Preview Newsletter

ACC PM

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Pitching Sound Chemicals Management
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth

2015 is an important year for international developments in the sustainable and sound management of chemicals.
2015 Outlook: James Jones, US EPA
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By James Jones

As I begin my fourth full year as Assistant Administrator for chemical safety, my highest priority is to continue building on the progress that we’ve made in the last few years.
Green Chemistry: Mission to Become Mainstream
Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner

Last month, Launch (launch.org), a sustainable innovation incubator programme hosted by Nasa, the US State Department, the US Agency for International Development and Nike, held its Green Chemistry Forum.
2015 Outlook: Government of Canada
Feb 17, 2015 |
By Grace Patlewicz, Mark Cronin, and Julia Baines

Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) was launched in 2006 with the goal to reduce the risks posed by chemical substances to the health of Canadians and their environment.
EPA Seeks NAS Study On Whether Toxicity Tests Address Low Dose Risks
Feb 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study whether the agency’s chemical toxicity testing approach sufficiently addresses potential risk to human and wildlife health from exposures to low doses of endocrine active chemicals.
What Are We Doing to Our Children's Brains?
Feb 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Elizabeth Grossman

The numbers are startling. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.8 million more children in the U.S. were diagnosed with developmental disabilities between 2006 and 2008 than a decade earlier.

Chemical Security News

States Search for Strong Cyberdefense Strategies
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak

In Washington state, power utilities are expected to invite "good guy" hackers to try to break into critical systems to surface any cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Energy and Environment News

EPA Considers Delaying Carbon Deadline After Utilities Object
Feb 17, 2015 | Bloomberg - Businessweek
By Mark Drajem

The Obama administration may ease off on a deadline for power companies to start meeting new rules to cut carbon emissions, the top environmental regulator said, a win for utilities that complained too much was required too soon.
EPA Chief Hints at Changes to Timeline for Clean Power Plan
Feb 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Erica Martinson

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy hinted today that the agency is likely to make changes to state deadlines in its final Clean Power Plan requiring carbon dioxide emissions cuts from power plants.
Grid Operators Push for More Time on EPA Plan
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Peter Behr

Achieving the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan requires more time, more regional cooperation and a "carbon price" -- a de facto economic penalty for power plant carbon emissions -- state utility commissioners were told yesterday.
McCarthy Hints at Interim Target Changes in Power Plant Rule
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick

U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy suggested today that EPA would change the way early reductions are mandated in its final version of the Clean Power Plan.
‘Downstream’ Gas Operators Seek EPA Credit For Voluntary Methane Cuts
Feb 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo

“Downstream” operators of natural gas transmission pipelines will likely seek credit and cost-recovery from EPA for their voluntary efforts to reduce methane emissions, which could potentially ease their obligations under the agency’s planned methane rules for the sector, a gas transmission sector source says.
Ohio Supreme Court Says State Oil, Gas Law Outranks Local Rules
Feb 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillen

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Tuesday that municipalities cannot regulate fracking because the state has sole power to regulate oil and gas operations.
Ohio Court Strikes Down Local Fracking Bans
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Towns and cities in Ohio cannot regulate hydraulic fracturing on their own, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
USGS Puts Out Trove of Fracking Data
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan

Federal scientists have released an analysis of more than 60 years of hydraulic fracturing, involving nearly 1 million oil and gas wells.
Could a Failed Keystone XL Amendment Upend the Paris Climate Talks?
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Lisa Friedman

Supporters of an international climate accord fear that a failed Senate amendment could come back to haunt the Obama administration as it tries to negotiate a global deal for Paris.
Energy-Efficient Buildings Unite Left and Right
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - Pundit's Blog
By Roger Platt

With the 114th Congress newly underway, leaders from both political parties have said they want to work together. All they need are issues that both sides can agree on. Here's one — energy-efficient buildings.
On Climate, Republican Votes Don’t Lead to Action
Feb 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Alex Guillen

The GOP lawmakers who say climate change is a problem aren’t doing much to solve it.

Transportation News

W.V. Derailment A Reminder Of Delay In Tank Car Rule
Feb 17, 2015 | Roll Call
By Tom Curry

An oil train derailment, explosion, and fire near Mount Carbon, W.V., Monday seems likely to increase pressure on the Obama administration to speed the release of a regulation to require more robust oil tank cars.
Oil Train Derails, Explodes in West Virginia
Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

A train carrying more than 100 tanker cars full of crude oil derailed in rural West Virginia on Monday, causing multiple explosions and sending some train cars into the nearby Kanawha River.
2,500 Evacuate After Crude-Bearing Train Catches Fire in W.Va.
Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak

A mile-long train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire near Montgomery, W.Va., yesterday, destroying one home and causing 2,500 people to evacuate, according to local authorities.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Pitching Sound Chemicals Management

Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Emma Chynoweth

2015 is an important year for international developments in the sustainable and sound management of chemicals.
During the year, the UN is scheduled to finalise the “post-2015 development agenda”, which aims to take a more holistic and universal approach to sustainable development. A key part of that agenda is the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which should be finalised during the summer. Three of the goals – those covering health, water, and sustainable consumption and production – are of direct relevance to chemicals.
With an eye on the emerging sustainable development agenda, the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) is scheduled to convene in September. The ICCM oversees progress towards the 2020 goal to minimise the negative impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment, which is set out in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm). ICCM4 is the last scheduled meeting before the 2020 deadline, when the next international conference is planned. It also marks the ten year anniversary of the adoption of Saicm in 2006 and is seen as a critical opportunity for stakeholders to renew their commitment to take action towards the 2020 goal. The activities required to ensure participants are working towards the goal, as well as continuing the debate about what should come after 2020, will be key discussion points.
In December 2014, over 150 countries, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies and other stakeholders met in Geneva for the second open-ended working group meeting (OEWG2) to prepare for ICCM4. While there was recognition from various groups that Saicm has achieved a lot on a limited budget, it was also clear that much more needs to be done if countries are going to get anywhere near the 2020 goal. It will be up to ICCM4 to define the priorities in the run up to 2020.
The OOG
While significant achievements have been made since the sound management of chemicals goal was established at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, and since the Strategic Approach was adopted in 2006, there is a general feeling among Saicm stakeholders that there is a need to review plans and strategies to ensure substantive achievements are made by 2020.
The work needed to achieve the goal is outlined in an overall orientation and guidance (OOG) document, which aims to provide direction and priorities, and identify activities for all Strategic Approach stakeholders to take towards the 2020 goal.
A draft version, including 11 basic elements and six core activities, was discussed at length at OEWG2. The core activities are:enhancing stakeholder responsibility;strengthening national legislative and regulatory frameworks;mainstreaming the sound management of chemicals in the sustainable development agenda;consider emerging policy issues;promoting access to information; andassessing progress to 2020.

The OEWG contact group, set up to discuss the OOG, reported positive feedback on the draft. It stressed that the document is meant as guidance, and does not replace the core pillars of Saicm.
The group also heard that strengthening institutional frameworks, mobilising resources, and building capacity are key elements for progressing the sound management of chemicals; it noted that the action points need to be more focused, action-oriented and quantifiable. It was also suggested that the development and promotion of safer chemicals and transparency in policy making need to be given greater emphasis in the OOG.
Following the OEWG discussions, the document is being revised by the Saicm secretariat, under the guidance of the ICCM4 bureau; the aim is to present a document to ICCM4 that does not have to be negotiated line-by-line but rather provides a platform for action to 2020.
The OOG contact group also said that Saicm stakeholders set their own priorities and targets for achieving the 2020 goal. It also suggested the UN ad hoc Issue Management Group on sound chemicals management should be asked to look at how the UN can deliver the OOG; and that the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) provide an indication of what it, and its members, can deliver up to 2020.
The IOMC, which coordinates the Saicm-related activities of the UN bodies participating in the programme, believes that focusing on specific activities that will deliver results in terms of minimising the harmful effects of chemicals is the best way to go. It conducted a study in 2014 into the efforts being made to implement four specific areas of the Strategic Approach’s Global Plan of Action. It suggests that the ICCM should consider identifying specific areas for Saicm stakeholders to focus and cooperate on.
In the four specific areas – chemical accidents and emergency response, the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemicals, highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), and mainstreaming – the group analysed progress and gaps, and identified activities needed to achieve the 2020 goal.
Speaking for IOMC, OECD head of division Bob Diderich says: “It is self-evident, we manage to make progress when we concentrate on a more focused, reduced number of areas; or where you have a strong message, for example, that on highly hazardous pesticides; or on projects where more than one IOMC member is participating.”
Speaking to Chemical Watch for the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), Greg Skelton, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said he thought the OOG was “in good shape”. He said, in the run up to 2020, Saicm should prioritise work and resources to get the biggest impact; and suggested this would focus on building up basic capacity to manage chemicals rather than the emerging policy issues. At the OEWG, he also said stakeholders should “think about benefits of action, rather than cost of inaction. It can really stimulate discussion in the current harsh economic climate.”
However, NGOs are concerned that areas not prioritised in the OOG will be forgotten about. David Azoulay, environmental health programme director at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), wants to see much more focus on risk management activities. Joe DiGangi, senior science and technical advisor at the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), agrees, saying the main criticism of the draft is that it does not adequately address real risk reduction. “The OOG should state some tangible activities and goals to reduce risk,” he added. Ipen presented some ideas, including implementation of the Global Alliance for the elimination of lead in paint and proposed the introduction of a Global Alliance for the phase-out of highly hazardous pesticides. “The meeting’s agreement to place greater emphasis on risk reduction in the OOG is a key outcome of OEWG2,” Mr Digangi told Chemical Watch.
Activities at a regional level were also highlighted by Jacob Duer, coordinator for Saicm and interim secretariat for the Minamata Convention on mercury, as an important route forwards during the OEWG2. Five regional meetings were held in the run up to the OEWG. They cover: Latin America and the Caribbean; Central and Eastern Europe; Africa; EU, Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand (EU-Jusscannz); and Asia-Pacific. Gaps identified by two or more regions were used to compile the 11 basic elements described by the OOG. In addition, resolutions adopted by two or more of the regions include those on: EDCs; financing; highly hazardous pesticides; and lead in paint.
The regional focal point for Africa, Jamidu H. Y. Katima of the department of chemical and mining engineering of the University of Dar es Salaam, said that sound chemicals management had not been given the priority it deserves.
He said recognition of chemicals and waste in the SDGs was significant, but that the goals would not protect people from the hazards of chemicals. “What is needed is practical implementation”, for example, he said, GHS presents a challenge in Africa, where labelling standards are a particular issue. He also said more needs to be done on emerging policy issues.
Emerging policy issues
There are five emerging policy issues included in the ICCM: lead in paint;chemicals in products; nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials;hazardous substances in the lifecycle of electrical and electronic products; andendocrine disrupting chemicals.
In addition, resolutions on the management of PFCs and the transition to safer alternatives, were adopted at ICCM2 and ICCM3.
Reports on each issue, including progress to date and next steps, were submitted for the OEWG meeting.
Elimination of lead in paint is coordinated by a Global Alliance, which is supported by a number of Saicm stakeholders. It notes that many governments have yet to confirm the status of national regulation controlling lead in paint, which would allow progress to be tracked. As cost effective alternatives are available, the goal to eliminate lead in paint is achievable, but greater impetus is critical, says the update.
A proposal on the chemicals in products programme is being drafted for submission to ICCM4, and a final workshop before the conference is planned to feed into this work. Ipen’s Joe DiGangi says it will be important that companies do not hide behind weak regulatory regimes in developing countries as an excuse for not providing information on chemicals in products, which he said is critical for workers and residents in all countries.
Representing the ICCA, Lena Perenius, executive director of international chemicals management at the European Chemical Industry Council, told Chemical Watch she welcomed the broader group of downstream users and sectors involved in the chemicals in products programme; but she warned that the guidance needs to take account of existing initiatives and should not be so prescriptive that companies find it impractical to use.
The OEWG2 discussed a new resolution on nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials that will be presented to ICCM4 for consideration. This seeks to raise the importance of: information exchange (referencing the possibility of setting up a clearing house mechanism); the development of guidance and training materials; and the work of the UN sub-committee on GHS in assessing the applicability of GHS criteria for the classification of a number of nanomaterials.
The UN Industrial Development Organization (Unido) is planning more workshops in the field of hazardous substances in the lifecycle of electrical and electronic products, with the aim of strengthening cooperation and communication between key stakeholders. A resource of best practices is also being compiled. The World Health Organization (WHO) is working with various stakeholders to raise awareness relating to e-waste and children’s health.
The UN Environment Programme (Unep), the WHO and OECD are contributing their relevant areas of expertise to a joint work plan on EDCs. The WHO is considering EDCs in the context of its work on the early development and environmental origins of health and disease. The OECD is pursuing the development of methods to test for and assess EDCs, with the aim of harmonising approaches. Unep has set up a new advisory group, which has produced a through starter on the possible direction for future work on them.
ICCA’s Mr Skelton says there is a lot going on regarding EDCs. He is concerned by the high level of ambition in general. He notes: “It is a scientifically complex area, but there is not a lot of scientific consensus.”
The Global PFC Group, led by the OECD and Unep, has been raising awareness, and increased interest from non-OECD countries including Benin, China, the Russian Federation, Vietnam and Zambia. It has also published a paper outlining PFC uses, harmful effects and potential alternatives, and is preparing a document on risk reduction approaches. The group will also liaise with the Stockholm Convention as part of its evaluation of the continued need for the substances.
New emerging policy issues
OEWG2 also agree that a draft proposal to consider environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs), as an emerging policy issue, will be presented to ICCM4. Based on a revised proposal submitted by Peru, Uruguay and the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE), the draft seeks greater visibility and policy engagement on the issue, as well as better coordination, consistency and synergies between different initiatives around the world and the engagement of stakeholders from different sectors (CW 17 December 2014).
In addition, OEWG2 agreed that the Food and Agriculture Organization, Unep and the WHO will facilitate a multi-stakeholder process to develop a proposal on highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) for consideration at ICCM4. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) estimates HHPs are the main culprit when it comes to the number of deaths each year, due to chemical exposure. “Pesticides are the largest source of chemical exposure in developing countries but Saicm has not explicitly dealt with the issue,” said Mr DiGangi. He said Ipen strongly supports an African region proposal, calling for a Global Alliance to phase out HHPs. “It will be very important for the UN agencies to preserve the African region’s call for a proposal to phase out HHPs and not simply have some activities ‘about HHPs’,” he added. The FAO Council called for HHPs to be phased out in 2006.
SDGs and beyond 2020
Chemicals and waste management, beyond 2020, will be a key discussion at ICCM4.
An OEWG contact group agreed a text to be annexed to the meeting report in order to send a “message” to those working on the consultation for the post-2015 development agenda under the UN General Assembly. The text welcomes the UN Environment Assembly (Unea) resolution 1/5 on chemicals and waste, which references strengthening sound management of chemicals. It also highlights Saicm’s work in this area, its contribution towards implementing the sustainable development agenda, and its willingness to cooperate as appropriate.
With the SDGs due to be finalised mid-2015, ICCM4 will have the opportunity to consider proposals that clarify the links between sound chemicals management and the post-2015 agenda. Many Saicm stakeholders believe the SDGs will influence governments’ policies, priorities and investments; and that will provide an opportunity for making progress in the sound management of chemicals.
Fatoumata Keita-Ouane, head of Unep’s chemicals branch, noted that the Unea resolution on chemicals and waste should strengthen institutional measures through mainstreaming and financing. But she said robust guidance is needed; she noted that after many years of effort, the challenge of sound management of chemicals is still “on the table”.
The UN’s ad hoc issue management group (IMG) has a mandate to provide coherence on the subject. Working closely with the IOMC, the group plans to prepare a set of key composite targets and indicators in the area of sound chemicals and hazardous waste management. These will feed into the deliberations on the post-2015 agenda. The IMG will also enhance the profile of chemicals and wastes in the discussions on the SDGs and the post-2015 agenda.
“Agreement to place the issue of what will happen to Saicm and intergovernmental cooperation on chemical safety beyond 2020, on the agenda of ICCM4, was another key outcome of OEWG2,” said Mr DiGangi. He added, this is extremely important because ICCM4 represents the last scheduled global Saicm meeting, before 2020. He suggested an options paper be prepared so that discussions in September are “organised”. “More fundamentally, Saicm deals with many chemical safety issues that are simply not covered by the chemicals conventions – many of them important to developing and transition countries, such as lead paint, hazardous chemicals in electronics, and so on,” he said.
Other stakeholders mooted the idea of an extraordinary ICCM meeting, between the fourth and fifth meetings, specifically to prepare for post-2020.
Ms Perenius said: “We have a lot of engagement from companies in light of the approaching 2020 Saicm goal; they want to know how we can get closer to the goal and also they are interested in the ‘beyond 2020’ discussions. Further, safe chemicals management is one element of sustainable development, and we see this becoming increasingly embedded in company strategies.”
Mr Skelton added: “For most companies sound chemicals management is relevant to what they do ... they make quality products, innovate and build their brand, and their CEOs are interested in global policy. They recognise that the chemical industry is a stakeholder in Saicm and they have an interest – they make business decisions that are dependent on regulatory certainty, good governance and effective systems – all of which are aims of Saicm.”
The ICCA supports the extension of Saicm beyond 2020. “It is an innovative initiative. International agreements like the Stockholm Convention on POPs are seen [by governments] as hard and time-consuming to negotiate. Saicm can make a big contribution to help countries around the world to put capacity in place to manage chemicals,” said Mr Skelton. He added that the programme encourages partnerships and collaboration between interested stakeholders, regulators, industry and NGOs as equal players.
However, Mr DiGangi said, before ICCM4, there are a few things that still need to be clarified. He asks: “Are donor governments committed to a global agreement, outside of the chemicals conventions, that will provide for continued multi-stakeholder cooperation on chemical safety?”
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch Forum

Return to headline | Return to top
2015 Outlook: James Jones, US EPA

Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By James Jones

As I begin my fourth full year as Assistant Administrator for chemical safety, my highest priority is to continue building on the progress that we’ve made in the last few years. When I started in this job, it was clear, despite the widely acknowledged shortcomings of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), we needed to stand up a credible existing chemicals programme. “Existing chemicals” are those that were already in commerce when TSCA was enacted in the 1970s, and were allowed to remain so without further evaluation, except in unusual cases.
We have already taken a number of actions to address existing chemicals. One key initiative that has been building momentum in the past few years is the TSCA Workplan for Chemical Assessments. In 2014, the EPA released final assessments on certain uses of four chemicals on the TSCA Workplan. The assessments for several uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride (DCM) showed risk to consumers and workers. In 2015, EPA will begin taking action to mitigate these risks. EPA will first try and negotiate voluntary risk reduction measures with chemicals’ manufacturers. If these negotiations are unsuccessful, it will move forward with regulatory risk management under TSCA section 6, something which the agency has not done in more than 28 years.
In addition to risk reduction on chemicals which assessments have been completed, we will continue work on those for other chemicals on the TSCA Workplan. For 2015, these include:N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint stripper products;three clusters of related chemicals, used as flame retardants;several uses of 1-Bromopropane (1-BP); including occupational uses of 1-BP in dry-cleaning and foam gluing operations, consumer uses in aerosol solvent cleaners and spray adhesives;1,4-Dioxane; andlong- and medium-chained chlorinated paraffins used as metal working and compounding agents and its effects on ecological receptors.

Also this year, the EPA will be revealing a redesigned logo for the Design for the Environment (DfE) safer product labelling programme. The programme helps consumers, businesses and institutional buyers identify cleaning and other products that perform well and are safer for human health and the environment. To carry the label, every ingredient in a product must meet stringent human health, environmental and performance criteria. In 2014, we conducted an outreach and information gathering effort, speaking to current DfE partner companies, numerous groups of stakeholders and the general public. The choice of logo will use the feedback gathered, as well as drawing on market research. The aim is to better convey the programme’s mission of promoting safer products; increase its consumer recognition; and communicate to consumers the human health and environmental benefits of choosing safer products. We expect to reveal the new logo to the public in the next few months and to display it on products in the second half of the year.
On the regulatory front, we will finalise a rule regulating formaldehyde emissions in composite wood products. This will make national the requirements currently in place in California. We will also make a determination as to whether renovations in commercial and public buildings create a hazard from lead-based paint. If so, we will propose a regulatory approach, as required by statute. Finally, we intend to propose modifying existing use authorisations for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in several contexts in late 2015 or early 2016. I also expect 2015 to be a turning point for our green chemistry programme, as we work to identify barriers to adoption of greener chemistries, as well as to incentivise the use of these technologies.
We have also made progress in making health and safety data, and information on chemicals that the agency has collected under TSCA more accessible to interested parties and the general public. In 2013, we launched ChemView, a web-based tool which allows easy access to thousands of documents, including hazard characterisations, alternative assessments, test data submitted to the EPA, and TSCA regulatory actions. Since ChemView’s release, the agency has continued to add more information to the database, in addition to refining and enhancing the application’s functionality. This work, on adding more information and creating a more robust and useful system, will continue in 2015.
Also in 2015, we will be conducting a pilot programme for the purpose of further refining the Draft Guidelines for Environmental Performance Standards & Ecolabels that were released in 2013. The goal of the guidelines is to establish a process for recognising non-governmental environmental standards for use in federal procurement. Under the pilot, the EPA will contract with an organisation(s) to convene several groups, including a Governance Committee and stakeholder panels. The groups will develop and pilot test an approach to implement the Draft Guidelines in a few sectors, including building paints/coatings/removers, building flooring and furniture.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch

Return to headline | Return to top
Green Chemistry: Mission to Become Mainstream

Feb 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Joel Tickner

Last month, Launch (launch.org), a sustainable innovation incubator programme hosted by Nasa, the US State Department, the US Agency for International Development and Nike, held its Green Chemistry Forum. With Nasa Cape Canaveral Space Facility as a backdrop, the 10 launch green chemistry innovators, who have developed plastics from methane, bio-based chemistry building blocks and non-chromium based coatings, presented on their visions, practical realities and needs to move to scale.
These innovators – and many others – are seeking to rethink traditional chemistry, which has focused on price and performance, with an emphasis on renewable feedstocks, less hazardous chemical designs and reduced lifecycle impacts. The Green Chemistry and Commerce Council, a network of some 70 companies across sectors and levels of supply chains, has worked to “mainstream” green chemistry for the past decade, to achieve a point in time where it is the standard practice throughout the economy, so that all chemistry is, by default, green chemistry.
So what is green chemistry? It was defined in the early 1990s by Paul Anastas and John Warner as “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances.” Green chemistry is about designing out chemical impacts at the molecular and application level by following twelve green chemistry design principles. It is similar to the European term sustainable chemistry, defined by the OECD as “a scientific concept that seeks to improve the efficiency with which natural resources are used to meet human needs for chemical products and services…[encompassing] the design, manufacture and use of efficient, effective, safe and more environmentally benign chemical products and processes”.
While there are some differences in these definitions, for the most part they are focused on the design of chemicals and chemical processes that are inherently less hazardous and more sustainable through their lifecycles. Green chemistry is different from chemical substitution, which is most often focused on replacing a chemical of concern with another chemical or material that already exists in the marketplace. Often, safer alternatives to chemicals of concern that are cost effective and high performing may not be available, in which case innovation in new chemicals and ways of meeting a chemical function are needed. While green chemistry is primarily practiced at the chemical development and formulation level, product developers, manufacturers, brands and retailers all play an important role in driving and adopting the approach. They can do this by changing the way that products are designed or fabricated, such as design specifications, specifying and sourcing materials and products that incorporate green chemistry, changing manufacturing practices to substitute or reduce the use of hazardous chemicals in production, and developing and implementing policies restricting certain classes of chemicals or chemical risks in the products they make, source and/or sell.
There are increasing market, consumer and regulatory pressures to substitute chemicals of concern (whether one agrees or disagrees with the underlying science). These pressures have led to a number of industry collaborations (such as the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and Practice Green Health), green chemistry academic and business initiatives (such as the GC3 and the Green Chemistry Institute of the American Chemical Society), government programmes (such as the Presidential Green Chemistry Awards and state programmes in Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon and Washington) and non-profit education and advocacy networks (such as Beyond Benign, Biz-NGO and the ChemSec Business Dialogue).
Suffice to say there is a lot of energy and commitment to integrating green chemistry into education, government programmes and through supply chains. Many smaller start up green chemistry companies, such as Pantheon Chemical, BioAmber, NatureWorks, Solazyme and Elevance, and larger chemical companies, such as Dow, DuPont, BASF, and Eastman, have dedicated green chemistry programmes. A broad swath of product manufacturers across sectors from Nike, to Steelcase, to Johnson and Johnson have also integrated it into their R&D efforts.
The growth of activity in the past twenty years, and the increasing momentum over the past five years, is impressive. Nonetheless, despite the number of programmes, initiatives, awards, educational programmes and meetings, we have a long way to go to achieve the goal of “mainstreaming”.
Green Chemistry is still a marginal consideration in chemistry and chemicals research, education and policy for a number of reasons: in contrast with policies on renewable energy, green chemistry is still viewed primarily as an environmental rather than an economic development activity. It has received little attention or support from government agencies or investors compared to other clean tech investment areas such as renewable energy; only a small number of universities have green chemistry programmes or offer courses in their curricula; most government, NGO and even many business activities on safer chemistry have focused primarily on the “demand” side of green chemistry, for example efforts to identify and remove chemicals of concern from products; global and disperse supply chains, driven by cost considerations, have made it extremely difficult for firms to obtain the basic information necessary to understand what chemicals are in the products they sell and their potential impacts or to demand or verify the development and application of green chemistry in their supply chains; and there is a dearth of data and tools to design and evaluate green chemistry alternatives as well as case studies and empirical data to make a strong business case. In other words, it suffers from a lack of human and financial resources, good communication coordination, leadership and a broad movement.
Despite these on-going challenges, there is reason for hope. For example, the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council represents firms ranging from large retailers, brands and chemical manufacturers to innovative start-ups that are dedicated to overcoming barriers and accelerating adoption. Through its numerous initiatives, the GC3 seeks to build collaborations and partnerships that educate and demonstrate models for forward momentum. Embedding a paradigm shift towards green chemistry will require strategic thinking, coordinated activities, careful planning, resources, and time. It will need a short-and long-term strategy to both build and sustain a movement that ultimately transforms the chemical enterprise.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch

Return to headline | Return to top
2015 Outlook: Government of Canada

Feb 17, 2015 |

By Grace Patlewicz, Mark Cronin, and Julia Baines

Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) was launched in 2006 with the goal to reduce the risks posed by chemical substances to the health of Canadians and their environment. So it makes perfect sense that the programme is delivered jointly by two key Government of Canada departments – Health Canada and Environment Canada.
Our efforts are made possible through partnerships and engagement with stakeholders across the country and internationally. Through this collaborative network, significant progress has been made in assessing and managing risks from substances found to be harmful to the environment and human health, since the plans inception.
In fact, a large part of our work under the CMP is focused on 4,300 existing substances, identified as priorities in the CMP’s 2020 goal for the sound management of chemicals. In phase one, about 1,100 were addressed by risk assessment and risk management action has been initiated as needed. This process will continue for an additional 1,500 substances under the second phase of the CMP (2011-16). A total of 76 risk management instruments have been proposed, are in development or have been finalised.
To reach these targets, draft and/or final screening assessment reports will be prepared during 2015 for the CMP substance groupings, including: boron, selenium, cobalt, aromatic azo- and benzidene-based substances, substituted diphenylamines (SDPAs), methylenediphenyl diisocyanates and diamines (MDI/MDA), internationally classified substances and certain organic flame retardants. The deliverables for 2015 also include risk management scope and approach documents for those substances proposed or determined to be harmful to the health of Canadians or to the environment.
For the phthalates grouping, a State of the Science Report and a proposed cumulative assessment approach will be published and available on the Chemical Substances website, for public comment in 2015. Research and monitoring programmes will also continue to produce and provide results, supporting the respective risk assessment and management of chemicals under the CMP. Assessments and, where required, risk management scope and approach documents will continue to be published under the Petroleum Sector Stream Approach.
Canada is continuing to make progress in implementing measures to prevent and manage risks posed by harmful substances, including the Products Containing Mercury Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa), 1999, which will come into force on November 8. These Regulations will prohibit the manufacture and import of products containing mercury, or any of its compounds, and support Canada’s commitment to the Minamata Convention on Mercury. See our Chemicals Management Plan, Summary list of risk management instruments.
Collaboration and openness have been cornerstones of the CMP and we are excited to build on the momentum as we continue to move the plan forward. As an example, stakeholders are consistently offered opportunities to contribute to government decisions, by providing their comments on draft documents and publications, such as draft screening assessment reports and risk management scope and approach documents.
As well as these ongoing efforts, Canada and the US are working together under the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). Our aim is to better align the Canadian significant new activity (Snacs) conditions and the US significant new use rules (Snur) to enhance North American trade and competitiveness. We are also looking for opportunities to increase collaboration on risk assessments under the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Cepa, 1999.
To stay informed of key activities related to the CMP as well as coming events, dates of interest and future engagement opportunities, see the CMP Progress Report on the Chemical Substances website.
Looking forward, Health Canada and Environment Canada remain committed to working closely with Canadians, health and environmental, consumer and Aboriginal groups, academics, industry and international partners on our most important goal – reducing the risks posed by chemical substances to the health of Canadians and to the environment.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Seeks NAS Study On Whether Toxicity Tests Address Low Dose Risks

Feb 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study whether the agency’s chemical toxicity testing approach sufficiently addresses potential risk to human and wildlife health from exposures to low doses of endocrine active chemicals.
The new study follows NAS’ critical review last spring of a white paper authored by EPA research office scientists regarding related issues. The May 2014 report, known as “Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s State-of-the-Science Evaluation of Nonmonotonic Dose-Response Relationships as They Apply to Endocrine Disruptors,” harshly criticized EPA’s draft white paper and urged the agency to redo it. The review found the agency could not adequately justify the paper’s conclusions.
Recently funded by EPA, the new study is intended to last 30 months and cost $1.4 million. The new committee of approximately 14 members “will develop a strategy for evaluating whether EPA’s current regulatory toxicity-testing practices allow for adequate consideration of evidence of low-dose adverse human effects that act through an endocrine-mediated pathway,” according to the proposal outlining the study.
The issues before the NAS are important ones that toxicologists, pharmacologists and endocrinologists have long struggled over. The Endocrine Society and other regulatory toxicology critics are increasingly concerned that chemicals that can disrupt the hormone, or endocrine, system may be less predictable by existing regulatory testing methods because they cause effects at low doses. This is posited to occur in part because these chemicals’ nonmonotonic dose-response (NMDR) curves can change direction and may not follow the predictable upward slope of many chemicals’ dose-response curves. Current EPA test methods do not account for such outcomes and could incorrectly predict chemicals’ risks, they say.
In response to a review of studies raising such concerns and published in 2012, EPA’s toxics office requested what became a multi-month review from the research office resulting in the draft white paper, an EPA statement about the relevancy of these so-called NMDRs, and whether existing testing methodologies are health protective. EPA’s white paper, released in draft form in 2013, found there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge that NMDRs exist, but concludes that does not require altering the existing regulatory toxicity testing regime.
The Endocrine Society and other critics have charged that toxicology tests upon which EPA and other agencies base their assessments of some chemicals’ human health risks could be missing effects that are not occurring at the relatively high doses at which regulatory testing traditionally occurs. Several of the society’s members also faulted the agency’s draft paper for misrepresenting key studies the researchers conducted, leading to flawed conclusions in the draft white paper.
Low-Dose Effects
“EPA has asked the [NAS] to assist in developing a strategy for determining whether low-dose human health effects are being missed by the agency’s reliance on current toxicity-testing methods,” the proposal says. “The strategy will be based on an evaluation of at least two chemicals that affect the estrogen or androgen system.”
The new committee will also address another challenge facing EPA, known as systematic review. This is a method for collecting and evaluating scientific literature, intended to answer specific questions in a transparent and methodical way.
EPA’s influential but embattled Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program is exploring various systematic review approaches to adopt for that program’s use, a key focus of its chief, Ken Olden. NAS’ last report on the IRIS program, also released last spring, commended EPA for its efforts and recommended that the agency follow through and implement the use of systematic review for developing the influential IRIS assessments.
However, the approach has some ongoing challenges for environmental risk assessment, because it has been traditionally used in the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, where the studies reviewed are all of a similar nature. The challenge is in adapting it for use in environmental risk assessment, where studies are often epidemiology or animal toxicology research. Perhaps more challenging is determining how to evaluate mechanistic studies in the systematic review approach.
“[S]ystematic reviews will be performed to address questions about the relationship between the selected chemicals, populations, and end points,” the proposal states. “The reviews will be used to support the integration of evidence from human and animal data streams. The nature and relevance of the dose-response relationships, including evidence of NMDR relationships, will be evaluated.”
Once the chemicals for review are selected, the committee may add up to two additional members who have chemical-specific expertise, the proposal says. The proposal indicates that the committee will hold eight meetings, including “a scientific workshop to support the conduct of systematic reviews of human and animal toxicology data for two or more chemicals that affect the estrogen or androgen system. The workshop will seek to identify examples of relevant chemicals, populations/model systems, and end points of interest for further study using systematic-review methods.”
“The committee will evaluate the results of the systematic reviews, demonstrate how human and animal data streams can be integrated, determine whether the evidence supports a likely causal association, and evaluate the nature and relevance of the dose-response relationship(s). The committee will consider how to use adverse outcome pathway (AOP) or other mechanistic data, including high-throughput data and pharmacokinetic information, to elucidate under what circumstances human and animal data may be concordant or discordant.”

Return to headline | Return to top
What Are We Doing to Our Children's Brains?

Feb 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government

By Elizabeth Grossman

The numbers are startling. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.8 million more children in the U.S. were diagnosed with developmental disabilities between 2006 and 2008 than a decade earlier. During this time, the prevalence of autism climbed nearly 300 percent, while that of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder increased 33 percent. CDC figures also show that 10 to 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. have some type of neurobehavorial development disorder. Still more are affected by neurological disorders that don’t rise to the level of clinical diagnosis.
And it’s not just the U.S. Such impairments affect millions of children worldwide. The numbers are so large that Philippe Grandjean of the University of Southern Denmark and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York — both physicians and preeminent researchers in this field — describe the situation as a “pandemic.”
While earlier and more assiduous diagnosis accounts for some of the documented increase, it doesn’t explain all of it, says Irva Hertz-Piccioto, professor of environmental and occupational health and chief of the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute. Grandjean and Landrigan credit genetic factors for 30 to 40 percent of the cases. But a significant and growing body of research suggests that exposure to environmental pollutants is implicated in the disturbing rise in children’s neurological disorders.
What, exactly is going on? And what can we do about it?Chemicals and the Brain
Some chemicals — lead, mercury and organophosphate pesticides, for example — have long been recognized as toxic substances that can have lasting effects on children’s neurological health, says Bruce Lanphear, health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University. While leaded paint is now banned in the U.S., it is still present in many homes and remains in use elsewhere around the world. Children can also be exposed to lead from paints, colorings and metals used in toys, even though these uses are prohibited by U.S. law (remember Thomas the Tank Engine), and through contaminated soil or other environmental exposure as well as from plastics in which lead is used as a softener. Mercury exposure sources include some fish, air pollution and old mercury-containing thermometers and thermostats. While a great many efforts have gone into reducing and eliminating these exposures, concerns continue, particularly because we now recognize that adverse effects can occur at exceptionally low levels.
But scientists are also now discovering that chemical compounds common in outdoor air — including components of vehicle exhaust and fine particulate matter — as well as in indoor air and consumer products can also adversely affect brain development, including prenatally.
Chemicals in flame retardants, plastics, and personal care and other household products are among those Lanphear lists as targets of concern for their neurodevelopment effects.
Chemicals that prompt hormonal changes are increasingly suspected to have neurological effects, says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. Among the chemicals now being examined for neurological impacts that occur early in life are flame retardants known as PBDEs that have been used extensively in upholstery foams, electronics and other products; phthalates, widely used as plasticizers and in synthetic fragrances; the polycarbonate plastic ingredient bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA; perfluorinated compounds, whose applications include stain-, water- and grease-resistant coatings; and various pesticides.Precise ChoreographyIn the past 30 to 40 years, scientists have begun to recognize that children and infants are far more vulnerable to chemical exposures than are adults.
As Grandjean and Landrigan explain, the fetus is not well protected against environmental chemicals that can easily pass through the placenta. There’s evidence from in vitro studies, they say, that neural stem cells are very sensitive to neurotoxic substances. An infant’s brain is also vulnerable to such contaminants. At early stages of development — prenatally and during infancy — brain cells are easily damaged by industrial chemicals and other neurotoxicants. Such interference can affect how the brain develops structurally and functionally — effects that lead to lasting adverse outcomes.
“The brain is so extremely sensitive to external stimulation,” says Grandjean.
Historically, chemical neurotoxicity was examined in adults — often through cases of high levels of occupational exposure. In the past 30 to 40 years, however, scientists have begun to recognize that children and infants are far more vulnerable to chemical exposures than are adults. It has also been discovered that very low levels of exposure early in life can have profound and lasting effects. Another important discovery is that understanding how an infant or child is affected by a chemical exposure involves far more than simply calculating potential effects on a physically smaller person. Stage of development — and timing of exposure — must also be considered. Early stages of brain development involve “a very precise choreography,” explains Frederica Perera, professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Any chemical that can disrupt [brain] chemistry at this stage can be very damaging,” she says.
For example, explains Deborah Kurrasch, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who specializes in neurological research, during the early stages of brain development — when cells are becoming neurons — “timing determines destination.”
Results of Kurrasch’s latest study investigating neurodevelopmental effects of BPA illustrate what she means. In a study published in January 2015, Kurrasch and colleagues examined the effects on neurodevelopment of BPA and a common BPA substitute, bisphenol S. Specifically, they investigated how exposure to BPA and BPS — at levels comparable to those present in her community’s local drinking water supply — might affect neuron development in zebrafish at a stage comparable to the second trimester of human pregnancy, when neurons are forming and moving to the correct location in the brain.
"It’s as if they’re getting on a bus to where they need to be,” Kurrasch says. After exposure to BPA and BPS it was as if, explains Kurrasch, “twice as many neurons got on an early bus and half as many got on a late bus.” The researchers found that these exposures appeared to alter nerve development — neurogenesis — in a way that caused the fish to become hyperactive. Such an alteration, produced in this case by a “very little bit of BPA,” can cause permanent effects, Kurrasch says.Many of the chemicals under scrutiny for their effects on brain development — BPA, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, brominated flame retardants and various pesticides among them — appear to act by interfering with the function of hormones essential for healthy brain development.
Many of the chemicals under scrutiny for their effects on brain development — BPA, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, brominated flame retardants and various pesticides among them — appear to act by interfering with the function of hormones essential for healthy brain development. Among these are thyroid hormones, which regulate the part of the brain involved in a variety of vital functions, including reproduction, sleep, thirst, eating and puberty.
During the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus is not making its own thyroid hormone, says Thomas Zoeller, director of the Laboratory of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Endocrinology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. If an environmental exposure to a substance such as a polychlorinated biphenyl or perchlorate interferes with the mother’s thyroid hormones in this period — as could happen through water pollution, for example — that could in turn affect her child at a critical stage of brain development.
Another thing to consider in the context of endocrine-disrupting chemical exposures, says Zoeller, is that a substantial portion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. have some iodine deficiency that may be suppressing their thyroid hormones. While these deficiencies may not be prompting clinically adverse effects, they may be sufficient to impair fetal neurodevelopment. “Impacts can happen at levels far below safety standards,” says Zoeller. And there are a great many chemicals to which such women may be exposed environmentally with the potential to affect thyroid hormones, among them PBDEs, PCBs, BPA, various pesticides, perfluorinated compounds and certain phthalates.Something in the Air
One particularly concerning source of exposure to chemicals that are suspected to harm children’s brain development is air pollution, which is a complex mixture of various chemicals and particulate matter.
Perera and colleagues recently investigated the links between exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a fossil fuel–related component of air pollution, andincidence of ADHD in 9-year-olds. Their study found that mothers who were exposed to high levels of PAH during pregnancy were five times more likely to have children with ADHD and to have children with more severe ADHD symptoms than those who did not have such exposure. While this study is the first to make such a connection, it joins a growing body of research pointing to links between outdoor air pollutants, including PAHs, and adverse impacts on children’s brain health and development.
Looking at air pollution’s effects on brain health is relatively new, explains Kimberly Gray, health science administrator at the National Institutes of Health. Research increasingly suggests that airborne contaminants can have subtle but significant effects on early neurological development and behavior, she says. In addition to links between prenatal PAH exposure and impaired brain function, researchers are also now investigating potential connections between black carbon, volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter — among other components of air pollution — and impairments such as autism and lowered IQ.
In a study published in December 2014, Marc Weisskopf, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health associate professor of environmental and occupational epidemiology, and colleagues looked at children whose mothers were exposed to high levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5, particles 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller), particularly during the third trimester of pregnancy. The study, which involved more than 1,000 participants living all across the U.S., found that these children appeared to be twice as likely to be diagnosed with autism as children whose mothers had only low levels of such exposures. Exposure to larger particles — between 2.5 and 10 microns (what’s known as PM10) — did not appear to be associated with increasing risk for autism.
“This is very important from an epidemiological point of view” because it “places a spotlight on the mother’s exposure,” says Weisskopf. It also highlights the importance of timing and neurodevelopmental effects. Although many other factors may contribute to autism, Weisskopf explains, this study strengthens the suggestion that environmental exposures can play a role. That it appears it is the very small particles that are associated with these effects adds to what other research is finding: What might seem quantitatively small can “be quite important” when it comes to affecting brain development, Weisskopf explains.Widespread Exposure
As Grandjean and Landrigan point out, one of the disturbing recent realizations concerning environmental exposure to developmental neurotoxicants is how widespread exposure appears to be and the ubiquity of such compounds. “More neurotoxic chemicals are getting into products,” says Landrigan.
Phthalates, which are used as plasticizers — including in polyvinyl chloride plastics — and in synthetic fragrances and numerous personal care products, comprise one category of widely used chemicals that appear to have adverse impacts on brain development. Researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health recently found that children exposed prenatally to elevated levels of certain phthalates had IQ scores that were, on average, between 6 and 8 points lower than children with lower prenatal exposures. Children with reduced IQ scores also appeared to have trouble with working memory, perceptional reasoning and information processing speeds.
The phthalates examined in this study, known as DnBP and DiBP, are used in numerous household products, including toiletries and cosmetics,among them shampoo, nail polish, lipstick, hair styling products and soap, as well as vinyl fabrics and dryer sheets. Exposure levels associated with reduced IQ in the study are within the range that the CDC reports finding in its National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationwide ongoing biomonitoring assessment of chemical exposures. “Pretty much everybody in the U.S. is exposed,” says study co-author Robin Whyatt, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Medical Center.
While such a drop in IQ may sound small, Pam Factor-Litvak, the study’s lead author and associate professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School, notes that at the population — or classroom — level, this means fewer children at the high end of the intelligence scale and more at the less capable end. “The whole curve shifts downward,” she explains.
“Five or six IQ points may not sound like much, but it means more children requiring special education programs and fewer that are gifted,” says Maureen Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America’s Healthy Children Project director. “The potential economic impact is huge,” says NIEHS’s Birnbaum.The Stress Factor
What prompts neurological disorders in children is “very complex,” notes Frederica Perera. Adding to the challenge of disentangling the various contributing factors is that while research on — and regulation of — chemicals typically looks at one substance at a time, people are exposed to multiple chemicals concurrently. Further adding to this complexity when it comes to brain development are social stresses that “act on the same part of the brain region,” explains University of Rochester professor of environmental medicine Deborah Cory-Slechta. She and others are finding increasing evidence that nonchemical stressors such as maternal, domestic and community distress can prompt adverse effects on early brain development, either on their own or in combination with neurotoxic chemicals.
Birnbaum says this apparent interaction between chemicals and nonchemical stressors is “very concerning and very important.”
Epidemiological studies, Cory-Slechta explains, typically correct for what are called confounding factors — other conditions that might influence the condition being measured. Many studies, she says, “are clearly not modeling what is going on in the human environment.” What she and her colleagues hope to do is “reproduce in animal studies what goes on in human communities,” particularly in communities that are most vulnerable to adverse social stressors and most exposed to chemical contaminants, including lead, pesticides and air pollution.
Lead and stress affect the same part of the brain, she says, and so can act synergistically very early in life to produce permanent changes in brain structure. These changes can result in lowered IQ, learning and behavioral problems.
Cory-Slechta’s lab is now working on replicating conditions of stress and chronic deprivation in animal models that would mirror those experienced by communities of poverty. The aim is to better understand how these effects cross the placenta and become the fetal basis of lifelong disorders. She and her colleagues are investigating, not only associations between exposures and neurodevelopment, but also the mechanisms by which effects occur.What to Do?
Assuming we want to stop harming our children’s brains, how do we proceed?
An important step is to improve our ability to determine which chemicals have neurodevelopmental effects. A rapid screening system would be ideal, says Birnbaum, because there are so many chemicals — including newly invented ones — to which people are exposed. While such a program to test large numbers of chemicals quickly using robotics has been launched by NIH, EPA and other federal agencies, there are tens of thousands that may be in use, most of which have not been fully tested for these effects.
When it comes to reducing existing exposures, some chemicals can be avoided through consumer choice. But it’s often difficult, given that many of these substances are used — like BPA on receipts — in products that don’t carry ingredient labels. Others, including air pollutants, are much harder given their ubiquity or lack of available alternatives. And, as Maureen Swanson notes, such choices are not necessarily feasible for people at all economic levels, which raises environmental justice issues.
Grandjean and Landrigan point out that the U.S. system of chemical regulation, which lacks requirements for full premarket toxicity testing, does not do a very good job when it comes to proactive chemical safety. “Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity,” they wrote in an article published in The Lancet.
While some sources of neurotoxicity might appear to have been adequately addressed, they have not. For example, considerable progress has been made in curtailing lead exposure through policy and public health education in the U.S. and elsewhere. However, current understanding is that virtually any amount of lead exposure can cause damage, and harmful exposures continue — especially in countries where leaded paints and gasoline are still used . And in the U.S., CDC funding for lead prevention programs was dramatically reduced in 2012.
Meanwhile, children around the world — especially in less well-off countries — continue to be exposed to dangerous neurotoxicants released in industrial emissions, from waste sites and through child labor. Examples abound, and include exposures to chemicals released in electronics recycling in various locations in Asia and Africa, to lead and mercury from mining activity, to agricultural pesticides, to products contaminated with heavy metals, including food and candy.
When it comes to protecting the exquisitely sensitive developing brain, the measures currently used to assess chemical risk and set safety standards fall short, says Cory-Slechta. “It should be about primary prevention, but it’s not,” she says.
In the absence of what many environmental health advocates feel is adequate U.S. federal regulation of chemicals, many individual U.S. states have recently passed their own laws to protect children from harmful chemical exposures. Many address chemicals with neurotoxic effects, particularly those of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury. And even though some states are beginning to include language in their legislation to protect pregnant women from chemical hazards, this timing of exposure is left largely unaddressed.
While we now know a great deal about developmental neurotoxicants, more such exposures appear to be occurring than ever before. And there appears to be wide agreement among researchers that these exposures are taking a toll on the world’s children.
“To me it is very clear we have to set up a different system to better protect the brains of the future,” says Grandjean.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

States Search for Strong Cyberdefense Strategies

Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak

In Washington state, power utilities are expected to invite "good guy" hackers to try to break into critical systems to surface any cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
The state's Utilities and Transportation Commission, which encourages but does not require such penetration testing, also conducts on-site audits of regulated companies' security plans.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission requires utilities to certify annually that their defenses are up to date, covering not only cyber threats, but also physical security, emergency response and continuity of operations. "I'm very happy to say that our utilities have taken it seriously," said PUC Commissioner Pamela Witmer.
In Montana, regulators had utilities respond to a lengthy cybersecurity preparedness survey NARUC produced, but there haven't been any follow-up actions.
"There's really been no major conversation concerning [cybersecurity], so we just don't have a lot of information," said Joel Tierney, utility engineer and pipeline safety program manager for the state's Public Service Commission. "It's one of those things where it takes something to happen for people to get excited about it."
The three examples illustrate a wide disparity in how state utility commissions are responding to cybersecurity threats to utilities they regulate, documented in a recent report by the National Regulatory Research Institute.
"Some states ... they're super enthusiastic about it," said Daniel Phelan, a NRRI research associate who prepared the report summarizing state regulators' responsibilities for cybersecurity. "Whereas other states, you struggle to find any information about what they've been doing."
NRRI provides research services for members of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which put cybersecurity high on the agenda for its winter meeting this week in Washington, D.C. The NRRI survey was prepared for the Middle Atlantic Cybersecurity Collaborative, representing six commissions in that region.
Eighty percent of the U.S. electric power network is in the hands of distribution utilities regulated by states, municipal councils or cooperative boards. Only the interstate high-voltage grids are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its standards-setting organization, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC).
Phelan found that as of the end of last year, 11 commissions had completed rules or orders relating to cybersecurity: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.
Eight other states, plus New York and Connecticut and the District of Columbia, had ongoing dockets on cybersecurity policy: Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.
Thirty-one states are not on either list.
The NRRI report and interviews with state officials reveal a patchwork of cyberthreat responses that causes some experts to question whether gaps exist in cybersecurity defenses of the nation's distribution utilities.
Yochi Zakai, policy adviser for Washington's UTC, says it "is only a matter of time" before a utility gets hacked in a big way, echoing a warning last year by Adm. Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command.
"If you're aware of what's going on in this field, no system is 100 percent secure, and you know we have to be very vigilant," Zakai said. "So hopefully a company has a good system set up and then they are able to identify [the attack] right away and it's not serious."
Some experts and officials say the hit-and-miss response to the NRRI survey of state commissions likely understates the extent of cybersecurity threat response among both commissions and the distribution utilities they regulate. But Phelan said he knows of no comprehensive public assessments of cybersecurity defenses protecting electric power utilities.
How safe is the electricity distribution network? "We don't know," said one expert, who declined to speak on the issue for attribution. "We won't know until something happens."
Utility executives and industry and government cybersecurity officials say that the amount and quality of cybersecurity threat information that utilities can use and act on varies significantly.
Anthony Earley Jr., chairman and CEO of PG&E Corp., which runs California's largest power utility, says that his company and some other large utilities have access to advanced cybersecurity forensics and defenses through a top-level federal-industry partnership, the Electricity Sub-sector Coordinating Council (ESCC).
"The utility sector and the federal government have a really good, cooperative relationship," Earley said.
A new phase of the relationship followed the devastation of Superstorm Sandy in 2013, he added. It was clear that the impact of a severe cybersecurity attack could resemble the widespread damage and recovery obstacles the storm created.
"The federal government has very sophisticated tools for going into a system, monitoring it to see its vulnerabilities and whether it has been broken into. Utilities have been able to use these tools to help improve their systems because these tools are far more sophisticated than anything that is commercially available that we could get," Earley said.
So far, several dozen utilities have chosen to pay a fee for access to the ESCC threat-sharing program Earley described, according to one industry expert. ESCC information on a more general level is shared with other utilities through a broader organization, the Energy Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center -- ES-ISAC -- operated by NERC.
ES-ISAC employs technology from the Department of Homeland Security to share threat data. However, many utilities are not yet equipped to plug into the full capabilities ES-ISAC offers, officials say.
To strengthen participation in ES-ISAC, utilities around the country are being asked, "what do you need? What tools and capabilities do you want the ES-ISAC to have and provide so you can take actions to protect system," one informed official explained.States experiment
Many governors' offices have also sought to sharpen their cyber readiness.
The National Governors Association created a Resource Center for State Cybersecurity in 2012 to assist state officials. A paper by NGA senior policy analyst Andrew Kambour last year said that Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington have created cybersecurity units within the National Guard. Kambour noted that Washington, home state to Microsoft Corp., specifically draws on the cybersecurity and technology expertise of guard members in their day jobs.
State utility commissions are designed as independent bodies not under a governor's direct control. However, some governors have emphasized the need for strong partnerships with the private sector, including utilities, said Doug Robinson, executive director of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, which advises state governments on cybersecurity issues.
"The best example of that is Michigan," Robinson said. The state's Public Service Commission is part of Gov. Rick Snyder's governmentwide Michigan Cyber Initiative. "They are early adopters."
The differences in state commission cybersecurity responses creates a broad check list of potential strategies for overseeing the threat, illustrating states' roles as "laboratories" for policy experimentation.
The staff of the California Public Utility Commission has recommended a series of cybersecurity actions by state commissions, including directing utilities to break out and itemize what they are spending on cyber actions in rate requests.
"Funding discussions on cybersecurity tend to be that the utilities are spending too much on cybersecurity, until they are not," said Chris Villarreal, CPUC senior regulatory analyst.
"Having a good way of measuring the effectiveness of cybersecurity funding remains a challenge, as the utility has to justify spending money avoiding something -- how to justify the cost of spending money on something that doesn't happen?" he said. Detailing those costs in rate cases is a start.
The NRRI survey, however, found that there were only seven states where utilities explicitly detailed cybersecurity costs within rate cases.
The rarity of seeing cybersecurity in rate cases stems from the difficulty of conducting cost/benefit analyses for cyber protections, experts say.
It's also "really hard for commissioners to assess the reliability of any such kinds of estimates," noted Paul Stockton, former assistant secretary of Defense for homeland security and managing director of consultancy Sonecon LLC. "This is an area where informal, non-docketed discussion between commissioners, their staffs and the utilities is absolutely vital."
Meanwhile, emerging technologies are blurring the lines between distribution and transmission networks, further changing risk assessments, Stockton said.
"The grid is being modernized and strengthened so rapidly that I don't believe we understand, in the years to come, how many new attack surfaces we're creating, all of the interdependencies that are likely to emerge," he said. "That is an area that requires further analysis -- not just where we are today, but attempting to anticipate how investment is going to go forward."Info protection
State commissions that ask utilities to report cyberattacks or vulnerabilities have to be able to protect information that may be accessible under state open records laws.
"Much of this information is highly confidential, and care needs to be taken to ensure the ongoing protection of this information. Utilities are reluctant to tell the regulator of high risk [factors] for fear of regulatory investigation and potential liability risks," California's Villarreal said.
Across the utility spectrum, officials say a crucial priority is congressional action on threat-sharing legislation. Officials say utilities need a safe harbor when they disclose vulnerabilities and a shield from lawsuits if they have to cut off customers' power temporarily to deal with severe cyber intrusions -- assuming the utilities have taken reasonable measures to protect themselves.
Missouri's Public Service Commission began a formal cybersecurity review in 2012, asking utilities to answer the NARUC questions and give high-level presentations on their cyberdefense programs. But that soon evolved into an informal arrangement.
"We created a team of staff experts [at the commission]," said Terry Jarrett, a former Missouri commission member. The team brought together people with backgrounds in information technology, grid operations and engineering.
"They were regularly in contact with our regulated utilities on cybersecurity issues," Jarrett said. "We found that was very, very helpful. Some of our utilities weren't having issues but were sharing risks they were seeing and the steps they were taking."
The informal nature of the conversations put utilities at ease, he added.
"We didn't want any formal documents on sensitive cybersecurity issues that we would house on the commission server that might be hacked," said Jarrett, who headed NARUC's cybersecurity panel before leaving the commission in 2013.
Arthur House, chairman of the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, cited similar concerns as a basis for seeking a close but informal dialogue with the state's electric utilities on cybersecurity. "We don't want to be the custodian of sensitive information," he said.
Yet another issue for commissions is recruiting qualified cybersecurity staff.
Washington's Zakai said that states should be flexible with defining "qualified," however.
"I wouldn't call myself qualified to go out and try to hack into a company's system," he said. "But that's OK, I don't think we need that expertise in-house in the commission as long as we're making sure the companies do have someone outside of their internal teams that are looking at it."
Budgetary constraints play a role in preventing commissions from attracting and keeping cybersecurity talent. Villarreal mentions another issue: Many state commissions do not have staff with security clearances to be part of the larger, national conversation on cybersecurity.
"It's difficult for a state commission to have a cybersecurity expert," said Pennsylvania Commissioner Witmer. "Quite frankly -- to this point -- most of the state cybsersecurity experts are self-taught IT [information technology] folks. We're now just starting to see universities develop degrees in cybsersecurity."
That expertise will help utilities and commissions in the future if their budgets have the room.
"Our larger utilities have more resources, so one of the things we've been working very hard at is helping break down barriers in the conduit of information and allow our larger utilities to serve as mentors to some of our smaller and midsized companies," Witmer said.Unconventional strategies
Some states have acted to strengthen utility cybersecurity defenses outside of the utility commission regulatory framework.
In Utah, legislators carved out funding for a cyber protection and investigation unit after a breach at the state's Department of Technology Services leaked the personal information of hundreds of thousands of Medicaid recipients and child patients three years ago.
The State Bureau of Investigation's new Cyber Crimes Unit is equipped to respond to cyberthreats involving electric utilities, officials said.
"We would investigate cyberthreats to the electrical grid if requested by the entity," said Maj. Brian Redd, cyber division director at the Utah Department of Public Safety.
He added that the unit would coordinate with federal investigators for any incident involving critical infrastructure, such as an attack on the electric grid.
Redd said the harried response following the health care data breach revealed a need for more resources to counter cyberthreats.
"We feel much more prepared now to deal with intrusions," he said, although he added that "we have a long ways to go," particularly when it comes to sharing information with the private sector.
For its part, Utah's Public Service Commission has talked about cybersecurity with regulated utilities at technical conferences but has yet to take formal action.
Still, Gary Widerburg, administrator for Utah's PSC, said the regulator would be open to having conversations with the Cyber Crimes Unit to prepare for a possible attack on the grid.
"Cybersecurity is definitely a discussion that is going to continue to grow," Widerburg said. "It's not something that can be ignored, and you're going to hear more and more about it."
Some states have used voluntary cyber guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as a benchmark for their regulated utilities' progress. Other state regulators hew toward relying on Critical Infrastructure Protection standards for the bulk electric power grid.
Since 2012, New York's Public Service Commission has directed large utilities to go above and beyond NERC standards by addressing cybersecurity budgeting and staffing needs.
Phelan credited New York as being one of the more vocal states on the cybersecurity issue but concluded from the survey that most electric utilities and regulatory commissions are far from declaring victory against the shadowy, evolving cybersecurity threats they face.
"We really found that commissions aren't ready to say that they've been successful, that their way is the right way," he said. "So the level of confidence in utility commissions that they're doing the right thing isn't extraordinarily high, but they're more than willing to act and to try to figure out the way forward."

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

EPA Considers Delaying Carbon Deadline After Utilities Object

Feb 17, 2015 | Bloomberg - Businessweek

By Mark Drajem

The Obama administration may ease off on a deadline for power companies to start meeting new rules to cut carbon emissions, the top environmental regulator said, a win for utilities that complained too much was required too soon.
Gina McCarthy, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, offered Tuesday what she said was a “big hint,” saying she heard complaints that the 2020 deadline for states to make steep cuts is too strict. The final climate standards take effect in 2030, and many state regulators said the pace could endanger the reliability of the electric grid.
“I have heard very few real comments about the final goal; it’s really a question about how quickly you get there,” McCarthy said at a conference of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Washington. “We want the states to have flexibility to explore options.”
The EPA’s first standards for fossil-fuel power plants, the top source of the emissions blamed for global warming, drew fire from utilities. The plan, which seeks a 30 percent cut in emissions during a quarter century ending in 2030, is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s effort to combat global warming.State Cuts
The proposal, issued last year, sets specific cuts each state must achieve, based on a formula that takes into account the amount of available coal power that can be switched to natural gas, and estimates of growth in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The EPA estimated the switch to natural gas could kick in by 2020, meaning a cut of emissions by 26 percent from 2005 could be reached by then. The final goal of 30 percent would come a decade later.
McCarthy said the EPA is unwilling to eliminate interim benchmarks altogether because the agency wants to ensure states are on a “glide path” to hit the 2030 target. The final rule will be released after the middle of this year, she said.
Separately, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Tuesday his department determined that natural-gas pipeline bottlenecks are not as severe as coal industry lobbyists have warned, and that a ramp-up in electricity generation from natural gas is possible with just a few new local or regional pipelines.
“There will need to be increased investments, but mostly at the regional level,” he told reporters at the same conference.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Chief Hints at Changes to Timeline for Clean Power Plan

Feb 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Erica Martinson

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy hinted today that the agency is likely to make changes to state deadlines in its final Clean Power Plan requiring carbon dioxide emissions cuts from power plants.

The issues of reliability and cost are major concerns for her and President Barack Obama when it comes to the climate change regulations, McCarthy told utility regulators in Washington.

EPA has already heard from utility regulators and others that the agency’s proposed 2020 start date for compliance, “when it was coupled with the stringency of certain of the states’ targets, could frustrate EPA’s intention of giving … states flexibility,” McCarthy said. “And you and I know that flexibility is the key to this proposal. That’ s how we get the emissions reductions we need at low cost while maintaining a reliable energy supply.”

EPA previously asked for additional comment on that and other issues in late October.

While she can’t say much about what will be in the final rule, “I think I gave you a pretty big hint,” McCarthy said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Grid Operators Push for More Time on EPA Plan

Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Peter Behr

Achieving the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan requires more time, more regional cooperation and a "carbon price" -- a de facto economic penalty for power plant carbon emissions -- state utility commissioners were told yesterday.
Four senior power grid executives offered assessments of key engineering and political challenges confronting U.S. EPA's proposed climate policy amendments to the Clean Air Act at the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). It is not clear which set of obstacles loomed larger.
The grid officials pressed hard on their organizations' prior appeals for a pushback against EPA's initial front-loaded compliance deadline of 2020, a concession that EPA has signaled it is considering. EPA's overall goal is to reduce power plant carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
"The sharp cliff on the front end is very difficult," said Gerry Cauley, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., the federally certified grid monitor. He suggested a gradual, 10-year ramp-up of carbon emissions requirements. Cauley said NERC's reliability objections are "not intended to be an indictment of the proposed rule." But, he added, "We need more time."
NERC expects to issue a follow-up report on reliability issues in April, he said.
Michael Kormos, executive vice president of the PJM Interconnection, operating the high-voltage grid between New Jersey and Illinois, said initial planning studies have identified anywhere from 6,000 to 25,000 megawatts of fossil-fuel power plant capacity that might have to be shut down to comply with EPA carbon rules.
The choice of deadlines "ultimately could be a very big deal for us," Kormos said, noting that the impacts of plant requirements are being studied for three deadlines, 2020, 2025 and 2029. "Given enough time ... we don't necessarily foresee a reliability problem."
The issue is whether there is enough time to replace the shutdown of coal generation plants, he added.
Jim Robb, chief operating officer of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), operations overseer for power flows west of the Rocky Mountains, said a planning study for demand and resources in 2024 comes "within spitting distance" of meeting EPA's carbon reduction goals overall. But Colorado, and even more so, Arizona, could face reliability challenges.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
Hitting EPA targets would require the entire region to match California's investments in renewable energy output, and WECC doesn't know whether its long-distance transmission network can handle that, he said. California is able to manage high levels of variable renewable power because it can shift excess solar power to its neighbors when necessary, and import power when clouds cover Los Angeles. What happens when the entire region "looks like California?" he asked.
"When we look at EPA scenarios, we see some very unusual activities" on the Western transmission network, he said.
"New things we hadn't seen," he said. "I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's not tested, either."
Clair Moeller, chief operating officer of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator in the central United States, said 14,000 MW of generation within MISO is at risk from EPA's proposed rule. "Given enough time, we can make those transitions," he said.
"There is not going to be very much time [between] when a rule is final and when the initial compliance period begins," he said. "To replace that much generation in that amount of time looks to us to be a difficult task for the utilities."Hard pitch for regional solutions
The grid operators' comments outlined a series of internal dilemmas on timing.
As officials of multi-state grid organizations, they advocated the efficiency and flexibility of regional solutions to rebalancing supplies and replacing shuttered coal plants.
"In the West, because of the interdependency of the states, it is very hard for one state in isolation to take a set of actions that won't have some derivative implications for the other states," Robb said.
"We're asking for as much time as possible to look at the plans the states are developing, hopefully before they are finalized," Robb added, "to look at them in the aggregate and to assess whether there are issues ... before they hit."
"We're not terribly interested in re-Balkanizing the grid," MISO's Moeller said.
For example, today, a wind farm in south-central Minnesota might have an off-take agreement with a utility in Indiana that receives its power. Under the Clean Power Plan, questions remain about which state gets the credit for that carbon-free power. "We'd better figure that out," Moeller told state regulators.
MISO's sprawling system includes states where governors strongly oppose the Obama administration's plan for tackling power plant emissions. It also includes states that support it, illustrating another regional hurdle. "Any kind of state reciprocity agreement has to be voluntary," Moeller said, given that some states don't want to participate.
"For states that are already working together with energy plans for their region, it might be an easy transition. For a state like Georgia that's independent, it might be more difficult," said Georgia Public Safety Commissioner Tim Echols. Georgia and neighboring states could consider a regional pact because they have a common utility, he said. "It might be more natural, easier for them because they're used to talking about their plans in front of each other."
But, he added, "We are pushing back against the EPA plan on its face. I don't want to start talking about compliance yet because I'm still hoping that the thing will go down in flames."Modeling a carbon price
Choosing a regional plan tightens EPA's proposed timetable, but could help states. State plans are due between mid-2016 and 2017, depending on whether states receive extensions. If states join in regional compliance plans, they have until 2018 to submit them, two years before the initial deadline, if that holds.
"We really need to understand what the states want to do, how the states are ultimately going to implement the plans," Kormos said. That detail is essential to understanding reliability issues, he said.
"Until we get a sense of state implementation plans," Robb added, "it is very hard to say exactly which units might be compromised."
Some state opponents of the EPA plan insist the agency should not go ahead until electric reliability issues are resolved.
Still, grid operators and regulators returned to the so-called price on carbon, a mechanism that could fit neatly into the existing process for dispatching electric power across the grid. A price or tax based on the volume of carbon emissions would push coal generators' market prices above those of efficient gas-fired generators, while gas plants would have higher prices than carbon-free nuclear or renewable power.
PJM's Kormos said that adding an assumed price on carbon in PJM's analysis of the EPA plan makes for the most efficient choices among competing generating plants in organized power markets like PJM's.
Asim Haque, an Ohio commissioner and moderator of yesterday's NARUC panel, wondered how might that come about.
"It's up to the states, how do you come to that price," Kormos said. "What is the mechanism, whether it's cap and trade or a carbon tax, is sort of irrelevant to our model."
Yet it's not politically irrelevant, Haque added in an interview following the session.
"Utilizing the current dispatch system and placing a regional price on carbon, if doing that within the existing [power plant] dispatch system results in lower costs for consumers in my state, then we want to make sure we are taking a really, really hard look at that," Haque said.
"Where does this concept of a carbon price fall on the spectrum of what state utility commissions can do? How you logistically get there is an authority-based question I think we'll need to work out," Haque said.
"You're not going to make a move until you consult with all of the various branches within your state," he said.
Every state's internal politics are different, Haque noted. "The Public Utility Commission of Ohio is not going to do anything without consulting with Ohio EPA, and then any other entity that we deem should be in the loop on these things," he said.
"I'm not exactly sure what the path would be to get there." he concluded.
Reporters Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro contributed.

Return to headline | Return to top
McCarthy Hints at Interim Target Changes in Power Plant Rule

Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Jean Chemnick

U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy suggested today that EPA would change the way early reductions are mandated in its final version of the Clean Power Plan.
In an appearance at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) winter meeting, McCarthy acknowledged many states have told EPA that the interim compliance period would limit their options or affect reliability.
"I think that the comments that we received showed a lot of real concern that there were a few states where the combination of the interim target and the aggressiveness of that, and the goal that we wanted to achieve to provide ultimate flexibility to the states -- there was a lot of concern that those collided in a few states," she said.
The proposal EPA released last June tasked some states with achieving the bulk of their overall emissions reduction targets beginning in 2020 -- well in advance of the final 2030 phase-in date.
Those targets are front-loaded mostly because of the assumptions EPA's draft makes about how quickly states can switch their current generation mix from coal to natural gas. But McCarthy noted EPA released a notice of data availability last fall asking for comment about some tweaks to those assumptions, which would soften interim requirements for some states.
While McCarthy seemed to hold the door open for changes to the interim state targets, she said the final rule would need to mandate some pre-2030 action.
"We clearly need to make sure that there's a trajectory toward a goal that is as far away as 2030," she said.
McCarthy noted that most states have not said their final goal is unachievable, a fact she held out as a hopeful sign.
NARUC and many other commenters also have told EPA they are concerned that states might not be credited appropriately for actions they took to reduce emissions before the interim targets phase in by 2020. McCarthy pointed to a $4 billion proposed fund included in the fiscal 2016 budget request to Congress, which would provide assistance to states that reduce power sector emissions ahead of schedule or in excess of what they are required to do under the rule.
The proposal would require congressional appropriations, however, which are unlikely to clear a GOP-controlled Congress.
McCarthy also told the regulators that EPA is consulting with other federal agencies that have more jurisdiction over reliability and technology --- especially the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The rule's critics have urged FERC to exercise vigorous oversight over the rule, which they say will force key power plants to retire prematurely.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
But McCarthy said EPA and FERC developed a working relationship during the rulemaking and implementation processes for EPA's mercury power plant rule and that they continue to consult on the Clean Power Plan.
And McCarthy said again that EPA will release its final Clean Power Plan by "midsummer," refusing to offer a more concrete timeline.
"I will not squander the opportunity to get it done right because I've talked about a specific date," she said.
In remarks earlier in the morning at the same event, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the Obama administration's efforts to contain emissions had made a difference in the global conversation on climate change ahead of this year's crucial round of United Nations negotiations.
"What we see generally in conversations with other partners internationally is the conversation has changed," he said.
Work done in 2014, including the release of the Clean Power Plan, has paved the way for a more ambitious deal to be struck in Paris, he said.
"I think many of us would not have found us in at least such a position for potentially a major impact in the Paris meeting," she said.
Moniz said DOE's second comprehensive review of the nation's science and energy technology research and development programs -- known as the Quadrennial Energy Review -- would be released in the next weeks.
It will include recommendations that can only move forward with authorization by Congress, he said.
"More broadly with infrastructure, the need to get out there and do the kinds of changes we need in energy infrastructure ... those almost uniformly will require some action by Congress," Moniz said.
He added that DOE staff are talking to key members on Capitol Hill in hopes of paving the way for infrastructure legislation.
"Indeed when we started the QER, one of the motivations was that a strongly and analytically founded document could provide the basis of discussion with both chambers and both parties," he said.
Reporter Emily Holden contributed.

Return to headline | Return to top
‘Downstream’ Gas Operators Seek EPA Credit For Voluntary Methane Cuts

Feb 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Bridget DiCosmo

“Downstream” operators of natural gas transmission pipelines will likely seek credit and cost-recovery from EPA for their voluntary efforts to reduce methane emissions, which could potentially ease their obligations under the agency’s planned methane rules for the sector, a gas transmission sector source says.
“For pipeline operators, if they go down the road of voluntary programs” such as working to reduce methane through EPA’s voluntary Natural Gas Star program that encourages practices to cut emissions, “they’re going to want reassurance of complete recovery,” particularly if the agency opts to pursue an existing source rule down the road, and because the operators are already subject to rate recovery controls, says the source. The Department of Transportation, which regulates pipelines, says a key consideration in ratemaking is ability of operators to recover costs and provide a profit to investors -- which could be affected any new regulation of operators’ emissions.
Pipeline operators have developed a “heavy reliance” on voluntary programs to cut emissions from “blowdowns” and other practices, and are likely to seek “complete credit and cost-recovery” for any EPA mandates to reduce methane emissions “given that transmission pipelines are subject to rate recovery,” the source adds.
EPA originally issued a new source performance standard (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector that only affected new drilling operations emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) but did not regulate methane. But the agency announced last month that it plans to craft a revision to the NSPS to also impose direct methane limits, which could subject downstream operations -- which unlike upstream sources do not emit VOCs -- to some first-time controls.
Further, although the agency says it is not developing a methane rule for existing sources, environmentalists and others say the NSPS revision will trigger a Clean Air Act mandate for such a policy. Downstream operators fear this would impose strict new air mandates on years-old pipelines targeting their emissions.
The industry source argues that the downstream sector, which in addition to transmission pipeline operations includes gas storage, will urge EPA to fully credit existing voluntary steps taken to cut methane under either the Clean Air Act section 111(b) NSPS or a potential future section 111(d) existing source rule.
EPA will impose the new source methane limits with an air law section 111(b) new source performance standards rulemaking. Under the law, once EPA sets regulations for new and modified sources under section 111(b), the agency “shall prescribe regulations” that would require states to craft plans for meeting standards for existing sources -- as the agency is doing in its existing source performance standards for the power sector.
Existing Sources
The legal language has alarmed many in industry who oppose and existing source rule and say the air law gives EPA broad discretion on a timeline for acting on those sources even after proposing a 111(b) rule.
EPA chief Gina McCarthy told reporters during a Jan. 16 roundtable at agency headquarters in Washington, DC, that the Clean Air Act does not include a deadline for EPA to develop existing source regulations. She added that “The most important thing to realize is if existing sources aggressively reduce their emissions then it’s not clear that there will be cost-effective reductions that will necessitate regulation on existing facilities.”
Environmentalists, however, say EPA cannot indefinitely hold off on existing source regulations, suggesting that one option to force the rulemaking might be a lawsuit claiming an “unreasonable delay” under the Administrative Procedure Act for the existing source rules. That could tee up a legal debate likely to play out as EPA works to issue its proposal to curb methane from new and modified sources by its anticipated summer target.
“EPA is legally required to set methane standards for existing sources when it has set the standards for new sources,” one environmentalist says of the relevant language in the air law.
Environmentalists say an existing source rule is significant for the transmission and processing sector because those sources tend to be replaced much less frequently than upstream sources such as production wells. That likely means that the majority of emissions would come from existing sources because there are less “new and modified” sources to trigger controls, and many downstream operations were not covered by the 2012 NSPS.
A second industry source says the threat of new regulations puts additional “pressure” on EPA to develop a definition of “modified” that could capture the types of downstream sources it wants to regulate. The transmission official says that while it is unclear how EPA will approach “modified” sources, historically the issue has been a “bone of contention” over the power plant rules, and “my guess is it will be the same issue.”
The first industry source says for several years, 1,000 miles per year of transmission lines were being constructed to keep pace with the rapid expansion in shale gas production, but that the additions now trend toward smaller pieces.
Ozone Controls
In EPA’s Jan. 14 announcement of its methane strategy, the agency also said it plans to develop guidelines to help states curb ozone-forming pollutants such as VOCs from existing sources in areas out of attainment with the agency’s ozone national ambient air quality standards, and in the Ozone Transport Region of states with high ozone levels.
But the environmentalist says the ozone guidelines “don’t get at downstream sources,” adding that some transmission sources “are a continuous problem” because they consist of small pieces of equipment such as pneumatics and compressors that move gas through transmission lines but are not subject to the guidelines because they emit little VOC emissions, and therefore should be regulated for their methane pollution.
But the gas sector continues to push back on the need for direct regulation of its methane emissions, with the American Petroleum Institute (API) touting a recent field study that it says undermines the case for such controls.
In that study, researchers from Colorado State University, Carnegie Mellon University and Aerodyne Research took measurements of methane emissions at 45 transmission and storage facilities throughout the country, in collaboration with Environmental Defense Fund, Dominion, Dow Chemical, Enable Gas Transmission Company, Kinder Morgan, Columbia Pipeline Group, TransCanada and Williams.
At the 45 sites sampled, just two sites accounted for almost as much methane as the other 43 sites combined. The higher emissions at the two sites were likely due to a faulty valve, says a Feb. 10 press release by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) on the study just published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
API’s Senior Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman in a Feb. 10 statement touted the study as helping make the industry’s case against methane rule.
“EPA’s own analysis shows that new methane regulations announced by the Obama administration are unnecessary in view of the dramatic progress the oil and natural gas industry is already making in reducing emissions,” Feldman said. “New regulations on methane emissions may score positive headlines and political points, but they may also undermine President Obama’s overall climate goals, as well as job-creating energy development. Regulatory policy should be based on science, not politics.”
The gas sector is “taking concrete steps to reduce methane emissions from their systems and have made commitments to find ways to curb releases even further,” INGAA said in its statement.
The study “indicates a need to focus methane management measures on sites and equipment with the highest emissions profile,” INGAA President and CEO Don Santa noted in the press release, saying the study is “very consistent” with steps operators are voluntarily taking to reduce emissions.
A similar study by the same researchers published in the journal at the same time measured methane emissions at 114 gathering facilities and 16 processing plants, finding that the distributions were skewed among gathering facilities, with 30 percent of facilities contributing 80 percent of the total emissions.

Return to headline | Return to top
Ohio Supreme Court Says State Oil, Gas Law Outranks Local Rules

Feb 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Alex Guillen

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Tuesday that municipalities cannot regulate fracking because the state has sole power to regulate oil and gas operations.
“We have consistently held that a municipal-licensing ordinance conflicts with a state-licensing scheme if the 'local ordinance restricts an activity which a state license permits,’” Justice Judith French wrote in the opinion.
The case was triggered when the city of Munroe Falls said a state-permitted oil and gas well violated five local ordinances dating back as far as 1980.
The ordinances required the driller to get a zoning certificate, pay an $800 fee and hold a public hearing, among other things.
But French concluded that a so-called home rule amendment to the state constitution, which gives cities self-governing powers so long as those rules do not conflict with state law, “does not allow a municipality to discriminate against, unfairly impede, or obstruct oil and gas activities and production operations that the state has permitted.”
In a dissent, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger argued that the local zoning ordinances in question do not conflict with state laws and that such ordinances “can have a place beside the state’s statutes regulating oil and gas activities.”
“There is no need for the state to act as the thousand-pound gorilla, gobbling up exclusive authority over the oil and gas industry, leaving not even a banana peel of home rule for municipalities,” she wrote.
In his own brief dissent, Justice William M. O’Neill wrote: “What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive. The oil and gas industry has gotten its way, and local control of drilling-location decisions has been unceremoniously taken away from the citizens of Ohio.”
The seven members of the Ohio Supreme Court are elected by a popular vote to six-year terms. Six of the seven sitting justices are Republicans; O’Neill is the lone Democrat.
Several Ohio cities in recent years have instituted fracking bans, but the extent of Tuesday’s ruling is still unclear.
The majority wrote that it makes “no judgment as to whether other ordinances could coexist with the General Assembly’s comprehensive regulatory scheme. Rather, our holding is limited to the five municipal ordinances at issue in this case.”
Some states have taken similar paths, such as Colorado courts that have ruled municipal fracking bans are preempted by state regulatory authority. Others have granted more power to localities, such as in New York, where the state’s highest court said last summer that cities can ban fracking within their borders.

Return to headline | Return to top
Ohio Court Strikes Down Local Fracking Bans

Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Towns and cities in Ohio cannot regulate hydraulic fracturing on their own, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The court ruled 4-3 that Ohio’s legislature gave state agencies exclusive authority over all aspects of oil and natural gas drilling, including fracking, in a 2004 law, and any local ordinances would violate that exclusivity.
“We have consistently held that a municipal-licensing ordinance conflicts with a state-licensing scheme if the local ordinance restricts an activity which a state license permits,” Justice Judith French wrote in the majority opinion.
The remaining judges said Ohio’s “home rule” provision in its constitution gives municipalities great leeway in writing ordinances.
“There is no need for the state to act as the thousand-pound gorilla, gobbling up exclusive authority over the oil and gas industry, leaving not even a banana peel of home rule for municipalities,” Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote.
The case started with the northeast Ohio city of Munroe Falls, which tried to block a drilling permit in 2011 based on a local law.
But as fracking has grown in recent years, other Ohio cities, like Athens, Oberlin and Mansfield have passed similar ordinances that now cannot be enforced.
Monday’s decision came as environmentalists and other supporters of local fracking bans have gotten mixed results in the efforts to empower cities and towns to block the controversial practice.
In July, New York’s highest court ruled that local governments can outlaw fracking, and a 2013 decision in Pennsylvania said towns can regulate it but not outright ban it.
Towns in Texas and California banned fracking in last year’s election, but Texas officials have refused to allow it to be enforced.

Return to headline | Return to top
USGS Puts Out Trove of Fracking Data

Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Mike Soraghan

Federal scientists have released an analysis of more than 60 years of hydraulic fracturing, involving nearly 1 million oil and gas wells.
Officials at the U.S. Geological Survey said that the new report brings valuable information to an area where data have been scarce.
"Before we started the project, there was not a lot of data," said USGS scientist and project leader Tanya Gallegos. "It hasn't been available to the public. We hope people will use it."
Hydraulic fracturing has taken place in U.S. oil fields since the late 1940s. But in the past decade, advancements in fracking technology have enabled a boom in production from previously inaccessible shale formations.
The report, covering 1.8 million fracturing treatment records from 1947 through 2010, identifies trends in water use, along with use of proppants, treatment fluids and additives. The data illustrate the rapid expansion of water-intensive horizontal/directional drilling, which has increased from 6 percent of fracked wells in 2000 to 42 percent in 2010.
"Hydraulic fracturing has been around a while, but the characteristics have changed over time," Gallegos said.
Click here for a copy of the report.
Click here for a copy of the data series.

Return to headline | Return to top
Could a Failed Keystone XL Amendment Upend the Paris Climate Talks?

Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire

By Lisa Friedman

Supporters of an international climate accord fear that a failed Senate amendment could come back to haunt the Obama administration as it tries to negotiate a global deal for Paris.
The measure, rejected as part of the Keystone XL pipeline debate last month, was primarily focused on invalidating an agreement between the United States and China to each curb carbon dioxide emissions. Buried at the end was a line barring the administration from entering any future deal imposing "disparate greenhouse gas commitments" for the United States and other countries.
It's a tricky word, disparate, and even the authors are evasive about how they want to interpret it. Taken at its most literal, though, it means Obama's negotiators could not sign off on a deal unless other major emitters -- or maybe even all countries -- cut carbon at the same absolute levels as America.
At minimum, analysts on both sides of the aisle say, it is a stark departure from a congressional edict that has guided the U.S. approach to international climate change talks since 1998.
Advocates of reaching a global climate agreement in Paris this December call the amendment by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) an attempt to upend the U.N.-led talks. Many Republicans readily agree.
All said they expect the effort to rear its head again soon, and that could pose awkward problems for the United States.
"It wasn't like there were high fives" when the vote failed, one Obama administration official told ClimateWire. "It was more like, 'Uh oh, when is this coming back?'"Blunt-Inhofe, meet Byrd-Hagel
The last time Congress scuttled White House efforts to enact a global climate change treaty, the shock waves reverberated for years.
Written in response to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution -- named for deceased West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd and then-freshman Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- is considered the definitive U.S. guide to climate deals.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.
Approved 95-0, it declared that America should not sign any agreement that demands emissions cuts from only industrialized nations, as Kyoto did. Specifically, it said the United States may only enter a deal that "also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period."
That edict has been a guiding star for Obama's climate negotiating team. And to the frustration yet growing acceptance of the international community, environmental leaders say, the administration is poised to successfully impose Byrd-Hagel on the rest of the world.
If an agreement comes to pass in Paris, it will for the first time include "specific scheduled commitments" from all nations, and all major emitters will be held to the same legal standards for curbing carbon.
That is, unless a new congressional mandate takes its place.
"For almost 20 years now, the marker for the United States has been reflected in the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Countries like China, India, Mexico, South Korea need to A, do significant work to reduce emissions, and B, do it under the same legal basis as the U.S.," said Jake Schmidt, director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"What the grand irony is in all of this is, that's actually what the Paris agreement is going to do," Schmidt said. "The ball has been moved by the Republicans."U.S.-China deal provides GOP rallying cry
It was the U.S.-China climate agreement that got that ball moving.
Ever since the November morning in Beijing when President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping each announced new emissions targets, Republicans have attacked it as a sucker's deal.
"Are you operating under some kind of a delusion that somehow China is going to change their behavior?" Inhofe asked Janet McCabe, acting administrator for U.S. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, at a recent hearing.
Obama promised that the United States would cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. China, Xi said, will peak emissions by 2030 and ramp up non-fossil-fuel energy generation to 20 percent.
The administration and most energy analysts say China's effort is ambitious.
In order to meet its goal, China will have to peak coal use soon -- an effort already underway -- and add as much as 1,000 gigawatts of wind, solar, nuclear and other zero-emissions generation by 2030. That, according to the White House, is more than all the coal-fired power plants currently existing in China and close to the total electricity generation capacity of the United States.
But Republicans and industry leaders say they are far from convinced. The agreement, they warn, is the beginning of a global deal that will force the United States to do more than other countries and hurt the economy.
"It certainly doesn't appear as if the largest-emitting countries are prepared to sign up to a program of the likes that we are embarking on here," said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association.
Said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), "I don't understand how you can have an agreement but [one party] does not have to do anything for 15 years."Defining the meaning of 'disparate'
Shortly after the China deal was announced, Blunt and Inhofe drew up a resolution. Weeks later, it became an amendment to the Keystone XL pipeline bill.
The measure failed to meet a 60-vote threshold and was rejected 51-46. But Republicans point out that it still won favor with a majority of the Senate.
Yet when asked to define what they meant by trying to ban "disparate" targets for the United States, Inhofe and several of the 51 lawmakers who voted for it offered ambiguous definitions.
"Before we take a step forward, everybody else has to take a meaningful step forward and show that there really is a global context," Capito said.
Asked if she felt such a context currently exists, Capito rolled her eyes. "No," she said. "No."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she believed the amendment was "a clear statement that if the U.S. deals with the issue of climate, that there is a recognition that other nations not be given a pass."
Neither they nor Inhofe, when questioned, said they thought China, India or other countries should cut absolute emissions at the same levels as the United States. To the contrary, they argued that carbon cuts are crippling America's economy and are fighting U.S. EPA efforts to regulate power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Frank Maisano, an energy specialist with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani who has been critical of U.N. climate agreement efforts, said the Blunt-Inhofe amendment was an attempt to "recreate and update" Byrd-Hagel. But, he said, new definitions are unnecessary.
"The Senate went on record a long time ago establishing a record of what would be an acceptable treaty," he said. "I think [Republicans] are going to continue to talk about the concepts that were outlined in Byrd-Hagel and underscore the ways that the China deal and the India discussions don't really fit with that mold. And they don't."A 'poison pill'?
Supporters of a U.N. agreement, meanwhile, say insisting against disparate targets shows that Republicans just don't want to address global warming.
"From a legal perspective, it's dubious to me what exactly that puts on the Obama administration. But politically, it's clear. They don't want to see an agreement of any sort come out of Paris," said Roger Ballentine, president of Green Strategies Inc., who served as chairman of the White House task force on climate under President Clinton.
"To me, it's a huge shift to the right, not just from what Byrd-Hagel had said. Byrd-Hagel still contemplated that different countries could take on different levels of action based on their level of capability and contribution to the problem," said Dirk Forrister, president of the International Emissions Trading Association and also a former Clinton-era climate task force chairman.
On the international scene, meanwhile, many nations have scoffed at the U.S. target and argue that the world's richest and longest-emitting nation should do even more.
Forrister said that if the United States were bound by a mandate not to accept disparate cuts, it would be a "poison pill" for the Paris talks.
"If the U.S. actually had to do the exact same thing as the developing world ... it would be a huge obstacle. That's never been the United States' policy. It's always been about countries doing what they were reasonably capable of doing," he said.A resolution in need of Democrats
Obama administration sources said they are bracing for Blunt-Inhofe to come back. Democrats in Congress said they have no doubt it will.
"I think there is going to be a consistent effort to undermine the rulemaking process and undermine the president's ability to negotiate [in Paris]," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
A Senate GOP aide told ClimateWire that the Republican conference is still "working on our overall strategy." Asked if the lawmakers view the Blunt-Inhofe measure as the new generation of Byrd-Hagel, the aide said, "It's been done before, and people will talk about doing it again."
Whether a renewed Blunt-Inhofe resolution could win the kind of support that Byrd-Hagel did remains unclear. Analysts say the fact that the first attempt won away only one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, does not bode well for a new, sweeping Senate mandate.
Inhofe, though, said that as long as the Obama administration continues to press for a Paris agreement, he will keep opposing it.
"I think the ball is in their court. Clearly, they want to pass something totally indefensible," he said. "We'll fight it."

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy-Efficient Buildings Unite Left and Right

Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - Pundit's Blog

By Roger Platt

With the 114th Congress newly underway, leaders from both political parties have said they want to work together. All they need are issues that both sides can agree on. Here's one — energy-efficient buildings.
Energy efficient green buildings are a model of bipartisan consensus. On the one hand, buildings that save energy help the environment by reducing carbon emissions that lead to global warming. On the other hand, energy efficiency also cuts costs and enhances the bottom line — and global competitiveness — for real estate developers and American companies. The increased bottom line, in turn, results in greater tax revenues without raising taxes.
Call it a win-win for both ends of the political spectrum. Energy efficient construction does "good" and also helps companies do well. That is a result both parties can take credit for as sound public policy.
LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is the leading green building certification program in the U.S. and around the world. LEED is a consensus-based program overseen by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Each day, 1.7 million square feet (the equivalent of 35 football fields) of building space in more than 150 countries and territories is certified. LEED-certified construction supports or creates 7.9 million jobs across all 50 states — construction and energy-retrofit jobs remain firmly planted on U.S. soil — and LEED contributes $554 billion to the U.S. economy annually with 88 of the Fortune 100 companies using the rating system.
The U.S. government also uses LEED as a tool to meet its goals. Certification of federal buildings saves U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars every year. That's another thing Republicans and Democrats alike can crow about. The federal government is the largest consumer of energy in the U.S., but as much as 30 percent of that energy, unfortunately, is wasted. LEED significantly reduces that waste.
For example, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that LEED-certified federal buildings reduced energy use by 25 percent compared to the national average and cost 19 percent less to operate. One notable success story is the LEED-certified U.S. Treasury Building, which is saving taxpayers $3.5 million each year. That makes the greening of the Treasury building, one of the oldest green buildings in the world, not only a big success, but an historic success.
Since 2006, LEED has been utilized by the federal government, and it has been extensively evaluated by General Services Administration. A national lab study found that LEED meets 96 percent of federal government performance requirements and concluded that LEED is the best system for retrofitting existing buildings and saving taxpayers' money in operations and maintenance. The National Academy of Sciences recommended that the U.S. Department of Defense should continue to design and construct its buildings to earn LEED's "silver" certification, showing that LEED provides long-term economic savings and positive returns on investment.
LEED's progressive standards are developed by the companies that use them. LEED is a voluntary, consensus-based, third-party program, traits which appeal to political conservatives. USGBC has nearly 13,000 member companies, including 1,300 product manufacturers, which makes up the third-largest segment of USGBC membership. Many of the building materials used in green buildings and retrofits are made in the U.S. and LEED's voluntary credits spur innovation and American technology.
The political left also has ample reason to embrace LEED. LEED "gold" buildings emit 34 percent less greenhouse gases than average commercial buildings. As reported in Forbes at the end of last year, "the documented benefits of 'green' buildings extend beyond lower power consumption." The research funded by California's Air Resources Board and analyzed by the Center for Resource Efficient Communities concluded that 100 LEED buildings were not only more energy-efficient, but achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions related to water conservation (50 percent), solid waste management strategies (48 percent) and sustainable transportation measures (5 percent).
As if that weren't enough to celebrate, cleaner airflow and more access to natural light help make LEED buildings healthier and happier places to work. Currently, 2.5 million American employees work in LEED buildings — a number that is expected to grow to 21 million by 2030. These employees receive many health benefits. Studies have shown that buildings meeting LEED requirements have seen 50 percent to 75 percent fewer reports of health problems than other buildings.
Tenants are more productive in LEED buildings. The buildings have cleaner air, better lighting, more daylight, better controlled temperature and fewer toxins. A variety of studies have shown that improved ventilation and better lighting support productivity gains, up to 11 percent and 23 percent respectively.
Embracing LEED goes beyond party lines, as it benefits people and the environment, drives innovation and the economy and saves money for building owners from corporations to federal government.
Platt is president of the U.S. Green Building Council.

Return to headline | Return to top
On Climate, Republican Votes Don’t Lead to Action

Feb 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Andrew Restuccia and Alex Guillen

The GOP lawmakers who say climate change is a problem aren’t doing much to solve it.
Senate Republicans like Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Susan Collins (Maine) have broken with GOP orthodoxy on global warming in recent years to support bills to address climate change, and they’ve prodded their colleagues to take action.
But now, with Republicans in control of the chamber, the handful of Republican lawmakers considered quasi-allies of environmentalists either can’t or won’t push for the ambitious, economy-wide action scientists say is needed to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Their individual reasons vary, but one factor connects them all: opposition from the rest of their party.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) pointed his finger squarely at the other side of the Hill.
“Getting Speaker [John] Boehner to rally support for a climate change bill is, I think, a non-starter,” he told POLITICO.
“I’m being honest with you, which normally people would not be,” he said. “They would normally say ‘Uh, we gotta work hard on it.’ And so I’m giving a straight answer: It’s DOA in the House.”
Graham, Collins, Kirk and Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) were the only Republicans to vote for an amendment to the Keystone XL bill that said human activity “significantly” contributes to global warming. The vote provided climate activists with a list of possible allies, but a non-binding amendment to a bill that’s soon to be vetoed is a far cry from seeking substantive action on climate change.
Gone are the days when Graham criticized his Republican colleagues for ignoring climate change. Sen. John McCain, who pushed climate change legislation a decade ago, has been distancing himself from the issue for years, and he barely mentions climate change these days.
And even Collins, who is sponsoring bills that target climate pollutants and would modernize cookstoves, doesn’t often speak publicly about the consequences of the warming planet.
For those senators, the failure of 2010’s cap-and-trade legislation appears to have been a turning point. The effort turned Republicans against climate change initiatives, and since then GOP leaders have shrugged off the calls from Democrats and scientists that urgent action was needed.
“We certainly don’t want to do what the Obama administration proposed, which is a big, expensive cap-and-trade program to deliberately raise the price of energy,” said Alexander, who favors funding for carbon capture research and building nuclear reactors.
Still, these Republican senators were vague about what the GOP should do about climate issues, other than opposing EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission rules for power plants.
“I think the debate should be over the solutions to the dynamic of climate change,” Graham said. “The Democratic solution is to destroy the economy in the name of saving the environment: EPA regulations that would create economic havoc, turning the climate change issue into a religion, rather than a problem. I think Republicans should embrace an all-of-the-above approach to energy, setting long-term goals in terms of emissions reductions, but doing it in a business-friendly way.”
Collins, in a brief interview in the Capitol this week, said she has been “very active” on climate issues and that she believes “climate change is real, that it threatens our environment and our economy.” But she declined to say whether there’s a way to get her Republican colleagues to deal with broader climate legislation.
“I’m not on the committee of jurisdiction, so probably it would be better to talk to members who are,” she said.
Environmentalists have long hoped to woo a group of moderate Republicans who they see as the key to shifting the GOP’s position on climate change.
To that end, several green groups backed Collins and Graham in their reelection bids last year, though they’ve all but given up on McCain. Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp co-hosted a fundraiser for Graham last year, and the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund endorsed Collins’ in her recent reelection bid.
Tony Kreindler, the Environmental Defense Action Fund’s senior director for strategic communications, said EDAF hopes to create an atmosphere that will enable wide-ranging climate legislation to win congressional approval by a 2018-2020 time frame.
“We are playing the long game here,” Kreindler said.
Tiernan Sittenfeld, LCV’s senior vice president for government affairs, touted Collins’ vote in favor of Democrats’ climate amendment and noted that she has opposed efforts to weaken EPA’s climate rules.
“We commend her for that, and we very much hope that other Republicans will join her in supporting EPA’s authority in this Congress,” she said.
Not everyone in the environmental community is impressed.
Climate activist R.L. Miller says when it comes to climate change, there are two types of Republicans.
“One of the things I’ve noticed is that the Republicans who say they admit that climate change is real and even human-caused are not the same as the Republicans who are talking solutions,” she said. “And that’s an important distinction to keep in mind.”
Miller’s group Climate Hawks Vote supported Collins’ long-shot Democratic opponent, Shenna Bellows, in last fall’s election.
Collins “might admit climate change is real, but her solutions are something less than impressive, shall we say,” Miller said.
Miller criticized Collins and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski of Alaska as “the worst of the climate peacocks, those who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.”
But Rob Sisson, the head of GOP green group ConservAmerica, defended Murkowski, calling her a “leader” and lauding elements of her energy blueprint.
“She’ll be a leader, she’ll work with Congressman [Fred] Upton and we’ll see the ball moved down the field a great deal in this Congress,” Sisson said.
Given the deep-seated GOP opposition to any major climate legislation, environmentalists are settling for working with friendly Republicans on specific issues and smaller, piecemeal bills.
Collins’s two bills are among those measures that draw support from the environmental community.
Cleaning up dirty cookstoves around the world, a pet project of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would eliminate a significant source of black carbon and potentially help save millions of lives in developing nations.
And her broader super-pollutants legislation targets black carbon, methane and hydrofluorocarbons, three greenhouse gases that are quite potent but don’t stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide.
Alexander is a big supporter of nuclear power, which doesn’t produce CO2, and he wants to tackle the nation’s growing pile of nuclear waste. The Tennessee Republican has also broken with the GOP efforts to kill EPA clean air regulations.
Still, Alexander has been a vocal critic of wind power, railing against turbines as “Cuisinarts in the sky” and opposing the wind production tax credit. And while big Democratic names such as Carol Browner and Evan Bayh promote nuclear power, many in the green community are wary of building new reactors.
Environmental groups are closely eying Ayotte, who has been an ally on clean air regulations, voting in recent years against GOP resolutions targeting EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. And conservationists applauded when she and Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina drew 59 votes for an amendment to the Senate’s Keystone XL bill in January that would have permanently reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Ayotte, who is up for reelection next year and is considered a possible GOP vice presidential pick, called on Republicans in a speech last year to come up with better solutions to environmental issues rather than simply oppose Democratic efforts.
“What’s your alternative? What is your alternative that is going to make a difference, that is going to ensure that we can impose market-based solutions where we have everyone together and all the stakeholders together,” she said. “That’s when we will make a difference and that is where this discussion has to go.”
Climate activists cite a handful of other Republicans with whom they agree on specific issues. That includes Iowa’s Chuck Grassley on the PTC, Ohio’s Rob Portman on efficiency, Colorado’s Cory Gardner on energy savings performance contracts and Kansas’ Jerry Moran on expanding master limited partnerships to renewable energy projects.
ConservAmerica’s Sisson believes some of those more modest measures could attract the support of even the most skeptical Republicans, such as Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (Okla.), who famously maintains that human-caused global warming is a hoax.
“I think Sen. Inhofe can get behind some of the policies we’ll see coming up for the good of the party and the good of the country,” Sisson said.
Still, those measures fall short of the comprehensive, economy-wide climate action that scientists say will be needed on a global scale to achieve the emissions reductions required to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that limiting warming to 2°C from pre-industrial temperatures — a level scientists believe would stave off the worst risks of climate change — will require massive reductions in human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concluded that emissions will have to be reduced by as much as 70 percent from 2010 levels by 2050, and that net emissions would need to fall to zero by the end of this century, a level that experts warn will require an unprecedented retooling of the U.S. and global economies.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

W.V. Derailment A Reminder Of Delay In Tank Car Rule

Feb 17, 2015 | Roll Call

By Tom Curry

An oil train derailment, explosion, and fire near Mount Carbon, W.V., Monday seems likely to increase pressure on the Obama administration to speed the release of a regulation to require more robust oil tank cars.
“You don’t see the Kanawha River on fire every day,” reporter Bob Aaron, who was the scene, said on Charleston television station WCHS Monday after the train derailed and at least one tank car went into the river. “It is a huge, huge ball of flame.”
CSX said in a statement Monday that “at least one rail car appears to have ruptured and caught fire.”
The railroad said its workers were cooperating “with first responders to address the fire, to determine how many rail cars derailed, and to deploy environmental protective measures and monitoring on land, air and in the nearby Kanawha River.”
The 109-car train was traveling from North Dakota to an oil terminal in Yorktown, Va.
The accident occurred two days after a Canadian National Railways train carrying oil derailed in Ontario.
When AP’s Joan Lowy and I interviewed Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx on C-SpanFriday, I asked him when the pending tank car standard will come from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), since members of Congress are saying the administration should just issue the rule and then the industry will know what it has to contend with.
“I agree with the members of Congress that this needs to come out as quickly as possible” Foxx replied.
But, he said, there is “a very rigorous process that rules have to go through.”
“We have been working very closely with our Canadian counterparts, working very closely with our inter-agency partners, to craft a rule that we think is sensible and also protects the public to the greatest extent we can,” Foxx said.
He added, “Right now the rule has been moved out of the DOT over to the Office of Management and Budget for a very thorough look at lots of things including cost benefit analysis and we’re pushing forward as fast as we can.”
At a Feb. 3 hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, ranking Democrat Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon said the rule is “lost somewhere in the bowels of the administration between the agency and the trolls over at the Office of Management and Budget who will further delay the ruling.”
PHMSA has “managed to mangle the rule by merging it together with operational issues which are much more difficult to deal with and controversial,” DeFazio said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Train Derails, Explodes in West Virginia

Feb 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

A train carrying more than 100 tanker cars full of crude oil derailed in rural West Virginia on Monday, causing multiple explosions and sending some train cars into the nearby Kanawha River.
The CSX Corp. train was hauling crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken formation to a Virginia refinery.
Similar crashes involving trains carrying crude from North Dakota caused a 2013 explosion that killed 47 in Quebec, Canada, as well as a 2014 derailment in Virginia, the Charleston Daily Mailreported.
The White House is conducting its final review of a suite of regulations aimed at increasing the safety of oil trains. The rules could mandate a phaseout of old rail cars for crude service, new speed restrictions and new braking standards for the trains.
Witnesses reported at least four explosions and a fire that burned late into Monday evening. Officials do not know how much oil spilled into the river, the Daily Mail said.
One person was treated for smoke inhalation, but no other injuries or deaths were reported. One house burned as a result of the explosions and residents in two villages were evacuated.
West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) declared a state of emergency Monday for Fayette and Kanawha counties.
U.S. railroads shipped 415,000 carloads last year, a sharp increase over the 10,000 shipped in 2008, according to the Transportation Department.
The increase can be attributed mostly to the increase in oil production due to unconventional drilling techniques like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, which has made the United States the top producer of oil in the world.
The rise in oil shipments by rail have caught the attention of regulators in both the United States and Canada.
The Transportation Department has proposed giving railroads and oil companies two years to get rid of the oldest cars or retrofit them, a similar timeline that Canadian officials are seeking. But the industry is pushing back, saying the rules would be too expensive.
“More crude oil is being shipped by rail than ever before,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxxsaid last year when proposing the new rules. “If America is going to be a world leader in producing energy, our job at this department is to ensure that we’re also a world leader in safely transporting it.”

Return to headline | Return to top
2,500 Evacuate After Crude-Bearing Train Catches Fire in W.Va.

Feb 17, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Blake Sobczak

A mile-long train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire near Montgomery, W.Va., yesterday, destroying one home and causing 2,500 people to evacuate, according to local authorities.
The 109-car CSX Corp. train spilled an unknown amount of oil in a creek near the railroad tracks, the company said.
Teresa White, director of the Fayette County Office of Emergency Services, said at least 10 cars on the eastbound train exploded in the wake of the 1:30 p.m. derailment.
CSX confirmed at least one car had ruptured and caught fire and said one person was being treated for potential inhalation but that there were no other injuries.
Local firefighters had not been able to fully contain the blaze as of yesterday evening, White said.
The derailment follows a string of similar accidents across North America that have led to calls for updates to operating procedures and tank car standards. Crude-by-rail shipments have shot up from next to nothing in 2007 to more than 1.1 million barrels per day last year.
Earlier in the weekend, an oil train run by Canadian National Railway Co. derailed and caught fire in northern Ontario.
In July 2013, a 72-car train loaded with oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and spilling more than a million gallons of crude into a nearby river. The train was operated by the now-defunct Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd.
A CSX oil train derailed and caught fire in April 2014 in Lynchburg, Va., injuring no one but setting off a massive fireball on its way to a crude terminal on the East Coast.
CSX said it was working with local first responders and the Red Cross to address yesterday's derailment in West Virginia, which happened during a winter storm.
It was not immediately clear what caused the derailment or whether the snowy conditions were a factor.
Investigators from the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration were at the site of the derailment last night, said Suzanne Emmerling, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Emmerling added that FRA acting Administrator Sarah Feinberg -- as well as the agency's chief safety officer, Robert Lauby -- would travel to West Virginia to survey the scene.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it had no plans to send investigators to the scene of yesterday's accident. Keith Holloway, a spokesman for the safety watchdog, said that "we may assess the cars involved at a later date."
CSX reported that all tank cars involved in the derailment were built to the tougher, type CPC-1232 standard that the rail supply industry has used since 2011. NTSB has criticized older-model type DOT-111 tank cars as unfit to carry flammable liquids such as crude oil and ethanol.
The Department of Transportation has proposed updating oil tank car requirements beyond even the CPC-1232 standard to include thicker steel shells and other protections.
Environmentalist groups have criticized DOT actions as insufficient, calling instead for an immediate ban on the oldest, most puncture-prone types of crude tank cars.
The first draft of DOT's oil-by-rail safety rule proposed a two-year deadline for upgrading or scrapping the type DOT-111 cars hauling the most flammable varieties of crude.
The final oil tank car rule, now under review at the White House, is not yet publicly available.
"Waiting another two, three or five years for marginal improvements in oil train safety is not acceptable when these bomb trains keep derailing and setting towns and rivers on fire," said Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement responding to yesterday's derailment in West Virginia.
It was not clear yesterday when locals evacuated because of the fire would be able to return to their homes.

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested