Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/15/16
-
Companies Need EPA to Specify Exposure Texts for TSCA Data
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies need the Environmental Protection Agency to specify exposure tests that would generate data the agency can accept to implement the amended U.S. chemicals law, a former EPA official said July 14. -
Architects of TSCA Compromise See Hope For Polarized Congress
Jul 15, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Colby Bermel
Public and private stakeholders yesterday described the process and product of legislative efforts to overhaul the nation's 40-year-old chemicals laws in superlatives of unprecedented magnitude. -
What Does the Loss of ‘Green Chemistry’ Provision From Amended TSCA Mean for Biochemicals?
Jul 15, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
After years of negotiations between lawmakers, chemical companies and environmental groups, an updated Toxic Substances Control Act— the nation’s primary chemical safety regulations — became law late last month, greeted by much fanfare on both sides of the isle and the issue. -
Asbestos Awareness Group Expects Swift EPA TSCA Ban For Substance
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) that has long called for an outright ban on asbestos is confident that EPA will use new authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the substance, despite concerns from other advocates that the law does not mandate a specific ban on asbestos. -
Zara, H&M and Benetton 'On Track' To Meet Greenpeace Detox Commitments
Jul 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Fashion giants Zara, H&M and Benetton have topped this year's Greenpeace Detox Catwalk report. This provides the NGO's perspectives on which companies are making good on their commitments to remove hazardous chemicals from their supply chains by 2020. -
EU Releases Proposals on Cosmetics, Medical Devices, Cars, Chemicals
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
New EU proposals in trade talks with the U.S. are aimed at simplifying technical regulations in the cosmetics, medical devices, cars, chemicals and textiles sectors, the European Commission said. -
Green Chemistry Is The Path To Chemical Safety
Jul 14, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Tess Carter amd Glynis Lough
On June 22nd, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Actwas signed into law, bringing the first legislative reform to chemical management regulation in 40 years! From car seats to zippers, nearly every product in and out of the home has the potential to change because of this bill - meaning your favorite toy or cooking pan could be reformulated because chemicals toxic to human health are used in the production. -
House Passes Interior, EPA Spending Bill
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House passed a $32.1 billion bill funding the Interior Department and environmental programs next year, the first time the legislation has cleared the House since 2009. -
House Passes First Interior-EPA Bill In Years
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The House approved a $32.1 billion spending bill this afternoon that would cut U.S. EPA's budget next year and hamstring Obama administration efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, tighten regulations on the oil and gas industry, and name new national monuments. -
House Passes $32 Billion Spending Bill For Interior, EPA
Jul 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Lawmakers in the House of Representatives on Thursday passed a $32 billion appropriations bill to fund the Department of Interior (DOI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies, but the bill contains numerous Republican provisions on energy development and faces an uphill climb to becoming law. -
House Approves EPA FY17 Bill With Additional Budget Cuts, Policy Riders
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
House lawmakers have over many Democrats' objections approved a fiscal year 2017 funding bill for EPA that includes additional budget cuts and prohibitions on major agency policies not contained in the originally introduced version of the measure, though the legislation faces a White House veto threat over many provisions. -
Slew of Riders Passes House With Interior, EPA Funding Bill
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The House passed a divisive bill to fund the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency July 14 with nearly lock-step Republican support and only three Democrats on board. -
Republicans ‘Out of Time' to Roll Back EPA Rules in 2016
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senior House and Senate Republicans acknowledged July 14 they are likely out of options to roll back Environmental Protection Agency regulations this Congress—including the controversial Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Rule. -
GOP Energy Negotiator Accuses Senate Chair Of 'Bizarre' Promise
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A House chairman assigned to an energy bill conference committee said it was “a little bit bizarre” to hear a Senate Republican promise to cut provisions from the bill that could earn a presidential veto. -
Fracking Eyed as Culprit in Latest Oklahoma Quakes
Jul 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
As regulators in Oklahoma scramble to figure out what caused a swarm of earthquakes outside an "area of interest" targeting wastewater injection wells, one researcher said there is a possibility the temblors were caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations. -
Energy Companies Spend Big To Fight Colorado Ballot Initiatives
Jul 14, 2016 | Reuters
By Liz Hampton
Energy companies in Colorado are spending millions of dollars to derail a push by environmentalists to put measures on November's ballot that would stifle oil and gas drilling in the state, according to a Reuters review of campaign finance records. -
Chemical Safety Board to Hold Public Business Meeting
Jul 14, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is holding a public business meeting on Wed., Jul. 26, 2016 in Washington, DC, the agency announced Thursday. -
$20.6 Million Award Upheld in TCE Hepatitis Case
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A $20.6 million award to a woman who claimed toxic chemicals dumped at a ball-bearing plant caused her hepatitis wasn't excessive, the Western District of Missouri ruled July 13 (Kirk v. Schaeffler Grp. USA, Inc., 2016 BL 224482, W.D. Mo., No. 13-cv-5032, 7/13/16). -
House, Senate Crude Train Bills Offered Following Crash
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Railroads would be required to manually inspect tracks near waterways and other “high consequence areas” by foot, under legislation responding to the Mosier, Ore., derailment of a train carrying crude oil. -
Regulators, Industry Debate How Many It Takes to Run a Train
Jul 14, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Imani Moise
On Friday, regulators, industry representatives, unions and politicians will argue what’s become one of the most contentious issues in the rail industry: whether the Federal Railroad Administration should mandate that trains have a minimum crew size. -
The Future of Cities: Green Building to Driverless Cars
Jul 14, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Margaret Walls
Cities in the U.S. are leading the way on climate and energy policies—especially policies targeting commercial and residential buildings, which can account for up to 75% of total energy use in cities.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Companies Need EPA to Specify Exposure Texts for TSCA Data
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies need the Environmental Protection Agency to specify exposure tests that would generate data the agency can accept to implement the amended U.S. chemicals law, a former EPA official said July 14.
Chemical manufacturers and processors will need to give exposure and toxicity data to the EPA for it to evaluate the risks of new and existing chemicals as required by the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act, said Charles Auer, who directed the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics under multiple administrations. Auer spoke July 14 during a webinar organized by Bergeson & Campbell PC.
The webinar focused on changes the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182) made to provisions of TSCA that govern chemicals in commerce, called “existing chemicals,” and new chemicals, which manufacturers would like to make or import but have never been in U.S. commerce.
Health and environmental toxicity tests have been codified into law by the EPA, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell in Washington, D.C.
It can direct companies to use such tests to develop data using the order and other authorities provided under the Lautenberg Act, she said.
The agency does not have standard exposure tests, said Auer, a consultant with Charles Auer & Associates LLC.
“The need to develop those will slow things at least initially, but I'm confident EPA is up to the challenge,” he said.
Monitoring Methodologies
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said there are established methodologies for certain types of exposure tests that could provide EPA data.
These include environmental and biological monitoring equipment, Denison said. Monitors measure the presence of chemicals, for example, in the workplace, air, water or soil.
He agreed with Auer, however, that the agency will need to develop agreement on and issue guidance for other sources of exposure data. These include computer models that could generate exposure predictions, Denison said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947388&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947388&jd=93947388
-
Architects of TSCA Compromise See Hope For Polarized Congress
Jul 15, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Colby Bermel
Public and private stakeholders yesterday described the process and product of legislative efforts to overhaul the nation's 40-year-old chemicals laws in superlatives of unprecedented magnitude.
Panelists at an event hosted yesterday by the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C., chronicled in great detail how the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" came to be and offered lessons for future lawmaking.
There wouldn't have been a Lautenberg Act, of course, without the original Toxic Substances Control Act, signed into law by President Ford in 1976. Everyone in the chemicals community -- members of Congress, U.S. EPA officials, industry leaders and environmentalists -- agreed that TSCA was toothless. It only regulated five of the 62,000 chemicals in commerce at the time of passage.
The situation wasn't helped by a 1991 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA -- that required the agency to use cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to ban a toxic substance. This "crippled" EPA, said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and planted in his mind the seeds of action.
For a long time, the leading advocate for chemicals reform was the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). He kicked off the 11-year journey in 2005 with the "Kid-Safe Chemicals Act." Largely seen as a message bill, it didn't make any progress for eight years -- in fact, quite the opposite.
"From 2005 to 2013, it was a war. We weren't getting anything done," Udall said. "People were throwing rocks and bombs at each other, and it just wasn't happening. You had a very dysfunctional process."
Things changed in 2013, though, when Lautenberg tried again and introduced the "Safe Chemicals Act." It was endorsed by The New York Times editorial board in April. But six weeks later, the New Jersey Democrat died.
But that didn't dissuade Udall from taking the torch of reform from Lautenberg.
"This was something that I had been following very carefully, closely, and thought, 'This is a great opportunity. Let's pick this up and make it go,'" Udall said.
The New Mexican then approached Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), then the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, about resuming Lautenberg's work. The two had dinner at the Monocle, a steak and seafood restaurant steps away from the Senate office buildings, to discuss the prospect and agreed to go forward.
Udall also talked with Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie, to get her blessing, and she wholeheartedly gave support.
Before he died, Lautenberg secured 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans to sponsor his "Safe Chemicals Act" -- "very unusual to see something like that in the Senate," Udall said.
It wasn't just the upper chamber involved, however. The Republican-majority House held several fact-finding hearings on TSCA.
"We're not playing messaging games," said David McCarthy, chief counsel for House Energy and Commerce Subcommitte on Environment and the Economy. "This is for enactment purposes."
McCarthy spoke of the need to build genuine support for TSCA legislation, cultivating buy-in from individual members. This was needed, he and Udall said, because of the institutional differences between the two chambers.'Just keep them glued together'
Republicans regained control of the Senate in November 2014, with GOP members taking over committee reins from Democrats.
"Normally, what happens around this place, you all know, is you take advantage of being in the majority. So David could've put in his own bill and tried to rustle up Democrats for his bill," Udall said. "But he came back again and was an example of him staying at the table. And if he had walked away, I don't know what would've happened."
The original players, then, picked up where they left off. "At this point," McCarthy said, "members were very interested but also cautious and careful."
A major milestone came when lawmakers agreed to the bifurcation of risk evaluation and risk management. This decision was made intentionally before another key one had to be debated: the pre-emption of states by EPA.
"To keep ourselves together for as long as possible, and build as much bond -- sort of when you're trying to glue two things together -- just keep them glued together before you start pulling them apart," McCarthy said of this early progress. "That's kind of why we put off the pre-emption conversation for a while. But we had to do it, and we did."
Back on the Senate side, Udall knew he needed the support of liberal Democrats. So he recruited Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey (Lautenberg's successor), Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island -- who Udall dubbed "the trio" -- and essentially gave them leeway to meet with private stakeholders to negotiate what they wanted in TSCA reform. Once they came up with "positive improvements," the New Mexican became optimistic.
But both Udall and McCarthy knew they had to keep their partisan troops in check.
"We had felt all along that to be successful in enacting the law, it had to be strongly bipartisan," McCarthy said. "We knew that the Senate's not just going to do something that comes over from the House that's on a party-line vote, because that would just kill it. ... We've got to keep this bipartisan thing together."
This mandate was personally reinforced by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of its Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. Another leader who played a major role was Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), along with top committee Democrats, Reps. Gene Green of Texas and Diana DeGette of Colorado.
Across the Capitol, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Udall and Vitter that if their bill wasn't bipartisan, it wouldn't get even a minute of floor time from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Five months after the 114th Congress began, the biggest test yet came for the House. McCarthy got a call from leadership asking if the chemicals bill could go to the floor under suspension of the rules.
"I took a deep gulp and said, 'Wow, that means I have to have two-thirds'" of members supporting the measure, McCarthy recalled. "'And I have to promise you now that you will get two-thirds because I should be fired if we don't.' You don't put the House leadership and the whole House through a humiliating exercise."
McCarthy then called his counterpart Jacqueline Cohen, senior counsel for the Energy and Commerce Committee's Democrats, to see if they could help usher the bill to the floor.
"She said, 'I can hold my guys if you can hold yours,'" McCarthy continued. "Wow, what a challenge."'Nothing even comes close to this'
June 23, 2015, was when H.R. 2576 was considered as unfinished business. But literally 10 minutes before that happened, a moment of silence was observed for the victims of the church shooting in Charleston, S.C., which happened six days earlier.
"I'm telling you, you never saw such a poignant moment in your life," McCarthy said. "Members were literally holding hands with each other. They bowed their heads in prayer. And at the end of a minute, you hear the gavel rap."
This spirit of bipartisanship, McCarthy believes, resulted in the TSCA reform effort passing the House 398-1.
The Senate agreed to it by voice vote, and a year later saw the end of a successful conference process, with President Obama signing it into law last month (Greenwire, June 22).
"I only started on the Hill in 1980, but I have never seen a piece of legislation that had so much direct member involvement," McCarthy said. "And I'm talking about hours invested directly by members. Nothing even comes close to this."
Both sides feel they wrote a strong law to be implemented by Jim Jones, the assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).
"The one thing we wanted to make sure we did is not produce a law that wasn't going to work for Jim and his folks over at EPA," Udall said.
Jones was credited for being a tremendous help to lawmakers.
"The role toward the end that Jim Jones played, certainly with the House side, was absolutely indispensable," McCarthy said. "We understood we're giving Jim a lot of responsibility, including a lot of interpretive responsibility that we felt comfortable with."
Jones returned the praise.
"The staffs in the House and Senate were remarkable," he said. "And the degree of integrity and creativity and problem-solving, it was an amazing career experience for me, which I'm very grateful to have had."
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at Bergeson & Campbell, praised the Lautenberg Act as "an elegantly written, balanced and entirely implementable law that will make the world a better place."
Jones said "people at EPA are very excited about implementation, and I think we've actually hit the ground running."'Compromise is not a bad word'
Participants in the TSCA negotiations yesterday had advice to those looking for insights into the legislative process.
"If it's not a priority for the next chairman, it's not going to happen," McCarthy said, citing Upton's personal investment in chemicals reform.
Udall agreed. "Visiting with the key people at the top of the chain, the ranking members and the chairmen and chairwomen, what are their priorities? If it's not their priority, you don't get off the dime."
Then, the New Mexican said, "You need to find champions on your environmental bills that also have political will, that they're willing to do more than just introduce a bill. They need to deal with every stakeholder."
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the best hope for reform was through Congress.
He described the process as like climbing a mountain: You aren't necessarily going to climb it in one attempt, you can't do it by yourself, and you need to set up base camps.
"We became convinced that the only way to fix these problems was to move the bill through the legislative process -- to get people to engage, to make changes in exchange for their support, and broaden that," Denison said. "And that was a way not only to build support, but to sustain momentum over more than one Congress to ultimately get it done."
A fellow environmentalist disagreed, however.
"Some people felt that the worst thing that could happen would be for this to fall apart, and some of us felt the worst thing that could happen would be to end up with a bad bill. We were in that camp," said the Natural Resources Defense Council's government affairs director, David Goldston.
"The question in legislation always is, sort of this twin thing, how much do you push where you finally do yourself harm, and when you do OK something that you think is really not good enough but it's the most you can have? That's always a judgment, and our judgment on that was often different from some of the people in this town," he continued. "In the end, I think the bill is better for that, even if we are less excited by the final result than some people here."
The Lautenberg act, though, is the first and only overhaul to TSCA in nearly 40 years. And in this polarized day and age, bipartisanship won out.
"Compromise is not a bad word," Udall said. "We actually have people campaigning today, elected officials, that say 'I'm going to go to Washington, and I'm not going to compromise.' If you're going to elect somebody like that, you're not going to get anything done here."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/15/stories/1060040331
-
What Does the Loss of ‘Green Chemistry’ Provision From Amended TSCA Mean for Biochemicals?
Jul 15, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
After years of negotiations between lawmakers, chemical companies and environmental groups, an updated Toxic Substances Control Act— the nation’s primary chemical safety regulations — became law late last month, greeted by much fanfare on both sides of the isle and the issue.
One industry sector that probably wasn’t celebrating as much as it had planned, however, was green chemistry — companies that develop biochemicals, sustainable plastics and other such technologies and processes.
The bill’s “green chemistry” provision, which focused on funding the research and development of sustainable chemistry, didn’t make it into the final version.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) originally added the green chemistry provision to the Senate version of the TSCA Reform, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697).
As Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbellwrites in a blog post, the provision “called for a study of how to best incentivize sustainable chemistry research and development, as well as support ‘economic, legal and other appropriate social science research to identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of sustainable chemistry.’”
It also created an EPA-led working group to coordinate federal sustainable chemical activities.
What does this mean for the future of biochemicals, sustainable plastics and other green chemistry sectors?
“While regrettable, the absence of the green chemistry provisions in the amended Toxic Substances Control Act is a setback, not a deal breaker,” Bergeson told Environmental Leader. “The green chemistry provisions in Section 24 of H.R. 2576 were taken from Senator Chris Coons’ (D-DE) Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act. Section 24 was eliminated reportedly because its inclusion would have been subject to review by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a different House Committee from the House Energy and Commerce Committee that had primary jurisdiction over TSCA reform, potentially complicating and delaying an already complicated and time-sensitive Congressional review process. The decision to forego this review and eliminate the green chemistry provisions is disappointing, but a failed TSCA reform effort would have been more so.”
Bergeson says the provision’s absence in the updated chemical safety law eliminates — for now — the development of and funding for a green chemistry strategy at the federal level. Sen. Coons is expected to introduce a similar bill next year.
Senators Coons, Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ed Markey (D-MA) have asked the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) for a technology review of sustainable chemistry. “The report, expected to be complete in the spring of 2017, can help illuminate the options available to the federal government to promote green chemistry whether by instigating new legislation or by serving as a resource which existing legal authorities can use to support this field that is so vital to economic competitiveness and/or use to diminish the less positive impacts of chemistry throughout our economy,” Bergeson said.
Meanwhile, more than 300 new chemicals that various companies are trying to bring to market stalled once President Obama signed the updated chemical safety law on June 22.
As Bloomberg BNA reports, the amended TSCA changed the criteria used by the EPA to decide if these chemicals can enter US commerce. The agency didn’t say when it would make decisions about these new chemicals.
The EPA has, however, EPA posted an Implementation Plan that outlines the agency’s first-year plans to implement the new chemical safety rules. It gives chemical companies and others a better idea of what, and when, they can expect in terms of EPA rulemaking and enforcement activities.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/07/15/what-does-the-loss-of-green-chemistry-provision-from-amended-tsca-mean-for-biochemicals/
-
Asbestos Awareness Group Expects Swift EPA TSCA Ban For Substance
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) that has long called for an outright ban on asbestos is confident that EPA will use new authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the substance, despite concerns from other advocates that the law does not mandate a specific ban on asbestos.
Although the TSCA law signed by President Obama June 22 does not mention asbestos by name, ADAO President Linda Reinstein told Inside EPA in a July 11 interview that the law "was written that way so EPA could address the risks of asbestos immediately."
The law mandates that EPA within 180 days of enactment list 10 chemicals for regulation, which are to be drawn from the agency's 2014 TSCA Work Plan that was designed to focus the efforts of its program to address risks from chemical chemicals. The plan detailed EPA's intended efforts to assess chemicals designated asbestos-like fibers and asbestos as "known human carcinogens" and as causing acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposure. However, the agency says that it has not yet initiated a risk assessment for the substances.
Under the new TSCA law, EPA's first 10 chemicals to undergo risk review must be drawn from the work plan, as well as at least half of the 20 chemicals the agency must slate for assessment within three and a half years of enactment. "I am confident EPA will select asbestos as one of the 10 work plan chemicals" in the first round of reviews, Reinstein said.
The law's section 6(b)(2)(D) includes language directing the agency to give preferences in designating high-priority substances for review to Work Plan chemicals that have a persistence and bioaccumulation score of 3, and to chemical substances that are listed in the 2014 plan as "known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity."
EPA's work plan assigns a persistence and bioaccumulation score of 2 to asbestos, but it meets the other qualifications that would give it priority status. EPA says in the work plan that asbestos and asbestos-like fibers are "known human carcinogens," and have "acute and chronic toxicity from inhalation exposures;" that they have high environmental persistence; and that they are widely used in consumer products, including indoor environments.
Assessing Chemicals
"In determining which chemicals to assess first, the final TSCA bill requires EPA to give priority to chemicals on the 2014 work plan that are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity," a congressional source says of the section 6(b)(2)(D) language. "Asbestos is the target of this provision."
In the interview with Inside EPA, Reinstein said ADAO sought in talks with lawmakers legislation that explicitly named and required immediate action on asbestos, but previous legislative efforts to that effect did not gain enough bipartisan support.
For example, in March 2015, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced an ultimately unsuccessful TSCA reform bill that would have explicitly authorized and required EPA to quickly ban asbestos, but that bill did not pick up any Republican sponsors.
But Reinstein said talks with EPA on implementation of the TSCA law have made it clear that the agency will be able to address asbestos in the first round of chemical reviews. If the agency does not ban asbestos swiftly, Reinstein cautioned that could seriously undermine the monumental legislative effort it took to overhaul the 1976 chemical safety law, sending a message that "TSCA reform is indeed, a failure."
Obama in his remarks at the law's signing ceremony cited the agency's inability to regulate asbestos as one of the reasons for supporting TSCA reform. "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," the president said. "I think most Americans would expect that we could come together to fix this law and do a better job protecting the American people."
Asbestos Ban
EPA tried to ban asbestos using authority under the original 1976 TSCA, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 1991 ruling in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA struck down the ban as unreasonable. The court said the agency had not met its burden of proof to establish the chemical's risk could not be reduced by any other regulatory means, and since then EPA has never proposed a similar limit on a chemical already in commerce.
The new law overhauls the old TSCA and takes many steps to address the legal hurdles that hindered EPA's asbestos ban, including removing language that required the agency to promulgate the "least burdensome" alternative and clarifying that EPA should not consider costs when determining whether a chemical is safe.
Some have suggested that even with the major changes to EPA's authority under section 6, the agency might facechallenges in banning asbestos given the limited scope of the chemical's use in commerce and other factors the agency must consider in determining what type of regulation to impose, including "cost-effectiveness" of the regulation. "That all has to be part of EPA's calculus," that source said.
Reinstein in the interview, however, said she is confident that there would be "no argument" in court that banning asbestos is cost-effective, given the high cost of treatment for mesothelioma and other cancers related to asbestos exposure; the fact that there are available substitutes that are less toxic; and that only one industrial sector -- the chloralkali industry -- is still an active user of asbestos in the United States, responsible for 90 percent of the imported asbestos.
"I know that any court would review the cost of banning asbestos against the cost of using asbestos," Reinstein says, adding that "I feel confident that no court would look at the cost of a substitute and weigh that against the cost of treating asbestos exposures" and find against a ban, including social costs, medical costs, lost wages and other byproducts of the asbestos-related cancers.
WHO Analysis
Reinstein also pointed to a World Health Organization (WHO) analysis that says, according to a July 6 WHO press release, health costs for dealing with asbestos-related diseases, "far outweigh the benefits, with annual direct health care costs estimated" at $2 billion to $3 billion U.S. dollars, not factoring in removal and replacement costs or litigation expenses.
Removal costs for legacy asbestos contamination and costs associated with past consumption, though not specifically addressed by TSCA, are another factor that courts may consider in reviewing an EPA ban, Reinstein says.
According to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), asbestos mining in the United States ceased in 2002, and consumption of imported asbestos has declined since 2011 from 1,180 tons to 358 tons in 2015. "The chloralkali industry accounted for an estimated 90% of U.S. consumption, with the remainder used in coatings and compounds, plastics, roofing products, and other unknown applications," USGS says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/asbestos-awareness-group-expects-swift-epa-tsca-ban-substance
-
Zara, H&M and Benetton 'On Track' To Meet Greenpeace Detox Commitments
Jul 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Fashion giants Zara, H&M and Benetton have topped this year's Greenpeace Detox Catwalk report. This provides the NGO's perspectives on which companies are making good on their commitments to remove hazardous chemicals from their supply chains by 2020.
Since the launch of the Detox fashion campaign in 2011, more than 70 brands and suppliers have taken the NGO's pledge. This commits them to phasing out 11 chemical classes of concern by 2020. Greenpeace says the involved companies represent 15% of global textile production.
In the NGO's third progress report, Inditex (which owns Zara), H&M and Benetton all earned high marks under the report's three main criteria:having a 'proactive and precautionary' plan in place for going toxic free by 2020;eliminating perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs); andshowing transparency around the disclosure of suppliers and the discharge of hazardous chemicals.
However, according to project leader Kirsten Brodde, the remaining 16 brands assessed by the NGO are "stumbling over transparency issues or failing to eliminate toxic chemicals.
"Our assessment shows that the textile industry as a whole is not doing enough to go toxic-free."ZDHC
Esprit, Limited Brands, Li-Ning and Nike earned the lowest marks of the 19 brands assessed. According to the report, Nike failed to satisfy any of the three assessed criteria.
A spokesperson from Nike told Chemical Watch that the company "has focused on addressing the potential use of hazardous chemicals within its supply chain for over 20 years". Included in these efforts was Nike's contribution to co-founding the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) in November 2011, they said.
Sixteen of the 19 brands assessed in the report are ZDHC members. And, according to Dr Brodde, six of these were "scoring pretty well".
But of the remaining ten, she says it's their handling of a manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL) that has made the difference: the higher performing companies have developed their own, while the laggers have relied on the ZDHC MRSL.
"Unfortunately, the ZDHC MRSL (v1.1) has methodological flaws and reflects limited ambition", says Dr Brodde.
She says some of the reasons why the ZDHC MRSL "will not translate into a truly clean production on the ground" include:PFCs are not listed in a detailed enough way for suppliers to fully eliminate them;the ZDHC MRSL "simply ignores major hazardous substances", including toluene, NN-DMF or formaldehyde; andZDHC puts some hazardous substances in a 'research list', which Dr Brodde suggests is some kind of pretence, as there is not a clear plan for phase-outs on these substances.
Frank Michel, ZDHC executive director, told Chemical Watch that he is "disappointed that Greenpeace continues to focus its efforts on companies that have committed to eliminating hazardous chemicals, rather than the many more that have not."
Nike's spokesperson said that "ZDHC reports on progress on a quarterly and annual basis, as part of our effort to be transparent."Outdoor companies join up
Greenpeace has announced that two outdoor apparel companies – Vaude, in Germany, and Rotauf, in Switzerland – have pledged to remove hazardous chemicals from their supply chains by 2020.
The NGO has long decried the slow progress that the outdoor industry has made in joining the Detox campaign. Many companies have said that alternatives to the PFCS used to waterproof textiles offer inadequate performance.
Vaude and Rotauf join UK outdoor brand Páramo in taking the Detox pledge. Rotauf has already phased out PFCs, and Vaude aims to do so by 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48599/zara-hm-and-benetton-on-track-to-meet-greenpeace-detox-commitments
-
EU Releases Proposals on Cosmetics, Medical Devices, Cars, Chemicals
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
New EU proposals in trade talks with the U.S. are aimed at simplifying technical regulations in the cosmetics, medical devices, cars, chemicals and textiles sectors, the European Commission said.
The proposals set out the European Union's position on regulatory cooperation in these sectors in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks, which are aimed at cutting red tape for companies operating in both markets and helping regulators by eliminating duplicative inspections.
The European Commission (EC) also published proposals on climate protection, energy and raw materials, financial services market access and institutional cooperation.
Release of the proposals during negotiations marks a departure from the EC's policy of publishing texts sometimes weeks after presentation. The U.S. doesn't release its proposals but has published detailed objectives of TTIP goals.
TTIP talks are taking place in Brussels until July 15.
Release of the documents follows a leak of a purported proposal on energy and raw materials, which the commission said wasn't what would be presented to U.S. negotiators.
Energy, Raw Materials
The energy proposal contains the same language as in the leaked text. It states that “the Parties must agree on a legally binding commitment to eliminate all existing restrictions on the export of natural gas” in trade between them. Environmental groups, which had criticized the leak, said the language would lead to greater dependency on a climate-disrupting fossil fuel and more hydraulic fracturing.
Other provisions in the energy chapter would establish a consultation mechanism to prevent or react to disruptions of energy supplies to any TTIP party. The chapter also urges cooperation on energy and raw materials to reduce or eliminate trade- and investment-distorting measures in non-TTIP countries.
Trade, Sustainable Development
The climate proposal seeks to safeguard environmental standards by promoting green goods trade and “progressively” phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
The EU urged U.S. officials to cooperate and exchange information regarding: energy efficiency, sustainable development, deforestation and emissions monitoring. The proposal acknowledges the 2015 Paris climate change accord's importance and urges the parties to cooperate with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Paris agreement was reached last December and calls for global action to mitigate carbon emissions.
The EU also called upon parties to cut tariffs on environmental products—such as solar panels, water filters, electric motors and hydraulic turbines—by implementing the Environmental Goods Agreement.
Cosmetics
The proposed cosmetics annex would commit member states to support international efforts to maintain a globally harmonized regulatory and labelling schemes for cosmetics. To that end, the parties are encouraged to actively participate in the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients Committee and to implement International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation guidelines. Regulatory bodies in each party, such as the Food and Drug Administration, would exchange regulatory information, even confidential commercial and technical information such as trade secrets.
The annex directs parties to develop alternative methods to animal testing. Parties can only require that cosmetic products be tested on animals in “exceptional circumstances,” namely where serious concerns arise regarding the safety of an existing cosmetic ingredient which is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another.
Chemicals
Regulatory cooperation in chemicals aims at improving protection for workers, health and the environment. Neither side would be required to change any laws and both could take immediate action if unsafe chemicals are discovered.
The EU and the U.S. would inform each other when they update their lists of priority substances and exchange information about the lists. When one party is about to classify a substance, the other would be able to comment. They would inform each other of “new and emerging” chemical hazards under the proposal.
Financial Services
The document said that financial services “should be addressed in TTIP and that discussions on market access and on regulatory cooperation are closely linked.” A fundamental U.S.-EU difference is whether the TTIP should include a separate financial services chapter and whether the chapter will promote EU-U.S. financial regulation cooperation. EU negotiators have told their U.S. counterparts if the treaty doesn't address financial regulatory cooperation the EU won't address enhanced market access in Europe for U.S. financial services companies.
The document lists protections sought by specific EU member states regarding their domestic financial services industries. Italy wants to require companies managing a domestic securities settlement system to be incorporated in Italy. Several EU countries including Bulgaria want executives working at certain financial institutions operating in the EU to reside permanently in their home country.
Institutional Mechanisms
The EU proposed a TTIP Joint Committee composed of representatives of both parties in the institutional provisions chapter. The committee would have a dedicated session on regulatory cooperation at least annually with participation of relevant regulators.
Another provision would set up a regulators' forum. General regulatory cooperation trends would be one of the issues discussed by the forum. A civil society forum would be convened at least annually under the proposal. If any World Trade Organization Agreement provision incorporated in the TTIP is amended, the parties would consult on a mutually satisfactory solution where necessary.
Motor Vehicles, Parts
The motor vehicles proposal sets out terms for EU and U.S. officials to issue new regulations for the automotive sector in a cooperative and transparent manner. The proposal seeks to ensure high regulatory levels for vehicle safety and environmental protection while aligning cross-Atlantic technical requirements, regulations and administrative measures with the 1998 agreement of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.
The U.S. accounts for 18 percent of all EU vehicle exports and more than 12 percent of all cars imported to the EU come from the U.S., according to EU trade statistics. The EU Trade Commission estimated that reduced trade barriers could increase bilateral EU-U.S. trade in the automotive sector by 70 percent to 350 percent over the next decade.
Textile Cooperation
The textile annex proposal would establish a joint regulatory cooperation work plan to guide cooperation between parties and to establish priorities. The work plan would be reviewed regularly. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) would play a central role in cooperation, as parties are instructed to encourage their internal standardization bodies to actively participate in ISO work.
Medical Devices
Regulatory cooperation in medical devices aims at improving the level of protection for workers, health and the environment. The parties can take immediate action if unsafe devices are discovered.
The parties would encourage cooperation between their standardization bodies and exchange information about risks posed by medical devices. Confidential information would be kept secret. A joint regularly cooperation work plan will guide cooperation.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
With assistance from Brian Flood and Maeve Allsup in Washington; Bengt Ljung in Brussels; Stephen Joyce in New York City; Bryce Baschuk in Geneva
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947391&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947391&jd=93947391
-
Green Chemistry Is The Path To Chemical Safety
Jul 14, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Tess Carter amd Glynis Lough
On June 22nd, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Actwas signed into law, bringing the first legislative reform to chemical management regulation in 40 years! From car seats to zippers, nearly every product in and out of the home has the potential to change because of this bill - meaning your favorite toy or cooking pan could be reformulated because chemicals toxic to human health are used in the production. And the bill also includes special protections for women’s and children’s health. Sound great? Sort of. The reality of the bill is that it’s a mixed bag - only twenty chemicals of the thousands and thousands that are actually used in consumer goods are required to be tested per year, and there’s a 64,000 backlog - but with increased authority, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can prevent new problems from entering the market.
That means that real effort is needed to make this bill more than just public relations. To be sure, there are some good things in this bill, such as setting new safety standards for chemicals with ties to cancer, mental health, and infertility and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain more information about a chemical before approving its use. We need more action to pollute less.
What this really means is that we need to find other ways to protect people and the environment from the chemicals that we routinely use, like dry cleaning solvents, and this is exactly what green chemistry aims to do. One important way to do this is to promote green chemistry. This is a movement to create products that reduce pollution without sacrificing function. While a nod to green chemistry is hidden at the bottom of this bill (about a Sustainable Chemistry Initiative), in reality, it does not do enough to either raise consciousness or change practice. This rule does present opportunities to really benefit from better integration of a discipline called green chemistry, and we must do more to capitalize on this.
But if education, industry, AND government simultaneously work to integrate green chemistry into our daily lives, then change is possible.
If we practice green chemistry, our daily lives will change and make our kids and the world safer. Food packaging will necessarily change because instead of Styrofoam, which isn’t biodegradable but does release cancerous by-products when burned, we can use mushroom-based packaging that’s non-toxic and compostable! From how we use transportation (ethanol) to the shoes we wear(thanks, Nike!) green chemistry is already touching our lives. It’s time for consumers and the federal government alike to highlight green chemistry! Here are the two key reasons why we should focus more on green chemistry.
First off, green chemistry makes and saves money.
Green chemistry industry is expected to grow from $2.8 billion in 2011 to $98.5 billion by 2020 while saving industry $65.5 billion according to one often-cited study.
Businesses care...
Because businesses tend to emphasize forward-looking, streamlined processes, businesses already implement green chemistry into the production of many of their goods, and even more could be on the way with greater pressure from consumers. Individual businesses and coalitions like the American Chemical Society (ACS) Green Chemistry Institute and the industrial sectors drawn into it (e.g. pharmaceuticals and chemical manufacturers) have begun to respond to their main driver, consumer pressure, and are becoming more competitive by incorporating green chemistry - their gains in productivity are likely to offset any potential costs of reducing their environmental impact.
To fully incorporate the benefits of green chemistry throughout society, what should we change?
Industry is already poised to go big time into green chemistry. That innovation and the effects of green chemistry will be magnified across society if we are better educated about it, and if all sectors - industry, consumer and government - are better connected.
Education - The next generation of consumers should pressure even more
Because green chemistry principles are just now emerging as part of chemistry education in the United States, students, who are the next generation of practitioners and consumers, do not understand the scientific and economic relevance of green chemistry to their lives. We need to leverage increased awareness and funding concurrently because this will lead to more and better sustainable products and processes and funding opportunities.
Better-equipped citizens make informed decisions about green and sustainable technologies, products, and industries that affect their lives, and this Act begins that process. Integrating green chemistry into school curricula will connect chemistry curriculum to students’ everyday lives allowing benefits of real world contexts to motivate learning about chemistry. For example, leveraging the popularity of environmental sustainability among youth is a great way to connect chemistry concepts with issues we are passionate about. Imagine encouraging students to use chemistry to develop alternative cosmetics or toys that are more sustainable?
In green chemistry, innovation and education can happen concurrently. Society does not have time to wait for innovation before educating the next generation. Using real world issues as a starting point to introduce science concepts contextualizes environmental and sustainability issues, improves decision-making, and helps to create a scientifically literate citizenry. This approach will also improve consumers’ understanding of the products they buy, which has the potential to create a positive feedback where educated consumers demand more sustainable products and processes and where scientists are literate in green chemistry and can employ its principles broadly.
Connect Industry, Government, and the Public
While the EPA has supported many important projects, green chemistry is multi-disciplinary and can support cross-agency efforts from the EPA to the Department of Energy to the US Department of Agriculture. A new model for interagency coordination - modeled after the Sustainable Chemistry Initiative suggested at the very bottom of this Act - would coordinate green chemistry research, development, technology transfer, education, and training across federal agencies and in support of larger US national efforts. This kind of mega effort supported by a green chemistry curriculum can make our use of chemicals more sustainable.
While the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a good step forward, let’s make sure that our government doesn’t forget about the Sustainable Chemistry Initiative tucked away at the very bottom of the bill. The more green chemistry is used and understood, the closer we get to fulfilling our legislators’ promise to make the chemicals in our lives safer. A coordinated and integrated effort across education, industry, and government can make this Act a truly effective reality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tess-carter/green-chemistry-is-the-path_b_10927928.html
-
House Passes Interior, EPA Spending Bill
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House passed a $32.1 billion bill funding the Interior Department and environmental programs next year, the first time the legislation has cleared the House since 2009.
The bill would cut spending for Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other programs by $64 billion over current levels, and is $1 billion less than what President Obama requested in his budget.
It includes a handful of policy riders to block EPA regulations, including those dealing with water, power plant emissions and coal mining near waterways.
“There is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by EPA in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional direction,” said. Rep. Ken Cavert (R-Calif.) during floor debate this week.
“For this reason, the bill includes a number of provisions to stop unnecessary and damaging regulatory overreach by the agency.”
Because of the funding levels and the riders, most Democrats opposed the bill; it passed 231-196. The White House threatened to veto the bill earlier this week, and environmental groups encouraged members to vote against it.
The bill will “impact the [EPA's] ability to protect human health and the health of our environment and to ensure clean air and clean water for our families and future generations,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.).
Democrats also hit the bill for reducing clean water funding and endangered species provisions, though both sides spoke highly of funding levels for Native American programming and the National Parks components of the bill.
The House hasn’t approved an Interior and EPA spending bill in years. Republicans brought it up last summer and were anticipating passage, but leadership pulled it before the vote to avoid a floor fight over the display of the Confederate flag at national cemeteries.
This year, the bill came up under a rule limiting amendments to it. The House voted down on Thursday Democratic amendments to undo some of the policy riders, but it also defeated Republican measures to further cut the EPA’s budget and undo other environmental rules.
Members adopted a measure to fund water testing in Flint, Mich., and forgive some of the city’s loans as it recovers from a drinking water crisis. A Republican also withdrew his amendment to block EPA officials from traveling by plane for official business.
The House passed the bill on the last day before its seven-week recess and the start of summer and fall campaigning season. That, combined with long-standing differences on environmental policy between Republicans and Democrats, makes it highly unlikely Congress will pass a final Interior and EPA spending bill this year.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287725-house-passes-interior-epa-spending-bill
-
House Passes First Interior-EPA Bill In Years
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The House approved a $32.1 billion spending bill this afternoon that would cut U.S. EPA's budget next year and hamstring Obama administration efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, tighten regulations on the oil and gas industry, and name new national monuments.
The bill, which would fund EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service in fiscal 2017, passed 231-196 largely along party lines. The full Senate has yet to act on its version.
Three Democrats joined Republicans in support of H.R. 5538; 15 Republicans were among those voting no.
In a statement afterward, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) called the bill "balanced" and said it would "rein in the federal bureaucracy to stop many harmful and unnecessary regulations that destroy economic opportunity and kill jobs."
But even before the House launched floor debate on the legislation Tuesday, the Obama administration had threatened a veto. The measure has no chance of enactment in anything close to its current form. Supporters appeared unfazed.
"I don't care about the White House; the White House has got their head up their ass," Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) said in a brief interview yesterday.
This is the first Interior-EPA spending bill to pass the House in years. Controversies have blocked progress in the past. This time around, House GOP leaders limited what amendments made it to the floor.
Industry groups that had pushed for many of the anti-regulatory riders included in the legislation praised the outcome.
"This bill supports the continued advancement of the U.S. energy renaissance and provides an alternative vision from the attempts by the administration to force the U.S. to take a step backwards on energy policy," Louis Finkel, head of government affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.
The reviews from environmental and public health organizations were scathing. Even though the measure contains a modest increase for the National Park Service in its centennial year, "we'd be better off with a continuing resolution" that would keep funding at current levels, said John Garder, budget chief for the National Parks Conservation Association, in a separate release.
American Lung Association President Harold Wimmer called the number of riders "staggering" and warned that the provisions to block or delay stricter air pollution standards would lead to more illness and premature deaths. "Fortunately, this particular bill will not become law," Wimmer said.
As approved by the House Appropriations Committee last month, the bill contained riders to block EPA's Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, stop the administration from proceeding with the Clean Power Plan and prohibit Interior from updating mineral valuation methods used to calculate royalties.
Democratic attempts to strike existing riders during two days of floor debate all failed this week. Instead, House members added dozens more in the form of amendments.
Among them: measures to prevent implementation of the administration's National Ocean Policy, stymie new regulations on Arctic oil and gas development, and stop the Fish and Wildlife Service from treating the gray wolf as an endangered or threatened species in the continental United States after next June.
Lawmakers also agreed to deepen EPA spending cuts beyond the Appropriations Committee's original version, which called for lowering EPA's funding next year by about 2 percent or $164 million from this year's $8.1 billion threshold.
The bill would now shift more than $110 million on top of that out of the agency's operating budget to programs like coal mine reclamation and forest products research.
Lawmakers also agreed to an amendment that would end funding for EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. The amendment's sponsor, Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), described the office as unresponsive.
Some Republicans wanted to go even further, as Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania unsuccessfully sought to impose another 17 percent cut on the agency.
The House rejected the amendment after Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that crafted the bill, said the proposed reduction would eat into state grant funding.
Relatively few Democratic amendments passed. Among them, however, was a plan by Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) to spend $6 million for long-term monitoring on two rivers affected by last summer's Gold King mine spill in Colorado and another by Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) to help communities better address water quality emergencies.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) won approval for a provision to bar the National Park Service from restricting "off-leash" dog walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area near San Francisco.
The agency's plan has been deeply unpopular with many Bay Area dog owners. In appealing for relief, Speier said she was dedicating her amendment to her beloved yellow Lab.
"Buddy has been there for me, and, tonight, I am here for him and for all of his four-legged buddies," Speier said during debate last night.
Calvert, after acknowledging that he, too, was a dog lover, raised no objection, and the amendment passed on a voice vote.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/07/14/stories/1060040309
-
House Passes $32 Billion Spending Bill For Interior, EPA
Jul 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Lawmakers in the House of Representatives on Thursday passed a $32 billion appropriations bill to fund the Department of Interior (DOI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies, but the bill contains numerous Republican provisions on energy development and faces an uphill climb to becoming law.
HR 5538, also known as the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2017, passed on a 231-196 vote.
Lawmakers attached several amendments to the bill. One amendment by Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA), which was agreed to on a 234-195 vote, would prevent DOI from implementing its Well Control Rule (see Daily GPI, April 13, 2015). A voice vote advanced an amendment by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), which stipulates that DOI cannot enforce its final rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public or tribal lands (see Shale Daily, March 20, 2015).
Three amendments by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) were also agreed to. The amendments prohibit DOI from using funds to remove three Arctic sales from the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program (see Daily GPI, March 15); implement a final plan to designate areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska as wilderness; and finalize, implement, or enforce new regulations on offshore Arctic energy exploration and development.
Another amendment of interest to the oil and gas industry includes one introduced by Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), which would restrict federal agencies from using funds to pay legal fees under any lawsuit settlement regarding a case that arises under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. That amendment passed on a 226-202 vote.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. Since the bill targets many of the environmental provisions rolled out by the Obama administration, it is expected that the president would likely veto the bill if it ever got to his desk.
But industry groups voiced support for HR 5538's passage by the House.
"The House passed bill will go a long way to creating American jobs by supporting the industry's ability to explore, develop, transport and deliver the affordable energy that U.S. consumers rely upon," said Louis Finkel, executive vice president for government affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. "This bill supports the continued advancement of the U.S. energy renaissance and provides an alternative vision from the attempts by the administration to force the U.S. to take a step backwards on energy policy."
Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), said the bill targeted "this year's onslaught of job-killing federal regulations" and would keep federal waters, including offshore Alaska, open to continued exploration and development.
"Altogether, this bill recognizes that the offshore oil and natural gas industry is inextricably linked to the wellbeing of our country," Luthi said. "The bill includes strong and smart policies that will keep offshore oil and natural gas operations safe and sustainable. NOIA looks forward to working with Congress to preserve these important provisions as this bill or other year-end appropriations legislation moves forward."
Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) CEO Barry Russell agreed.
"This appropriations bill undoes some of the excessive regulations hurled at the industry by the Obama administration during its final year in office," Russell said. "The legislation contains several of IPAA's key priorities, including prohibiting the DOI from implementing its 'Washington knows best' approach to regulate fracking and its 'one size fits all' mandate on offshore drilling, prohibiting enforcement of the DOI's proposal to address methane emissions, and providing reasonable implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107073-house-passes-32-billion-spending-bill-for-interior-epa
-
House Approves EPA FY17 Bill With Additional Budget Cuts, Policy Riders
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
House lawmakers have over many Democrats' objections approved a fiscal year 2017 funding bill for EPA that includes additional budget cuts and prohibitions on major agency policies not contained in the originally introduced version of the measure, though the legislation faces a White House veto threat over many provisions.
The bill for EPA and other interior and environment agencies approved July 14, H.R. 5538, would cut EPA's budget by $164 million from the currently enacted $8.14 billion level down to $7.98 billion. The bill cleared on a 231-196 vote July 14, with three Democrats supporting passage and 15 Republicans voting against it.
Democratic opposition in both the Senate and the White House still poses a potentially insurmountable obstacle to passing any version of the House-proposed legislation.
Even before the GOP-backed amendments passed, the White House had issued a veto threat against H.R. 5538, saying its funding cuts and policy provisions were “unacceptable” for the Obama administration, while Senate Democrats have vowed to block a floor vote on any FY17 spending bill that includes policy riders -- including their chamber's EPA bill.
The additional policy riders added during House floor debate do nothing to address the administration's concerns and instead likely increase Democratic opposition to the bill.
For instance, amendments approved during the July 12-14 period of floor consideration include measures to shift money from “EPA bureaucracy” to the U.S. Forest Service; to de-fund the agency's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations; and to further reduce the Environmental Programs and Management account, which funds many rulemaking activities and which in the proposed bill would have been cut to $2.52 billion from $2.69 billion, by varying amounts including $1 million and $14 million.
Following on the July 11 veto threat, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a July 14 statement reiterating criticism of both the House bill and the Senate's pending FY17 legislation.
“House and Senate Republicans are proposing to slash EPA’s operating budget compared to the FY 2016 enacted level and the President’s Budget, which would significantly undermine agency activities, including critical efforts to mitigate climate change and improve air quality through commonsense standards and voluntary programs,” the statement says.
Both the House and Senate are set to adjourn for the summer starting on July 18, which would give them just 19 legislative days in September to pass either a consensus FY17 spending bill or a short-term continuing resolution before funding for the federal government expires on Sept. 30, the last day of FY16.
Policy Amendments
House Republicans voted down a swath of amendments offered by Democratic legislators that would have eliminated policy riders from H.R. 5538, preserving provisions that bar EPA from implementing its greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for existing power plants and its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule; block controls on methane releases from oil and gas extraction operations; and delay implementation of the revised national ambient air quality standards for ozone, among others.
The chamber approved amendments offered by EPA critics that add many new restrictions on policies, including barring the agency from finalizing its pending final phase 2 rule limiting GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks; blocking action to enforce “backstops” in the CWA cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay; and barring final action or implementation of the proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program, which critics say is unlawful because it is linked to the power plant GHG rule that was stayed by the Supreme Court.
Another approved amendment bars the agency from spending any funds “in contravention of” the Clean Air Act mandate to evaluate the employment impacts of air and climate rules -- although the scope of that mandate is the subject of contentious litigation.
Finally, H.R. 5538 would also require EPA to work more closely with states to monitor and remedy impacts from the Gold King Mine wastewater spill in Aurora, CO, where an agency cleanup crew accidentally released about 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater that flowed into Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and tribal lands. --
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-approves-epa-fy17-bill-additional-budget-cuts-policy-riders
-
Slew of Riders Passes House With Interior, EPA Funding Bill
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The House passed a divisive bill to fund the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency July 14 with nearly lock-step Republican support and only three Democrats on board.
The final 231-196 vote on H.R. 5538 caps nearly three days of House floor debate and amendment votes, and lawmakers continued to pile on additional measures until the final bell tolled.
Democrats advanced a number of measures critical to their platforms, but their Republican counterparts relentlessly tacked on dozens of amendments geared toward scaling back executive “overreach.”
Fifteen Republicans, many of whom are part of the Freedom Caucus, voted against the legislation. The chairman of that wing of the party, however, voted in favor.
Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) opposed the legislation. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) supported the bill in committee but voted against it on the floor.
Following passage and other unrelated legislative work, lawmakers now depart Capitol Hill for a seven-week recess.
Lawmakers Reject Comprehensive Cuts
The bill would provide $32.1 billion in funding after lawmakers rallied together to shoot down an amendment July 13 that would have slashed across-the-board allocations in the legislation by 1 percent.
Still, the legislation undercuts the White House budget request by roughly $1 billion.
The EPA would get nearly $8 billion, roughly $400 million short of the White House request, and $164 million less than current funding levels.
The White House all but pledged to veto the legislation before debate kicked off, citing the funding cuts and a range of policy riders that would hamstring signature EPA programs.
The legislation would bar funding for the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), the Clean Water Rule (RIN:2040-AF30), Superfund financial assurance regulations for the mining industry, development and implementation of rules on oil and gas industry methane emissions and any modification to the regulatory definition of “fill material” under the Clean Water Act, among many other riders.
Oil and Gas Additions
Republican members tacked on several amendments to safeguard the oil and gas industry from regulation.
The legislation now would prohibit funding for the implementation of the Interior Department's well control rule (RIN 1014-AA11), which aims to prevent well blowouts.
The chamber advanced measures to prohibit the designation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and bar funds for new regulations on Arctic energy exploration and development.
The bill would prohibit funding used to develop or legislation to redirect funds doled out from the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a law that stipulates leasing revenue-sharing for Gulf producing states.
Fracking Measures
Meanwhile, the bill now bans funds for regulations on hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands even after a federal court in Wyoming recently struck down Bureau of Land Management regulations to that effect.
Lawmakers shot down attempts to prohibit funding for offshore drilling research in the eastern Gulf and cut language that delays implementation of an Interior Department proposal on offshore industry air quality control, reporting and compliance in the Gulf and Arctic.
Members also rejected an amendment to bar funding for the processing of fracking applications in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.
Louis Finkel, American Petroleum Institute executive vice president for government affairs, applauded the legislation shortly after passage.
“This bill supports the continued advancement of the U.S. energy renaissance and provides an alternative vision from the attempts by the administration to force the U.S. to take a step backwards on energy policy,” Finkel said in a statement. “Today, the U.S. is an energy superpower because of increased domestic oil and natural gas production both onshore and offshore.”
Other GOP Gains
The House also took swipes at authority under the Endangered Species Act, a frequent Republican target.
Lawmakers approved riders to prohibit federal action under the statute on the Mexican Wolf, Gray Wolf, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.
The bill now also includes a measure to restrict federal agency legal expenditures under that statute, as well as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Republicans lauded the passage.
“The House took action to cut wasteful spending at agencies like the EPA, while also unleashing the potential of our nation's critical natural resources on federal lands,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “This bill takes major steps to block President Obama's radical global warming agenda by cutting the EPA's budget by over $160 million, slashing its staff to its lowest levels since 1989, and prohibiting the EPA from implementing new greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.”
Top House appropriators, namely Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and his environment deputy Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), echoed that message in statements.
Democratic Achievements
Democrats claim they notched several wins despite overwhelming odds against them given that the House is comprised of 247 Republicans and 187 Democrats.
Still, Democrats pushed through amendments to provide additional funding for fresh drinking water in Flint, Mich., a city that continues to battle a lead contamination crisis.
Another amendment would relieve Flint of existing loan burdens relating to water.
The top Democratic appropriator for the environment, however, said those measures don't go far enough.
“We didn't do what we needed to do to address clean drinking water and some of the issues that EPA could be more involved in and more at the forefront in making sure that we're addressing lead contamination not only in Flint but all across the United States,” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) told Bloomberg BNA. “The cuts to the EPA are devastating, and it will keep them from doing that.”
She urged more resources for water-related state revolving funds.
Gold King Mine Spill Addressed
Lawmakers also approved a Democratic measure to force the EPA to implement a long-term water monitoring program for the Animas and San Juan rivers in response to the 2015 Gold King Mine spill in Colorado.
McCollum said Democrats would continue to staunchly oppose the bill after returning from recess.
“The riders have no place on this bill at all,” McCollum said. “We know that this bill has a long way to go before it is a bill that the President can support and Democrats can support, but I'm going to work hard to get there.”
Most appropriations observers expect Congress to fail to send President Barack Obama the Interior Department and EPA funding legislation and all other specific appropriations bills due in large part to minority influence on Senate procedures.
Congress is set to return to Capitol Hill the second week in September. Current federal funding expires at midnight on Sept. 30, and lawmakers are likely to pass a stopgap funding measure to push back that deadline.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the Senate's second highest ranking Republican, said July 14 he prefers a stopgap, known in congressional parlance as a continuing resolution, that extends into the beginning of 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947384&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947384&jd=93947384
-
Republicans ‘Out of Time' to Roll Back EPA Rules in 2016
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senior House and Senate Republicans acknowledged July 14 they are likely out of options to roll back Environmental Protection Agency regulations this Congress—including the controversial Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Rule.
Half a dozen Republicans said they will still push for policy riders blocking some of their favorite targets in a likely end-of-year omnibus package, but conceded in interviews with Bloomberg BNA that President Barack Obama would almost certainly block those efforts with his veto pen.
“I'd like to say we can do [more to fight the regulations], but we're out of time,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA.
Another senior Republican, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA: “I think we're getting close to tapped out.” Whitfield, who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subpanel, has led a variety of efforts to block the Obama administration's regulatory and climate agendas.
A variety of Republican-led efforts to block high-profile EPA regulations, ranging from Congressional Review Act bids to nullify the Clean Power Plan (S.J. Res. 24) to standalone legislation forcing a rewrite of an EPA rule clarifying which waterways fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, have come up short due to opposition from Democrats and the White House.
Their comments come on the day Congress broke for a seven-week summer recess. Lawmakers will return for just five weeks before the November elections and face a daunting to-do list before the end of the year.
Influence on Regulations
Lacking the votes to override a presidential veto, some lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA they will instead attempt to throw their weight into pressing federal agencies for changes to regulations under development.
“Congress can only do so much because the president is going to veto anything we do,” Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA. “We have to use our influence within the regulatory bodies to [get them to] use a little more common sense.”
Not all agree that the fight against EPA regulations is cover. Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Roy Blunt (Mo.) said they hoped Congress would continue to pursue efforts to fight the rules, though neither offered details on how they would do so.
“I would expect there will be more votes on job-killing regulations,” Blunt told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947377&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947377&jd=93947377
-
GOP Energy Negotiator Accuses Senate Chair Of 'Bizarre' Promise
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A House chairman assigned to an energy bill conference committee said it was “a little bit bizarre” to hear a Senate Republican promise to cut provisions from the bill that could earn a presidential veto.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said it defeats the purpose of going to a joint House and Senate conference committee if Republicans are going to preemptively agree to remove controversial, conservative provisions from the bill.
“As far as I understood, I was not privy to any conversations in which somebody made a deal that said this stuff will not be in or will be in,” Bishop told reporters Thursday. ”A conference is a conference. You handle it as a conference.”
Senate negotiators — primarily the ranking members on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — have said the energy bill conference committee should produce a bill that can get to President Obama for his signature this year.
The statements mean, implicitly, that certain provisions are going to have to come out of the House-passed energy bill. Among the controversial provisions are GOP-backed measures to help relieve the California drought and prevent wildfires, for example.
When the Senate voted to go to a conference committee on Tuesday, Murkowski said, “I will reiterate my personal commitment to a final bill that can pass both chambers and be signed into law by the president. Now, that doesn't mean that we're going to unilaterally disarm ourselves in conference negotiations, but my objective here is to deliver a law.”
Asked whether he was confused by that and other statements, Bishop said, “yes.”
“That is a statement that is a little bit bizarre, but it kind of defeats the purpose of conference committee before you start a conference committee,” he said.
The conference committee, which is looking to forge the first energy reform package in almost a decade, is likely to begin its formal meetings on the measure once members return in September from their summer recess.
Bishop predicted work will last long into the lame-duck session after November’s elections.
“There will definitely be some meetings in September, but yeah, it’s not a whole lot of time,” he said. “But we do have a whole lot of session left. I expect to be buying Christmas gifts here again.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287814-gop-energy-negotiator-senate-chair-made-bizarre-promise
-
Fracking Eyed as Culprit in Latest Oklahoma Quakes
Jul 14, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
As regulators in Oklahoma scramble to figure out what caused a swarm of earthquakes outside an "area of interest" targeting wastewater injection wells, one researcher said there is a possibility the temblors were caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations.
According to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data, there have been eight earthquakes measuring 2.5 magnitude or higher on the Richter scale within the last week in the Blanchard area. Four earthquakes ranging from 2.7 to 3.0 magnitude struck on July 7 at distances of 4.3-6.2 miles southeast of Blanchard. That was followed by the largest quake, a 3.4-magnitude temblor that struck 5.6 miles south-southeast of Blanchard last Friday.
Two earthquakes, measuring 2.5 and 2.8 magnitude and centered about six miles south-southeast of Blanchard, struck on Sunday. A 3.1-magnitude temblor centered five miles southeast of the town struck on Monday night, according to the USGS.
Since the beginning of the year, regulators with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) have ordered operators of wastewater injection wells targeting the Arbuckle Formation to cease or curtail their operations. But the OCC's area of interest covers wide areas of the north and central parts of the state, and there are no active disposal wells near Blanchard.
Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) Director Jeremy Boak told NGI's Shale Daily that the only wastewater disposal well in the area of the recent earthquakes is about 20 miles away, and hasn't been operational for at least 10 years. He added that the disposal well was small, handling only about 10,000/bbl a year, and targeted formations above the Arbuckle.
"Injection doesn't look like a good mechanism for this, but you are on the edge of the SCOOP [South Central Oklahoma Oil Province] play, and so we're interacting with operators in the area to see what's going on nearby," Boak said Thursday. "We're also going to try to apply some software that allows us to look at the clusters of earthquakes together. We can tighten up the locations better and that will allow us to tie things more directly."
But Boak added, "at this point we have to consider the possibility that this is something we haven't seen before, which is a set of earthquakes that could conceivably be tied to a frack job. There are faults in the area. There's the reasonable possibility that if the frack job spread out far enough it could conceivably initiate some [seismic] action."
Boak said researchers must determine the depth of the earthquakes to establish a cause.
"The earthquake depths we're seeing are kind of deep," Boak said. "In British Columbia, where they've tracked a number of frack-related earthquakes, the depth is moderately close to the fracking horizon. In this cluster, we've got one earthquake that might be that shallow. If we can do the cluster analysis and tighten up those locations, and especially the depths, we may see that there's some part of this is shallow enough that we could attribute it to a frack job. But that's still highly uncertain.
"We've got signs in both directions. There just isn't much injection going on in this area, so really trying to figure out what's driving this earthquake is a significant challenge, and we have uncertainties, we're hoping to work those out fairly quickly."
OCC spokesman Matt Skinner said the commission's Oil and Gas Conservation Division (OGCD) is investigating all oil and gas activity in the Blanchard area.
"Because there are no Arbuckle disposal wells within at least a 20-mile area of the earthquakes, all oil and gas operations in the area are being examined," Skinner said Wednesday. "Relevant data is being given to the OGS for further analysis."
Last February, the OGCD unveiled its Western Regional Reduction Plan, which called for a nearly 500,000 b/d reduction in wastewater injection volumes (see Shale Daily, Feb. 17). One month later, the agency released its Central Oklahoma Volume Reduction Plan, which called for a 300,000 b/d reduction in injection volumes (see Shale Daily, March 7).
"We're seeing something that's a new phenomenon -- either a broader expansion of the influence of injection, or potentially this other mechanism," Boak said. "In the background there's still always the possibility of a natural earthquake, but our inclination is to say if we can find an operator who's in the middle of an operation right now, where we happen to say, ‘gee, this looks like it's actually an example of a frack-related earthquake.’
"That would have significant implications. We would have to start looking around at other operators in the area, see what can we legitimately anticipate, and see what we have to do in the way of best practices on this going forward."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107071-fracking-eyed-as-culprit-in-latest-oklahoma-quakes
-
Energy Companies Spend Big To Fight Colorado Ballot Initiatives
Jul 14, 2016 | Reuters
By Liz Hampton
Energy companies in Colorado are spending millions of dollars to derail a push by environmentalists to put measures on November's ballot that would stifle oil and gas drilling in the state, according to a Reuters review of campaign finance records.
Environmental groups are now gathering signatures for two statewide initiatives that would transfer regulatory control of oil and gas development to local governments and create more stringent setback requirements to keep oil and gas activities away from occupied structures.
The state's Supreme Court this year struck down fracking bans approved by voters in the cities of Fort Collins and Longmont.
A study by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a state agency tasked with encouraging energy development, found that 90 percent of the surface acreage in Colorado would be unavailable for oil and gas development under the new setback laws, which would require all new development facilities to be 2,500 feet from occupied structures and areas of interest, such as parks.
In the last three months alone, energy companies including Anadarko Petroleum Corp, Noble Energy and Whiting Petroleum, have together donated more than $6.7 million to Protect Colorado, a industry-backed coalition fighting the initiatives, according to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance disclosures.
The heavy spending comes despite a severe crash in oil and gas prices that has forced many energy companies to slash jobs, dividends and investments.
Opponents of the proposed ballot initiatives say they would have a calamitous impact on Colorado, which is the country's seventh-largest oil and gas producing state, with vast untapped fields.
Anadarko Petroleum since early April has donated nearly $3 million to the group, bringing its total aggregate contribution to more than $4 million.
A spokesman for the company said the initiative would be "devastating for Colorado."
Noble Energy donated $2.5 million to Protect Colorado at the end of April. Noble said the initiatives would harm the economy and cause job losses, and reduce funds for schools and other public services.
In June, Bayswater Exploration and Production, DCP Midstream, an affiliate of Phillips 66, Synergy Resources Corp and Whiting Petroleum Corp gave a combined $785,000 to Protect Colorado. Independent producer PDC Energy has given more than $1 million to the organization since it registered as an issue committee in 2014.
The initiatives each need 98,492 signatures collected by Aug. 8 to qualify for the November ballot.
Todd Ely, on the faculty of the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver, said there is no limit on donations the companies can make because the coalition formed around an issue.
"The outcome is critical to existing and future investments in Colorado and elsewhere, especially for a cyclical industry," he said.
Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development, among the groups collecting signatures, declined to comment on the number gathered thus far. But Lisa Trope of Food & Water Watch said she was optimistic the measures would get on the ballot.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fracking-colorado-vote-idUSKCN0ZU2FF
-
Chemical Safety Board to Hold Public Business Meeting
Jul 14, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is holding a public business meeting on Wed., Jul. 26, 2016 in Washington, DC, the agency announced Thursday.
“One of the items I am looking forward to discussing is the CSB’s draft strategic plan. The strategic plan for FY 2016-2020 will help guide the activities of the agency for the next five years,” said CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland in a press release. “I am extremely excited to update our stakeholders
The meeting is scheduled for 1 pm to 3 pm EDT at the CSB’s offices at 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. For those who cannot attend in person, the CSB has set up a conference all line. The dial-in number is: 1-888-466-9863, and the passcode is 7176 237#.
Those attending in person and by phone will be offered an opportunity to comment.
The CSB is a federal agency responsible for investigating industrial chemical accidents and provides safety recommendations to plants, industry and labor organizations, and other regulatory authorities.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/Chemical-Safety-Board-to-Hold-Public-Business-Meeting-07-14-2016
-
$20.6 Million Award Upheld in TCE Hepatitis Case
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A $20.6 million award to a woman who claimed toxic chemicals dumped at a ball-bearing plant caused her hepatitis wasn't excessive, the Western District of Missouri ruled July 13 (Kirk v. Schaeffler Grp. USA, Inc., 2016 BL 224482, W.D. Mo., No. 13-cv-5032, 7/13/16).
The court rejected a challenge to the compensatory damages portion of the award.
The plaintiff's experts established that Jodelle Kirk suffered $3 million in economic damages, and a $4 million award for non-economic damages was “not excessive or disproportionate,” the court said.
A federal jury in Missouri awarded Kirk $13 million in punitive damages and $7.6 million in compensatory damages.
She alleged that FAG Bearings LLC dumped trichloroethylene, a toxic degreaser for metal parts, on the grounds of its Joplin, Mo., plant from 1971 to 1982.
She also claimed that her illness was caused by exposure to TCE in utero and through contact with contaminated soils and groundwater near the plant when she was a child.
The court noted that Kirk may have to take a drug which increases her risk of having cancer for the rest of her life to prevent her immune system from attacking her liver.
“She can choose to continue taking the drug and never become pregnant, or she can discontinue taking the drug and become pregnant but risk dying,” the court said. “This is a horrible dilemma for a young woman who testified she wanted to have a family.”
Judge Greg Kays issued the opinion.
The law offices of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain represented Kirk.
Dentons US represented Schaeffler Group USA Inc., FAG Bearings LLC and FAG Holding LLC.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947382&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947382&jd=93947382
-
House, Senate Crude Train Bills Offered Following Crash
Jul 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Railroads would be required to manually inspect tracks near waterways and other “high consequence areas” by foot, under legislation responding to the Mosier, Ore., derailment of a train carrying crude oil.
The measure (H.R. 5786), introduced July 14 by the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would create a trust fund to help communities prepare for accidents involving rail cars transporting flammable liquids, including crude oil and ethanol. In addition, it would authorize funding for the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration to hire additional track safety specialists, according to a bill summary.
Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) co-sponsored the legislation.
Walk the Tracks
“A preliminary FRA investigation of the June 3 Mosier derailment found that Union Pacific failed to adequately maintain its track and that walking inspections could have found the defective section of rail track and prevented the derailment,” the summary said.
Separately, Oregon's Senate delegation introduced legislation July 13 that would require the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate every major oil train derailment, clarify the FRA's authority to place moratoriums on oil train traffic when accidents do happen, and require the Transportation Department to reduce the amount of volatile gases in the crude oil these trains transport, according to a summary.
‘Rolling Explosion Hazards.'
The bills follow a fiery crude-by-rail derailment in June that resulted in a fire and 42,000 gallons of spilled crude oil in Oregon's pristine Columbia River Gorge, the latest in a string of 28 incidents involving crude-hauling trains over the past 10 years that have claimed dozens of lives, according to Public Citizen, a Washington advocacy group.
“As Oregon has seen firsthand, these oil trains are rolling explosion hazards,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement. “That's unacceptable. We need long-term solutions that will keep communities safe. Every accident needs to be fully and independently investigated.”
The legislation comes after safety board declined to investigate the Mosier incident, which resulted in a light sheen of oil on the Columbia River but no deaths or injuries.
Single Bolt Failure
The June 3 crash occurred after at least one bolt used to fasten the tracks to rail ties broke, resulting in 16 of 96 tank cars on a Union Pacific train hauling oil from the Bakken region of North Da http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947374&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947374&jd=93947374kota to a refinery in Washington state to leave the tracks.
“This bill ensures that federal authorities can stop trains after a major derailment until a thorough investigation has been completed, and that the NTSB has ample resources to closely examine the root causes of such a crash,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93947374&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93947374&jd=93947374
-
Regulators, Industry Debate How Many It Takes to Run a Train
Jul 14, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Imani Moise
In an age of driverless trucks, does a train need a two-man crew?
On Friday, regulators, industry representatives, unions and politicians will argue what’s become one of the most contentious issues in the rail industry: whether the Federal Railroad Administration should mandate that trains have a minimum crew size.
The FRA, which proposed the rule, says it is critical in most cases, especially now that some trains exceed 2 miles in length.
The industry disagrees. The Association of American Railroads, an industry group, says there isn't enough evidence to suggest that two-person crews are safer. It cites examples of domestic short line and international railroads that have safely operated with a single crew member.
Friday’s public hearing, conducted by the FRA, comes after a two-month public comment period in which the agency received over 1,500 comments from stakeholders including unions, industry associations, property owners, neighbors, employees and their families. After the hearing and a final monthlong public comment period, the revised rule goes to the administration’s Office of Management and Budget for final review.
The rule would also apply to all passenger trains, including Amtrak, except in certain cases where they would need to petition to be excluded, according to an FRA spokesman. Nearly all passenger trains already have more than two crew members.
Train crews have gradually gotten smaller through collective bargaining agreements since the 1960s when freight trains usually had five crew members. Now, freight train crews usually comprise two members: one engineer responsible for operating the locomotive and one conductor responsible for the train itself and the freight it is carrying.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen represents most engineers and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers represents the conductors. The two unions filed joint comments urging the FRA to make the final rule even stricter by disallowing any exceptions.
In the comments, the unions said there are too many duties involved in train operation for a single person to handle, and two-person crews combat fatigue, “the number one safety issue” in the industry.
As crews have gotten smaller, trains have gotten longer.
“I used to be concerned about 100-car long trains but now I’m reading reports of 200-car-long trains,” said FRA administrator Sarah Feinberg.
Ms. Feinberg said she doubts a “100- or 200-car-long train is still as safe as it can be with one person driving.”
Regulators say long trains are more difficult to manage. If there is trouble at the back of the train, it could take a crew member as long as 40 minutes to walk to the back of the train to check on it.
Two-person crews are particularly important on trains carrying hazardous materials, regulators say. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.) who’s had an increase in crude-by-rail traffic in her state, agrees.
In a fiery collision involving two BNSF Railway Co. trains near Casselton, N.D. in 2013, crew members separated and pulled approximately 70 oil-filled tank cars away from the burning accident to avoid a chain reaction of explosions, according to the FRA.
The multiple crew members were “instrumental to securing the area, mitigating the damage that was done and enhancing public safety,” Sen. Heitkamp said.
Longer trains have a greater chance of blocking road crossings and detaining traffic. When the delays are long, crew members “cut” the train, separating it to create an opening so the traffic can pass.
“You cannot cut a rail crossing with a single crew member,” said John Risch, national legislative director at the conductors’ union, because it requires not only uncoupling the train cars but also reversing the train to clear the intersection.
Traditionally, crew size on U.S. trains has been negotiated between railroads and labor unions.
“The FRA was nowhere in that discussion and we don’t believe that it’s appropriate for them to insert themselves into the matter now,” said Edward Hamberger, president of the industry group AAR.
Union Pacific Corp., like the biggest U.S. freight railroads, currently operates using a minimum of two crew members on most over-the-road operations and says it isn't planning to switch anytime soon. Still, the railroads don’t want their hands tied as the federal deadline to implement positive train control approaches. Railroads expect to spend more than $14 billion on the computerized collision avoidance safety system that is expected to make train transport safer.
“Future safety-technology innovations may promote different practices over time,” saidCSX Corp. spokesman Rob Doolittle. That “may be inhibited by an arbitrary crew-size rule.”
The AAR commissioned a study showing that a majority of European train activity is operated using single-person crews and that two-person crews were no safer statistically. According to the research, one-man crew operations now account for about 94% of train activity across Europe.
In its rule, the FRA notes that most foreign rail operations would be eligible for an exception under the rule due to their smaller size.
In the long run, though, two-man crews may become another relic of the industry, “The same way nobody still thinks we need cabooses on the back of trains,” said Grady Cothen,former administrator at the FRA.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulators-industry-debate-how-many-it-takes-to-run-a-train-1468515766
-
The Future of Cities: Green Building to Driverless Cars
Jul 14, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Margaret Walls
How Cities Are Taking the Lead on Green Building
Cities in the U.S. are leading the way on climate and energy policies—especially policies targeting commercial and residential buildings, which can account for up to 75% of total energy use in cities.
Fifteen cities now have benchmarking and disclosure laws, which require building owners to report their buildings’ annual energy use to the local government. These include the early adopters of Washington, D.C., Austin, Texas, and New York, which passed their laws in 2008 and 2009, and Portland, Ore., Atlanta, and Kansas City, Mo., all of which adopted them in 2015. Some cities have also adopted “stretch” building energy codes, which require that new buildings achieve higher energy efficiency than set in the base code. For example, Boston has a stretch code that requires buildings be 20% more efficient than the code established in the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Others are looking to creative financing programs, such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs that allow building owners to pay back low-interest energy efficiency loans through property taxes. And many cities have established renewable energy requirements. Complementing these programs are often an array of utility or state government rebates and other incentives.
The benchmarking and disclosure laws may be having the greatest impact. They require commercial, and in some cities, multi-family residential property owners to report annual energy use and use the Energy Star software program to benchmark that energy use relative to other buildings. The laws are intended to make building energy information more widely available to the marketplace, thereby allowing tenants, buyers and lenders to consider energy more carefully in their decision making. The thinking is that this will, in turn, provide feedback effects to property owners who will then make changes to improve energy efficiency.
These are still early days for some of the programs, so it’s too soon to know the extent to which these feedback effects are occurring. But so far the laws seem to be making building owners in cities where the laws have passed more attentive to energy use—in other words, just the mere fact that they have to report seems to be leading to change. In recent research with my colleague Karen Palmer at Resources for the Future, we estimated that utility bills dropped by about 3%, on average, in office buildings covered by the laws in four cities (Austin, New York, Seattle, and San Francisco).
So what are building owners doing to achieve these efficiency gains? Most of the early advances have come from use of “big data.” New companies have sprung up to provide real-time, energy-use data—often at 15-minute intervals—to building owners to help them better understand daily patterns of energy use, identify anomalies when and where they occur, and optimize operational improvements. In the future, innovation is likely to come from the “Internet of Things,” the connection of sensors, software and electronics in physical objects (such as equipment and buildings) to wired and wireless networks. Some companies have already developed thermostats that work with wireless remote sensors that sense temperature and occupancy in different rooms.
Other innovations just starting to penetrate the market are automated window shades and a new type of window glass that electronically senses sunlight and heat and changes its tint throughout the day. More and more buildings are also relying on renewable energy and a few trendsetters are “net zero energy”—i.e., they produce as much energy as they use. Finally, nature is also playing a part via green roofs. These not only reduce building energy use but provide community benefits by reducing stormwater runoff, lowering the urban heat island effect, and providing green spaces that will become increasingly valuable as urban populations grow. Green roofs might even be available for “farm”-to-table dining; at least one restaurant in the D.C. suburbs is working with its building owner and farming on the rooftop.
Right now, there are buildings on the leading edge and some behind the curve. But city policies—especially benchmarking and disclosure laws—are pulling those lagging buildings forward. In the future, the built environment is likely to become greener and more energy efficient.
http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/07/14/the-future-of-cities-green-building-to-driverless-cars-at-a-glance/
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested