industry Says
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Proposed safety regulations for pipelines transporting natural gas would cost industry $33.4 billion—more than 50 times the amount estimated by the Transportation Department when it unveiled them earlier this year, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
The trade group included the figure in comments submitted to the department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as energy companies and groups representing them joined in criticizing the rule on grounds ranging from being overly burdensome to out of the agency's jurisdiction. Comments were due July 7.
“PHMSA significantly overstates the benefits and underestimates the cost and burden to industry that would be required to implement the expansive proposals,” said the API, which represents companies such as Chevron and pipeline operator Spectra Energy Corp. “The proposed new rules set forth in the [Notice of Proposed Rule Making] would nearly double the size of the gas pipeline safety regulations ... and represent the most sweeping expansion of federal authority in the 48-year history of the program.”
The 549-page “gas transmission” rule modifies regulations related to the impact, design, construction, maintenance, operations and integrity management of gas transmission and gathering pipelines.
It includes provisions that would regulate pipelines in more modestly populated areas for the first time, set new testing requirements for pipelines built before 1970 and end an exemption on regulation currently in place for most pipes used in the mid-stream production process known as “gathering lines.”
Lessons From San Bruno Explosion
The proposal comes in response to incidents such as the 2010 explosion of a 54-year-old intrastate pipeline segment owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in a residential area of San Bruno, Calif., that killed eight people and leveled dozens of homes.
“The proposed rule will make commonsense and critical improvements to pipeline safety by incorporating lessons learned from the San Bruno incident, responding to important [National Transportation Safety Board] recommendations, and implementing better protections for communities,” PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said in a statement provided to Bloomberg BNA. “The rulemaking process is intended to be comprehensive, and we look forward to reviewing all comments received from the public and our stakeholders as we work to finalize this rule in the months ahead.”
An agency spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment on the API's cost estimate, which the trade group said was calculated by ICF International. API said it hired ICF International after PHMSA “grossly underestimated the costs” and overestimated the benefits of the rule. In the rule, the agency estimated its 15-year cost would be $597 million, with benefits as high as $3.7 billion over that same time period.
Among those who say they would be hit particularly hard by the rule are those that own and operate midstream gas services, including pipelines that are used to transport natural gas from the wellhead to processing facilities and other collection points.
Those pipelines, known as gathering lines, are typically smaller in diameter and lower in pressure than transmission lines and have been largely unregulated, but PHMSA's proposed rule would repeal an exemption for gas gathering line reporting requirements and extend regulatory requirements to previously unregulated pipelines eight inches in diameter or greater in more rural areas.
Continued Inaction ‘Unacceptable.'
“In some instances, PHMSA has offered little, if any, evidence to show that the proposed changes are reasonable or necessary,” the GPA Midstream Association, which represents companies such as Williams Co. and Targa Resources Corp. said in their comments to the agency. “GPA Midstream is concerned that PHMSA's proposals are not based on evidence or the actual risk posed by gathering pipelines.”
Still the rule was cheered by environmental groups as well as pipeline safety advocates such as the Pipeline Safety Trust.
“Nearly six years have passed since the San Bruno tragedy and it is imperative that PHMSA issue these final rules to begin reducing industry-wide safety risks that were known before or became known as a result of the San Bruno investigations,” the Bellingham, Wash.-based organization said in its comments. “Continued regulatory inaction would be unacceptable.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93268500&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93268500&jd=93268500
-
House To Take Up Rider-Laden Interior-EPA Bill
Jul 11, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Amanda Reilly
The House this week will take up a fiscal 2017 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA that would gut many of the Obama administration's signature environmental regulations.
The legislation contains dozens of riders aimed at curtailing Obama rules in the areas of greenhouse gases, air pollution, water pollution, oil and gas production, conservation, and lands management.
EPA would receive $7.98 billion, about $164 million less than the agency's current funding level and well below President Obama's request of $8.26 billion. Other agencies funded under the bill would see generally modest cuts or small increases (E&ENews PM, June 15).
Members of the House have filed 142 amendments to the legislation. The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet tonight to decide debate parameters and which amendments will make it to the floor.
The new House process of not considering all amendments to spending bills is meant to avoid the situation that happened last year, when GOP leaders had to pull the Interior-EPA bill when partisan fighting broke out over Confederate flag provisions.
Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) has said he hopes the House will finish the bill by the end of the week, when lawmakers leave for their summer recess. President Obama is likely to issue a veto threat for the bill because of riders and funding levels.
The dozens of amendments filed to the bill include several that would spark bitter partisan fighting if they made it to the floor.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) is once again seeking to bring up a debate on the display of the Confederate flag. He filed two amendments that would prohibit Confederate flag decorations at graves in federal cemeteries and would bar the sales of items with a Confederate flag in National Park Service facilities.
And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) filed an amendment that would prohibit funds for any signage or policies to designate transgender bathrooms.
Earlier this year, floor debate over the energy and water appropriations bill steered into the controversy over lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender protections. The bill went on to fail (Greenwire, May 26).
Other amendments filed last week seek to decrease funding levels in the $32.1 billion legislation. An amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would put in place a 1 percent across-the-board spending cut. An amendment by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) would cut EPA's funding levels by 17 percent.
Republicans have also filed amendments to limit EPA's law enforcement powers by restricting employees' ability to carry guns and bullets.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the sponsor of one of those amendments, has filed a separate measure that would bar EPA employees from using agency funds for airline travel.
"Since the EPA wants to travel abroad to discuss reducing global emissions, they should do their part and teleconference," a spokeswoman for Hudson said Friday (Greenwire, July 8).
Other Republican amendments would add more policy riders restricting Obama administration regulatory activity. Democrats have several amendments that seek to reverse the bill language curtailing regulations (Greenwire, July 7).
House Natural Resources ranking member Raul Grijalva sent Rules leaders a letter Friday urging them to reject a proposed amendment to strip language from the bill meant to protect Native American land taken into trust.
The language is in response to the controversial Supreme Court Carcieri v. Salazar ruling, which limited trust lands.
Natural Resources Republicans are working on a fix and would like to see the provision off the spending bill, said Grijalva.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/11/stories/1060040024
-
Bill Would Bar Use of Social Cost of Carbon in Rulemakings
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Legislation introduced in the House July 7 would bar the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department from using tools designed to estimate the costs to society from greenhouse gas emissions as a way to justify regulations.
The Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act (H.R. 5668), introduced by Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.), would bar the agencies from utilizing the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane in rulemakings.
“Continued use by the Department of Energy and the EPA of the [estimates] ignores sound science in order to eliminate the exploration, mining, production and use of our abundant domestic sources of fossil fuel energy,” the text of the bill states.
In addition, the legislation requires the administrator of the EPA, in conjunction with the Energy Department, Interior Department and White House Council on Environmental Quality, to craft a report within 120 days of its enactment detailing agency actions that used the estimates in any cost-benefit analysis.
Republican Reps. Steve Womack (Ark.), John Culberson (Texas), Darin LaHood (Ill.) and Markwayne Mullin (Okla.) co-sponsored the legislation.
Ongoing Effort to Block Figures
Both Senate and House Republicans have repeatedly raised questions about the use of both figures to justify regulations, warning neither has been properly developed. Efforts to block their usage, mainly through amendments to other legislation, have failed to become law.
The social cost of methane is meant to capture the monetary impacts of methane emissions on society, while the social cost of carbon is meant to reflect the social and economic costs of carbon dioxide emissions in federal actions and rulemakings,
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has repeatedly asked the Obama administration for additional information about both figures and urged it to suspend efforts to curb methane pollution.
An initial report from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in January 2016 concluded no near-term update of the social cost of carbon was necessary from the current figure of $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, but it did recommend changes to technical support documents to enhance characterizations of uncertainties.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93268494&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93268494&jd=93268494
-
Cheap Carbon May Thwart Climate Change Efforts
Jul 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr and Joe Ryan
Carbon markets, the free-enterprise solution to saving the world from global warming, are now in danger themselves.
The idea was simple enough: Set a cap on carbon emissions, issue enough permits to allow power plants, refineries and the like to stay within those limits and then shrink the cap over time to achieve reductions. The companies whose emissions fall fastest can sell their permits for a profit to slower responders—call it a reward for good behavior.
The reality, though, is more complex. Undercut by a lack of political will on the size of caps and overtaken by costly new environmental mandates, carbon markets in the U.S., Europe and Asia are collapsing, with prices so low they've become virtually valueless. The credits auctioned in the U.S. Northeast in June, for instance, sold for just $4.53 a short ton, a 40 percent drop from December.
“Climate policy has been muddled and messy,” said Michael Grubb, a professor at University College London's Institute for Sustainable Resources who has advised the U.K. energy regulator. “Governments have set inadequate targets due to lobbying pressures and because they didn't think carefully enough about overlapping efforts. That has destroyed investor confidence that carbon prices will rise.”
The idea of a carbon market originated 20 years ago with Richard Sandor, an economist who also pioneered interest-rate futures and derivatives at the Chicago Board of Trade. Today, there are 38 countries, cities, states and provinces using pricing systems in an attempt to put a lid on greenhouse gases, according to the World Bank.
The problem is that the permits are selling at a slower and slower rate. The surplus of allowances is becoming so large in systems run by Europe, California and Quebec—which together account for more than 90 percent of global trading—that by 2022 it could cover the emissions spewing from every car on Earth for a full year, according to estimates by the London environmental group Sandbag Climate Campaign CIC and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
In California's market, all 23 million allowances sold in an auction in 2014. In May, 7.3 million permits found buyers, only 11 percent of what was put up for sale.
‘Extreme Paranoia.’
The markets are crumbling just as the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union throws into question the future of the world's largest market by threatening to shrink demand. Nor does the collapse bode well for China, as the world's top greenhouse-gas emitter prepares to start its own next year.
Alex Rau, a principal at the carbon-trading advisory group Climate Wedge Ltd., chalks up the downfall largely to “an extreme paranoia” that the price of carbon will rise too high. So instead of strengthening caps unpopular among some oil companies, polluting factories and consumers who ultimately shoulder costs, politicians around the world have stitched together a patchwork of overlapping measures that are less vulnerable to lobbyists.
Take the U.S., where states including California run carbon markets but have also imposed other regulations that require gasoline suppliers to cut the carbon intensity of their fuel and utilities to buy increasing volumes of solar and wind power.
“When you put in place all these other mandates, there is little work left for carbon markets,” said Meredith Fowlie, an economist and research associate at the University of California at Berkeley department of agriculture and resource economics.
‘Insanely Expensive.’
Policies are undercutting the markets in some places.
“Some of the renewable-energy subsidies are stupidly, insanely expensive per ton of carbon dioxide saved,” said Louis Redshaw, who has his own emissions-trading company, Redshaw Advisors Ltd. in London, and was previously head of carbon at Barclays Plc. “Politicians are not only failing to deliver a comprehensive carbon price for the economy, they are busy undermining them where they exist.”
In California, the state Air Resources Board still has the authority to pull excess permits from circulation to avoid a glut, said Dave Clegern, a spokesman for the agency. “One auction tells us very little,” he said. “We're in the long game here.”
Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission in Brussels, noted that its emissions targets under a climate agreement hammered out by leaders in Paris last year were among the most ambitious in the world. EU carbon allowances fell as much as 3.1 percent to 4.44 euros ($4.92) a metric ton on ICE Futures Europe in London on July 8, the lowest since July 1. They've dropped 45 percent in the year to date.
Germany, meanwhile, acknowledged that the system run by the EU is in need of an overhaul, especially in light of the Paris climate pact. “We will need to look at our ambition,” Michael Schroeren, a spokesman for Germany's environment ministry, said in a statement. “After more than 10 years of emissions trading in Europe, we can look back on the lessons learned.”
China risks falling into the same trap as others. While regulators looking to establish a national market there appear to be trying to avoid an oversupply, prices are already plummeting in pilots they're running, said Sophie Lu, an analyst in Beijing at Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Just as carbon market history has repeated itself around the world, Lu said, China “may not be willing to pay the political and economic costs.”
With assistance from Heesu Lee and Brian Parkin.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93268480&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93268480&jd=93268480
-
Texas Air Regulators Seek 'Truly Balanced' EPA Particulate NAAQS Review
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Texas air regulators are urging EPA to change its plan for reviewing its particulate matter (PM) air standards to address what the state sees as a perceived bias toward finding greater health impacts and a need for stricter regulation, calling instead for a "truly balanced" review on the adverse effects associated with the existing limit.
The draft IRP, released in April, is EPA's plan to analyze scientific evidence to support the review of the PM national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) last reviewed in 2012, and sets the agenda for EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) which will then inform a policy assessment document that sets out policy options for EPA. The agency plans to complete the review in 2021, four years behind the Clean Air Act deadline for doing the review by 2017.
EPA in 2012 tightened its primary (health-based) annual NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from the prior 1997 level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3, but retained the 150 ug/m3 standard for larger "coarse" PM (PM10), averaged over 24 hours, without revision. EPA will weigh whether scientific data justify any changes to the PM standards, and seek input from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
As part of the nascent review process, EPA took comment through June 23 on the IRP, which CASAC members in May said should consider a wider range of issues and data than proposed so far.
In June 23 written comments, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) says EPA should not start its NAAQS review with a mandate that leans toward tough regulation, as it says the IRP appears to do.
The IRP asks: "Does the currently available scientific evidence and exposure-/risk-based information support or call into question the adequacy of the protection afforded by the current primary and/or secondary PM standards?”
Also, the IRP adds, EPA will consider, "if warranted," a second question: "What alternative standards are supported by the currently available scientific evidence and exposure-/risk-based information, and are appropriate for consideration?"
TCEQ says that the "current overarching question presented in the draft IRP ignores the possibility that new information could weaken the support for the current NAAQS, focusing instead on only maintaining or strengthening the NAAQS by detailing that the review will assess whether 'the currently available scientific evidence and exposure-/risk-based information support[s] or call[s] into question the adequacy of . . . the current primary PM2.5 or PM10 standards.'"
Instead, "a balanced overarching question should be 'does the currently available scientific evidence and exposure-/risk-based information detract from, support, or call into question the adequacy of the public health protection afforded by the current primary PM2.5 or PM10 standards?' A truly balanced review should address both positive and negative associations relating to the current NAAQS," according to the comments.
Scientific Uncertainties
The state does, however, welcome EPA's bid to address various scientific uncertainties as part of the review, saying "multipollutant mixtures, exposure measurement error, nature and magnitude of risk at low concentrations of PM, heterogeneity of responses within and between cities and regions, and general uncertainty regarding potential impacts of PM on reproductive and developmental endpoints are particularly important."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) in its June 23 comments, meanwhile, notes that CASAC expressed concern about EPA's "study quality" criteria, which give greater prominence to "high quality" studies.
The IRP's "discussion of study quality, including how it will be characterized and how the quality assessments will impact conclusions of the ISA, might benefit from further clarification. Some CASAC members expressed concern that this discussion was too vague, and others suggested that all mention of study quality assessment be dropped from the IRP; CASAC did not come to a consensus as to what to recommend," API says.
API further raises a host of other concerns with the IRP, including that EPA better define "at-risk" or "sensitive" groups with respect to PM health effects on humans, and that the agency narrow the category of scientific evidence that it considers "suggestive" of harmful health effects from the pollutant.
The American Lung Association (ALA) in its June 21 comments is supportive of EPA's proposed focus on new studies focused on the emerging health effects of PM examined in the prior scientific review in 2009 "review where new evidence can help inform the conclusions about causality and exposure."
ALA also supports EPA's decision to focus primarily on PM2.5 and the so-called "coarse fraction" of particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in size. "We support the proposal to follow the previous CASAC recommendations to focus on PM 10-2.5 as well as PM 2.5 with PM10 research supplementing that review rather than being the core perspective, and the continued examination of ultrafine particles," the group says. PM2.5 is blamed for more health effects than PM10, while ultrafine particles -- those less than 100 nanometers in diameter -- are also suspected of causing harm to health, but are less well understood than larger particles.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/texas-air-regulators-seek-truly-balanced-epa-particulate-naaqs-review
-
D.C. Circuit Sets Oral Argument In EPA DSW Rule Suit
Jul 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set oral argument for Oct. 21 in consolidated litigation filed by industry groups and environmentalists over EPA's definition of solid waste (DSW) rule.
The court set argument in a July 8 order in the consolidated case, American Petroleum Institute, et al. v. EPA, in which industry petitioners are asking the court to loosen certain requirements where they allege EPA has overreached, while environmentalists argue certain exemptions in the rule exceed EPA's authority.
Industry, for instance, argues EPA is regulating non-discarded materials through its rule, issued in January 2015, while environmentalists charge that the rule's "verified recycler exclusion" exceeds the agency's authority and must be rejected under the Supreme Court's test for when to defer to agencies on their rulemakings.
The rule mandates the use of all four of the agency's criteria for determining that recycling of hazardous waste is legitimate, rather than just two under a Bush-era rule. It also eliminates a transfer-based exclusion from the solid waste definition, replacing it with the stricter verified recycler exclusion, allowing those who meet certain criteria an alternative to following strict hazardous waste requirements.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/dc-circuit-sets-oral-argument-epa-dsw-rule-suit
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News -There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested