Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 27
-
(ACC Mentioned) Polypropylene Prices Rise, While PE and PS Fall
Feb 26, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for polyethylene and polystyrene resins continued to fall in February, while regional prices for polypropylene showed a surprising increase. Prices for all grades of PE are down an average of 5 cents per pound since Feb. 1. Regional PE prices now have fallen for four consecutive months, after not seeing a single price drop... -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Struggling with Long-Standing Controversies
Feb 27, 2015 | Design News
By William Ng
Two issues have been the bane of the plastics industry for as long as one can remember: The ban on plastic grocery bags and whether the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in plastics such as polycarbonate and PVC is harmful to humans. These issues are flaring up once more -- about a month to go until NPE 2015, one of the global plastics... -
Chemical Schedule, New Website for IRIS Taking Longer Than Expected, EPA Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will release in a couple of months a list of chemicals it will evaluate for human health hazards and for dose levels that would cause the hazards to manifest, Vincent Cogliano, the director of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), said Feb. 26. -
California Bill Would Buy Water Agencies Time to Comply with Chromium-6 Standard
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Public water systems could win up to an additional five years to comply with California's drinking water standard for chromium 6, also called hexavalent chromium, under a bill offered by State Sen. Ben Hueso (D). Introduced Feb. 25, the legislation (S.B. 385) would provide “a carefully monitored process’’ toward compliance... -
Experts Call for Focus on EDCs and Maternal Behaviour
Feb 26, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Rodent studies to assess the potential adverse effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) should routinely monitor maternal behaviour, rather than simply viewing the dams as an exposure route for their offspring, according to researchers from the University of Massachusetts. -
Child Gender Ratios Linked to Phthalates and BPA Says US Institute
Feb 26, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The sex of children may be affected by parental exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, according to a recent study led by researchers from the US government's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The paper correlated urinary metabolites of BPA and 14 phthalates of parents with the sex of the child born. -
European Union Amends REACH to Include One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Test
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Commission regulation to amend the annexes of the European Union's REACH law by permitting the use of the Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRTS) in substance hazard assessment will enter into force March 13. Under the amendment, REACH registrants that must provide new substance data... -
REACH Compliance Checks Continue to Show Shortcomings, EU Chemicals Agency Reports
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
REACH substance registration dossiers opened for compliance checking by the European Chemicals Agency continue to have information shortcomings in most cases, but registrant compliance with formal requests to improve dossiers is increasing, according to the 2014 edition of agency's annual evaluation report. -
Industry Mum Ahead of Possible CFATS Disruption
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Chemical industry groups repeatedly cited the impact of the 2013 government shutdown on a Department of Homeland Security regulatory program as lawmakers worked to update it last year, but they've been quiet this week as another DHS shutdown loomed. Lawmakers seem likely to avoid what could have been a major ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Environment Official Says New EPA Ozone Rule Just the First Step
Feb 27, 2015 | Watchdog.org
By Rob Nikolewski
Texas environmental official says ozone pollution regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are just the first step for the EPA to introduce stiffer rules in years to come. “I think they’re setting it up for the next round,” Michael Honeycutt, director of the toxicology division at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality... -
Halt to California Hydraulic Fracturing Sought
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
More than 150 advocacy and community groups have asked California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to use his emergency powers to impose a statewide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other types of well stimulation activity. The groups routinely ask the governor to halt “fracking” activities, but this request came in a seven-page ... -
House Energy Bill Unlikely to Include Repeal Of Crude Oil Export Ban, Whitfield Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A repeal of the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports is unlikely to be included in comprehensive energy legislation being drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA. Changes to the ban, put in place in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, have been considered... -
Markey Reintroduces Bill to Boost Scrutiny of Export Reviews
Feb 26, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nick Juliano
Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey and some fellow Democrats today reintroduced legislation to require additional scrutiny before U.S. companies export liquefied natural gas. The bill serves to counter the ongoing push among Republicans and some energy-state Democrats to speed up LNG exports in the name of increasing... -
Colorado Senate Approves Bill to Require Compensation for Mineral Rights Owners
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Senate has approved legislation (S.B. 93) that would require local governments to compensate owners of mineral rights when a local regulation reduces the fair market value of the right by at least 60 percent. The Senate approved the legislation Feb. 24 and sent it to the House for consideration... -
Nebraska Court Blocks TransCanada's Efforts to Acquire Land for Keystone Pipeline
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
A state court in Nebraska issued a temporary injunction Feb. 26 blocking TransCanada Corp. from exercising eminent domain to acquire land needed to construct the Keystone XL pipeline across the state (Dunavan v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP, Neb. Dist. Ct., No. CI 15-12, 2/26/15). -
Natural Gas Storage Capacity Holding Steady, Government Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Natural gas storage capacity was nearly unchanged in November 2014 compared to November 2013, as increases in salt facilities offset declines in other types of storage capacity, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released Feb. 26. With natural gas storage at low levels in most of 2014 and production... -
A Veto For the Environment?
Feb 26, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Denny Freidenrich
On Tuesday, the Orange County Register ran an editorial about the Keystone XL Pipeline entitled, "A pipeline to jobs." Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the word "jobs" never appeared in the editorial. Instead, the paper attacked President Obama's opposition to the project based on raw politics. -
EPA to Get Much Less Money in FY 2016 Than Requested, House Appropriators Say
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency's request for $8.59 billion in funding for the coming fiscal year was met with skepticism among the top Republican appropriators in the House during a Feb. 26 hearing. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before a the House Appropriations Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee... -
House GOP Appropriators Reject EPA's Bid For $452 Million Boost In FY16
Feb 26, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee say they will reject EPA's request for a $452 million boost to its fiscal year 2016 budget in part because the agency would use the funds to craft water and climate rules they oppose, though the lawmakers say they might still agree to boost EPA's water infrastructure funds. -
Senate Environment to Hear From McCarthy
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy will testify March 4 at 9:30 a.m. before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee announced Feb. 26. McCarthy will be the only witness and will discuss the fiscal year 2016 budget. -
House Appropriators Press McCarthy Over Administration's Climate Agenda
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Republican House appropriators yesterday grilled U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy about the Obama administration's climate agenda. At a hearing on the agency's budget, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said he was "disappointed" in EPA's request for more funding in fiscal 2016 and slammed the agency... -
Senate Bill Would Direct DOE to Support 10 Carbon Capture, Storage Projects
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Legislation was introduced Feb. 26 by Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to boost Energy Department research and funding support for coal-fired power plants that capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions. Their bill is similar to a measure Heitkamp introduced in the previous Congress (57 DEN A-8, 3/25/14). -
Dems Introduce Bill to Help ‘Clean Coal’
Feb 26, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A pair of moderate Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would increase federal support for “clean coal” technology. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said their legislation is meant to provide a viable path forward for coal-fired electricity as the country moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -
Long Confirmation Process Discourages Many Candidates, Pending EPA Nominee Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Lengthy delays faced by Environmental Protection Agency nominees in the Senate confirmation process are “tough” and discourage many potential candidates from being considered for roles within the agency, one of those nominees awaiting confirmation said. -
Cost Consideration Not Required for Decision On Power Plant Mercury Rule, EPA Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency wasn't required by the Clean Air Act to consider the cost of regulation when the agency determined it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, the agency told the U.S. Supreme Court... -
'We're a Strong Agency,' McCarthy Tells Employees
Feb 26, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA is in good shape, agency boss Gina McCarthy told staffers in a new video pep talk, despite years of budget cuts, sagging morale and political attacks. "The state of our agency is strong," McCarthy said in a video sent to all EPA employees today. She noted that President Obama asked for a boost in EPA's budget... -
EPA, Supporters Defend 'Co-Benefit' Pollution Cuts To Justify Utility MACT
Feb 26, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and its environmentalist, state and utility industry supporters are defending the agency's use of “co-benefit” cuts in pollution not regulated by its power plant maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule as a justification for the regulation, saying the human health protections from the cuts are a vital part of the MACT's benefits. -
Environmental Justice Weighed in Selecting Targets for Air Toxics Inspections, OIG Finds
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Environmental justice issues are considered by Environmental Protection Agency officials when targeting industrial facilities for air toxics inspections, according to the EPA's Office of Inspector General. The inspector general, in a Feb. 26 report, found that environmental justice is one of several factors... -
Air, Water Rules Threaten Sovereignty, State Officials Tell House Subcommittee
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Several Environmental Protection Agency rules under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act infringe on state sovereignty and would impose significant economic burdens on farmers and industries, states told a House subcommittee Feb. 26. -
Industry Report Identifies Higher Costs For Ozone Proposal Than EPA Estimates
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A report commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the costs of more stringent national ozone standards would be much higher than Environmental Protection Agency estimates. The report, prepared by NERA Economic Consulting and released Feb. 26, estimated that ozone standards... -
Study Links Long-Term Ultrafine Particle Exposure to Death From Heart Disease
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A study by California researchers linking long-term exposure to the ultrafine airborne particles generated from the combustion of gasoline, diesel and other fuels with death from heart disease means more aggressive action is needed to curb vehicle-related air pollution, environmental and public health advocates said Feb. 26. -
Some Railroads Would Have to Analyze Risks, Develop Plans Under Transportation Proposal
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Certain railroads, including some that transport hazardous materials, would be required to develop and submit plans on improving operation safety to a Transportation Department office under a proposed rule (RIN 2130-AC11) to be published Feb. 27. The Federal Railroad Administration's proposed Risk Reduction Program would require each... -
Options Outlined for Improving Safety Of Oil Transport in Great Lakes Region
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
States and provinces near the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River have untapped options for improving crude oil transport safety in the region, a Great Lakes Commission report found. These governments could take on a larger oversight role in pipeline safety inspections and enforcement and could bolster existing communication... -
Oil Train Wrecks Increase Pressure for Tougher Safety Rules
Feb 27, 2015 | AP (in SF Gate)
By Joan Lowy
Fiery wrecks of trains hauling crude oil have intensified pressure on the Obama administration to approve tougher standards for railroads and tank cars despite industry complaints that it could cost billions and slow freight deliveries. On Feb. 5, the Transportation Department sent the White House draft rules that would require oil trains... -
Who’s to Blame for the Exploding Oil Trains?
Feb 26, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Jim Snyder and Matthew Philips
TheA week after a CSX train hauling crude oil derailed and exploded 30 miles southeast of Charleston, W.Va., on Feb. 16, its mangled, charred tank cars were still being hauled from the crash site. Of the 27 cars that derailed, 19 had been engulfed in flames. The wreckage burned for almost three days. “It’s amazing no one was killed,” says...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Polypropylene Prices Rise, While PE and PS Fall
Feb 26, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American prices for polyethylene and polystyrene resins continued to fall in February, while regional prices for polypropylene showed a surprising increase.
Prices for all grades of PE are down an average of 5 cents per pound since Feb. 1. Regional PE prices now have fallen for four consecutive months, after not seeing a single price drop for two years. The four-month total has shaved an average of 16 cents per pound off of PE prices.
On the feedstock side, prices for crude oil — both in the region and globally — remain low when compared to prices of the last few years. Regional prices were near $48 per barrel in late trading Feb. 26, a drop of more than 50 percent from prices seen in in mid-2014. Oil is the global PE price-setter, even though most PE made in North America is based on natural gas.
U.S./Canadian PE demand is off to a rough start in 2015. In January, sales of linear low density PE were down 12 percent, according to the American Chemistry Council, with high density PE sales down 8 percent and sales of low density PE down 2 percent compared to the same month in 2014.
One resin buyer in the southeastern U.S. told Plastics News that recent PE prices have been even lower in the secondary market, which could be an indicator that more price declines could take place in March. Dow Chemical Co. is attempting to raise regional prices by 5 cents per pound effective March 15.
North American PS prices took a 2-cent tumble in February after swooning 9 cents the month before. Prices for the material now have dropped for six straight months, reducing prices by a total of 23 cents per pound.
The PS market continued to mirror prices for benzene feedstock, which fell almost 8 percent to $2.01 per gallon in February. Regional PS sales declined by 3 percent in 2014, a reversal from the 1 percent gain shown in 2013.
One market watcher said that some PS buyers saw an additional 2 cent drop in January, implying that the 2 cents for February would be allowing other suppliers to keep up. PS maker Americas Styrenics had pre-announced the 9-cent January drop in late December. Suppliers who gave an additional 2-cent price cut in January then would have a price advantage over Americas Styrenics.
In PP, the tide reversed itself, sending regional prices up 1 cent per pound after they were clobbered by 10-cent drops in both December and January. Short-term PP supplies in the region have been impacted by production limits at plants operated by Ineos Group in Alvin, Texas, and by Phillips 66 in Linden, N.J.
Unlike PE, North American PP demand has hit the ground running in 2015, growing almost five percent in January vs. the same month in 2014. Domestic sales for the month grew almost 6 percent, even as export sales slumped more than 20 percent.
Sales of PP into injection molding markets jumped 13 percent in January, led by sales gains of more than 25 percent in housewares and of almost 19 percent in cups and containers.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Struggling with Long-Standing Controversies
Feb 27, 2015 | Design News
By William Ng
Two issues have been the bane of the plastics industry for as long as one can remember: The ban on plastic grocery bags and whether the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in plastics such as polycarbonate and PVC is harmful to humans. These issues are flaring up once more -- about a month to go until NPE 2015, one of the global plastics industry’s premier trade events -- with a Missouri state lawmaker trying to stop a plastic bag ban in Columbia, MO, and a plastics industry group beginning a campaign to emphasize the safeness of BPA.
As reported in separate articles by Design News sister publication Plastics Today, the American Chemistry Council is looking to piggyback onto recent FDA and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reports that determined BPA is safe at current exposure levels in plastics that come into contact with food or the mouths of consumers. Norbert Sparrow of Plastics Today writes that the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group arm of the ACC is going to launch ads in mass outlets like USA Today to emphasize that the EFSA and FDA concluded BPA poses no health risks to humans of any age and is safe, respectively.
BPA is a key ingredient and performance enhancer in the production of polycarbonate, epoxy resins, plasticizers, and PVC. Over the years, negative publicity from studies on BPA’s hormone-like properties and toxicity especially on infants, through plastic baby bottles and toys, have led many countries to ban BPA use for those products. In the US, the flames were stoked a few years ago when the FDA identified potential BPA dangers, but the federal agency has since backtracked to the position that BPA is safe at current low levels. BPA has been blamed for a variety of dysfunctions of the brain and reproductive system as well as cancer.
“Listen to the Science,” the theme of the ACC’s ad campaign could be applied well to cities and municipalities around the country that have banned plastic shopping bags because of the belief that they’re an environmental scourge. But, as Clare Goldsberry of Plastics Today reports, recycling of plastic film packaging -- which includes plastic bags -- broke double-digits in 2013 with an 11% year-over-year improvement and that collection of post-consumer polyethylene film has increased 75% since 2005.
Is it that the mass media has played on Americans’ environmentally friendly emotions or the relative dearth of plastics industry outreach that has led to plastic bags’ negative stigma -- or both? For one, Republican State Rep. Dan Shaul is backing legislation opposing the city of Columbia’s plan to sack the bags -- which would be the latest in a long string of high-profile bans by cities including San Francisco, Honolulu, and Seattle -- to name three. It is of interest to note that because of Shaul’s involvement with a Missouri association for grocery stores, critics are accusing him of having ulterior interests.
Nevertheless, do you think that both plastics bags and BPA have gotten bad raps or should the plastics industry speed up the development and use of viable material alternatives? Offer your views in the comments section below and then read the Plastics Today stories for full details on the two developments.
-
Chemical Schedule, New Website for IRIS Taking Longer Than Expected, EPA Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will release in a couple of months a list of chemicals it will evaluate for human health hazards and for dose levels that would cause the hazards to manifest, Vincent Cogliano, the director of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), said Feb. 26.
The agency expects to complete its redesigned IRIS website by September, Gina Perovich, deputy director of the IRIS program, said Feb. 26.
Cogliano and Perovich spoke during a two-day meeting the IRIS program held to discuss scientific questions about three phthalates: butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP).
Ken Olden, director of the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which manages IRIS, said on Feb. 25 that implementing improvements to the IRIS program is taking much longer than he anticipated when he joined the agency in July 2012.
Therefore, Olden said, he would decline at this meeting from announcing any additional improvements he hopes to make. Olden previously used every IRIS meeting to announce additional improvements he would like to make to IRIS.
Multiyear IRIS Agenda
During the wrap-up of the meeting, Cogliano and Perovich updated the audience about IRIS improvements awaited by many individuals and organizations that carefully follow the program.
It is taking longer than anticipated to complete the updated multiyear list of chemicals that will be a priority for the IRIS program to evaluate, Cogliano told reporters on the sidelines of the meeting.
Previously such lists, called “IRIS agendas,” included dozens of chemicals, many of which were never examined.
The agency plans to issue a much smaller list of chemicals that it will evaluate and that represent the highest priorities of its regulatory and regional offices, Cogliano said.
Selecting these top priority chemicals is taking time as regulatory and regional officials weigh in to a fuller extent than they previously have, he said.
Redesigned IRIS Website
Similarly, the agency had hoped to find a quick way to update the “IRISTrack” section of its IRIS website, Perovich told meeting participants. IRISTrack, which has not been updated since 2012, offered a way to track IRIS assessments as they moved through their initiation to completion.
The quick fix didn't work, so the agency is now redesigning the entire IRIS website and expects to unveil it in September, she said.
The new website will be more helpful and easier to use, she said.
Chuck Elkins, who worked at the EPA for more than 20 years before establishing his own consulting firm, Chuck Elkins & Associates, said the diverse audiences outside the agency that routinely use the IRIS website look forward to an improved site.
It would be useful if the IRIS program allowed industry, environmental and other stakeholders to see the planned changes before the agency launches the new site so that they could offer suggestions to make it as useful as possible, he said.
Perovich said the website's primary purpose is to communicate information, so stakeholders' comments would be useful.
She said IRIS staff and the website designers will discuss ways to provide an early look at the new design.
-
California Bill Would Buy Water Agencies Time to Comply with Chromium-6 Standard
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Public water systems could win up to an additional five years to comply with California's drinking water standard for chromium 6, also called hexavalent chromium, under a bill offered by State Sen. Ben Hueso (D).
Introduced Feb. 25, the legislation (S.B. 385) would provide “a carefully monitored process’’ toward compliance with the standard, which will be challenging and costly for many water agencies, according to the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), the organization backing the measure.
California adopted the nation's first-ever standard for chromium 6 in drinking water last year, establishing a 10 parts per billion maximum contaminant level for the chemical found in water supplies in 51 of the state's 58 counties (74 DEN A-7, 4/17/14).
The implementing regulations required water agencies to begin monitoring for chromium 6 on Jan. 1, but many of the public water services haven't had time to install appropriate treatment systems to comply with the standard, ACWA said in a Feb. 25 statement.
Hueso's bill would allow public water systems to apply for a variance of up to five years and work toward compliance without being deemed in violation of the standard as long as certain standards are met. S.B. 383 would require the water agencies to submit compliance plans to the State Water Resources Control Board and inform customers of their progress toward compliance.
“S.B. 385 recognizes the complex steps that must be taken and achieves transparency and accountability for water systems to be in compliance,” Hueso said in a statement.
-
Experts Call for Focus on EDCs and Maternal Behaviour
Feb 26, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Rodent studies to assess the potential adverse effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) should routinely monitor maternal behaviour, rather than simply viewing the dams as an exposure route for their offspring, according to researchers from the University of Massachusetts.
“For EDCs, maternal behaviour is not very well studied. There have only been a handful of studies,” says lead researcher Laura Vandenberg. “We tend to treat the mother as a way to expose her babies to a chemical because we are interested in developmental effects, but pregnancy is a developmental stage.”
Changes to maternal behaviour, including nest building, nursing, licking and grooming, may affect the emotional and cognitive development of offspring. The researchers call for “more complex experimental designs” to determine whether adverse outcomes in exposed rat pups are due to direct effects of an EDC or indirect effects via the mother. Health effects in pups may be traced to “abnormal maternal interactions”, which could be missed in traditional toxicology studies, they write in Toxicology Research.
Vandenberg and colleagues make a case for an increased focus on non-guideline studies for EDCs. Guideline studies typically focus on endpoints that indicate disrupted endocrine signalling, including ano-genital distance, nipple retention in male rodents, weight and histopathology of reproductive organs, and timing of events in puberty. But the researchers point to evidence that some guideline assays are not always reproducible. They also suggest that some endpoints are “too difficult” for contract laboratories to run and so cannot be developed into validated guideline assays. “For this reason and others, some of the most striking work on EDCs has not involved test guidelines,” they write.
Vandenberg points, in particular, to one guideline study, called the uterotrophic assay, which assesses the weight of the uterus following a period of chemical exposure. Her team has reported effects of bisphenol A (BPA) on the mammary gland at “very, very low doses”, far lower than those affecting uterine weight.
“Why do we see effects at doses far below what it takes to change the weight of the uterus?” asks Vandenberg. “That is a fundamental question that goes beyond BPA. If we are going to collect data to tell us about the safety of chemicals, then we should be looking at the right endpoints.”
An associated Massachusetts paper, Plastic bodies in a plastic world: multidisciplinary approaches to study endocrine disrupting chemicals, is published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.
-
Child Gender Ratios Linked to Phthalates and BPA Says US Institute
Feb 26, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The sex of children may be affected by parental exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, according to a recent study led by researchers from the US government's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The paper correlated urinary metabolites of BPA and 14 phthalates of parents with the sex of the child born.
The study included 220 US births, 43.9% of which were boys. Paternal BPA and mono-isobutyl phthalate levels were significantly linked to an excess of female births. But maternal BPA, mono-isobutyl phthalate, mono-benzyl phthalate and mono-n-butyl phthalate were significantly associated with an excess of males.
The researchers conclude that these studies are the first of their kind, and need to be replicated for confirmation. The study is published in the journal, Environmental Research.
-
European Union Amends REACH to Include One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Test
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Commission regulation to amend the annexes of the European Union's REACH law by permitting the use of the Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRTS) in substance hazard assessment will enter into force March 13.
Under the amendment, REACH registrants that must provide new substance data on reproductive toxicity will be required to use EOGRTS rather than a two-generation reproductive toxicity study, which uses more laboratory animals.
The amendment will have the effect of unblocking European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and European Commission decision-making on substance testing proposals put forward by REACH registrants, which have been on hold pending the inclusion of EOGRTS in the REACH annexes.
REACH requires registrants of substances for which data is lacking to make testing proposals to ECHA. Proposals are rubber-stamped by ECHA in liaison with a regulatory committee of EU member state experts, or are passed to the commission for a decision if the member state committee is unable to agree.
According to the commission, about 130 testing proposals are awaiting commission decisions, which will be issued once the EOGRTS amendment comes into force.
Improved Test Results
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development approved EOGRTS in 2011. ECHA said in 2012 that the test in principle could be used to fulfill the requirements of REACH law (34 DEN A-8, 2/22/12).
The European Commission said in a Feb. 24 statement that EOGRTS “uses significantly less animals compared to the old test,” and “produces more information compared to the old test, in particular on the potential of a chemical to affect the endocrine system.”
Under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), suppliers of substances used in the EU must submit to ECHA registration dossiers that contain sufficient information to make hazard and risk assessments.
The regulation amending the REACH annexes to include EOGRTS was published Feb. 21 in the EU Official Journal.
-
REACH Compliance Checks Continue to Show Shortcomings, EU Chemicals Agency Reports
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
REACH substance registration dossiers opened for compliance checking by the European Chemicals Agency continue to have information shortcomings in most cases, but registrant compliance with formal requests to improve dossiers is increasing, according to the 2014 edition of agency's annual evaluation report.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said in the report published Feb. 26 that it completed 283 compliance checks on REACH registration dossiers in 2014 and had to issue decisions requiring registrants to provide more or better information in 61 percent of cases, the same proportion as in 2013 (39 DEN A-9, 2/27/14).
But in 282 follow-ups of dossiers for which decisions had been issued obliging registrants to bring them into line with REACH, the agency found that registrants had complied with the decisions in 72 percent of cases in 2014, up from 64 percent in 2013.
ECHA highlighted the quality of information on substance properties and uses that registrants provided in dossiers as a consistent problem since the introduction of REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
Since 2014, ECHA has taken a more targeted approach to dossier compliance checks that concentrates on registrations for high-concern substances (129 DEN A-7, 7/7/14).
Enforcement Referrals
Ultimately, after follow-up checks, ECHA can refer to EU member state enforcement authorities companies that breach REACH by not complying with ECHA decisions.
ECHA said this happened in 17 cases in 2014, compared to 32 cases in 2013. ECHA did not give details of cases or identify which countries' enforcement authorities were involved.
According to the ECHA report, the most common reasons for registration dossiers failing compliance checks are issues related to the chemical safety report, shortcomings in substance identification and composition information, and insufficient information on reproductive toxicity.
In the introduction to the report, ECHA Executive Director Geert Dancet wrote that “information quality and consistency of registration data still need to improve, especially related to exposure assessment, risk characterization and substance identity.”
The ECHA report included a series of recommendations to REACH registrants on dossier quality, including correctly identifying substances and specifying their composition are “fundamental,” hazard information must be reported clearly, and chemical safe-use information should “reflect realistic uses and conditions of use based as much as possible on the current practices in industry.”
-
Industry Mum Ahead of Possible CFATS Disruption
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Chemical industry groups repeatedly cited the impact of the 2013 government shutdown on a Department of Homeland Security regulatory program as lawmakers worked to update it last year, but they've been quiet this week as another DHS shutdown loomed.
Lawmakers seem likely to avoid what could have been a major embarrassment to DHS's chemical security program, as Senate Democrats agreed to drop a filibuster of a House-approved DHS appropriations bill with the understanding it would be amended to strike immigration riders. But it wasn't immediately clear whether a deal could be reached without lawmakers approving a short-term continuing resolution to allow for a few days to work out the details.
Absent an agreement, DHS funding is set to expire at midnight tonight.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said yesterday that Republicans in his chamber "are waiting to see what the Senate can or can't do. And then we'll make decisions about how we are going to proceed."
Though a small part of DHS, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program is working to implement new rules to account for tweaks made to the program under H.R. 4007, or the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act, which President Obama signed into law late last year (E&ENews PM, Dec. 18, 2014).
Winning the four-year program reauthorization had long been a goal of the chemical industry, DHS and many Republican lawmakers.
"The Republicans are kind of biting the political action committee hand that feeds them by curtailing a program that is very friendly to the chemical industry and not very satisfactory to us," Greenpeace legislative director Rick Hind said.
He added, "They kind of deserve each other."
This wasn't supposed to happen again, industry figures said last year. The silence from chemical companies and industry groups is striking because the program's stability has been a top priority in the past.
Though CFATS is barred from requiring chemical plants to alter operations to reduce risk, it enforces requirements that eligible facilities submit confidential site security plans.
Without employees at work, the plans cannot be checked to see if they are complete, and inspections can't be conducted to see if sites are sticking to the plans they submitted.
Representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates declined to comment on the possible shutdown. Separately, SOCMA's president released the results of a survey conducted late last year from its member companies showing that federal regulations were "a significant barrier to growth." The report didn't mention the latest bout of congressional brinksmanship.
"The survey results underscore the need for Washington to work better for specialty chemical manufacturers," Lawrence Sloan, SOCMA's president and CEO, said in a statement. "Onerous and inefficient regulations deprive our members of significant growth opportunities." Last shutdown a 'wake-up call'
The 2013 federal government shutdown closed most of CFATS for 16 days and was cited by chemical industry officials and key lawmakers as a troubling precedent.
Not only did the program lack appropriations, they said, but its authorization had expired because lawmakers failed to extend it during the shutdown.
Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), who spearheaded the reauthorization as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies, called last year's shutdown a "wake-up call to the fragility of our nation's chemical security and safety." He asked a chemical company executive to testify about the confusion and inconvenience created by their canceled October 2013 CFATS inspection.
Taking up the initiative in the Senate last year, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the shutdown "created confusion and uncertainty not only for DHS but also for an industry that has invested millions of dollars in security and compliance."
But it's been quiet on the CFATS front this year, as lawmakers and DHS officials focused on the Federal Emergency Management Agency and DHS grants to states.
Suzanne Spaulding, the undersecretary for DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), which oversees CFATS, appeared with top officials at a news conference on the need for funding with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday, but she was the only top staffer not to speak.
A DHS spokesman declined to comment and referred a reporter to Johnson's remarks at the press conference, where he warned lawmakers that "a shutdown of Homeland Security would have serious consequences and amount to a serious disruption in our ability to protect the homeland."
"Our ability to protect critical infrastructure owners and operators will be impacted" if DHS shuts down, Spaulding told a House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday. Staff facing furlough
It's difficult to examine the logistics of CFATS operations because the post-9/11 program was set up to be far more secretive than earlier regulatory efforts meant to help the public learn about chemicals kept near their homes and businesses.
Unlike conventional regulatory agencies, DHS releases little public information about its chemical security operations and classifies even basic information, including which facilities participate in CFATS, as data that "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual."
Still, it seems clear that few infrastructure employees will be present should the standoff come to that.
Only 9 percent of DHS's critical infrastructure protection personnel would remain on the job during a shutdown, according to a fact sheet posted by Rep. Bennie Thompson
The agency hasn't released an updated contingency plan for a possible shutdown, but its 2013 plan showed NPPD had 2,835 employees as of July 31, 2013, and would retain 1,617 of them as exempt employees -- classified that way because they either are presidential appointees, are law enforcement officers, receive funding from sources other than annual appropriations, or are "necessary for the protection of life and property," the document said.
The distinction is why front-line DHS workers like customs officers, law enforcement personnel and Secret Service agents keep working while unseen regulators, analysts and middle managers typically stay home.
Because DHS performs an oversight role and doesn't personally secure chemical facilities, it's unlikely that a closure presents an immediate safety risk, said Michael McKenna, a GOP lobbyist.
"I suspect most people in the industry think pretty much the same things," McKenna said.
Still, some analysts have said a DHS shutdown, even if brief, may affect the public in less visible ways over time.
"This affects the workforce in some fairly dramatic ways," Daniel Gerstein, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corp. and former undersecretary of DHS's Science and Technology Directorate, told a House Homeland Security hearing yesterday.
After the 2013 shutdown, he said, "We spent a lot of time ... talking to the workforce and trying to reinforce the importance of the jobs they're doing and that people do care about them."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Environment Official Says New EPA Ozone Rule Just the First Step
Feb 27, 2015 | Watchdog.org
By Rob Nikolewski
Texas environmental official says ozone pollution regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are just the first step for the EPA to introduce stiffer rules in years to come.
“I think they’re setting it up for the next round,” Michael Honeycutt, director of the toxicology division at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality told Watchdog.org in a conference call Tuesday.
The EPA-mandated limit for ozone is 75 parts per billion, a level that has not changed since 2008.
The agency wants to stiffen the standard to 65-70 parts per billion and is hearing from health care and environmental advocates who want it even lower — down to 60 parts per billion.
EPA is under a court order to sign off on the new rule by Oct. 1.
Even though states like Texas and industry groups have complained that making the ozone rules more stringent will cost billions, Honeycutt said the EPA will pass the new regulation and then, in time, go further.
“I don’t doubt that EPA will lower the standard (this year), but if you look at what they’re doing, they’re actually setting it up for the next round,” Honeycutt said. “If you look at the EPA documents, they’re telling you that lowering it from 75 (ppb) to 70 or 65 will help, but not much. If you look at their data, you need to get down to 50 or 40 to 35 to actually make big improvements in health.”
Watchdog.org emailed EPA for reaction to Honeycutt’s comments, but while the agency sent a statement about what it’s taking into account for the current ozone decision, it did not respond directly to his remarks.
Honeycutt’s suspicions aren’t the only issue the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has with EPA.
The TCEQ also claims the data EPA is basing its proposal on is wrong — and the TCEQ is mounting a $400,00 campaign to try to persuade EPA to abandon its effort to make the ozone pollution standards tougher.
“We don’t think EPA has shown that it will result in a measurable health benefit,” Honeycutt said.
“What concerns us is, if we’re going to spend that kind of money, we want to make sure we’re addressing the right issue,” said David Brymer, the TCEQ director of air quality.
EPA did not directly address TCEQ’s complaints about its data interpretation.
“We are interested in all information commenters provide us,” the agency said in a statement to Watchdog.org. “Proposing, and then finalizing, an air quality standard involves evaluating the latest available science, and we have more than 1,000 new studies since the last review that we’ve taken into account.”
But Elena Craft, a Texas-based senior health scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the TCEQ is wrong and the EPA derives its data from a variety of well-documented sources.
“There are other issues that might contribute to asthma attacks other than just poor air quality,” Craft said. “Public health officials are in consensus that ozone exposure does contribute to asthma … It’s not like EPA has gone off on their own and made this recommendation willy-nilly. There’s been a lot of sophisticated, scientific analyses and discussion that has been open to the public.”
EPA is wrapping up a 90-day public comment period about its recommendation to adopt more stringent ozone rules across the country.
A main component of smog, ground-level ozone pollution can be generated from sources like tailpipes and smokestacks. It’s a corrosive gas that essentially gets baked into the atmosphere by sunlight — especially during hot summer months — and can affect those who suffer from breathing problems like asthma.
“The American Lung Association can’t see any negative effect to lowering the (current ozone) level,” said Jeff Miracle, executive director of the Dallas board of the ALA. “It will only help people, and that’s why we would like to see the level reduced even more, to 60 (ppb).”
But critics say lowering the level to the EPA-recommended 65-70 ppb will cost states billions.
Leading the charge is the National Association of Manufacturers, which has labeled the proposal “the costliest regulation in history.”
The trade group released a study last year claiming the EPA proposal would cost the national economy $270 billion a year and nine states would lose more than $100 billion in gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040.
Another industry study, by the American Chemistry Council, asserted an overwhelming number of communities across the country will not be in compliance at the 65 ppb limit:
Chart from the American Chemistry Council
TAKE A LOOK: The american Chemistry Council’s map points to monitored and unmonitored areas that could violate the EPAs ozone limits.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency has heard these complaints from industry before.
“In the 1970s, those same critics said EPA action to remove toxic lead from gasoline would put the brakes on auto production,” McCarthy wrote in an opinion piece when the new proposal was announced last November. “Instead, blood lead levels in children worst affected have plummeted nearly 90 percent since 1976. And auto makers didn’t fold, they flourished.”
McCarthy and EPA officials say states will be given time — between 2020 and 2037 — to meet the new standards, depending on the level of severity in a given area.
As for complaints about costs, McCarthy said the agency predicts for every dollar invested in cracking down on ozone pollution, $3 will be returned in terms of savings in health-related benefits — up to $38 billion by 2025.
Besides, the courts have ruled that when it comes to health standards, the issue of cost is not be factored.
While officials at the Texas environmental commission are concerned about costs, they are focusing on what they say is faulty data used by the EPA to justify the tougher standard.
“EPA says ozone causes an increase in asthma attacks but if you look, the incidents of asthma attacks is increasing (while) nationwide … ozone levels have decreased,” Honeycutt said. “So it doesn’t make sense that decreasing ozone levels (are) increasing asthma attacks. That just makes no sense at all. So they’re going after the wrong thing.”
Honeycutt also points to a chart tucked in the appendix EPA’s 597-page policy analysis that showed that 48 more people in Houston would suffer premature deaths with ozone levels toughened at 70 ppb but 47 more would die with ozone levels staying at the current rate of 75 ppb:
Graphic courtesy of TCEQ
DARK NUMBERS: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is challenging EPA science related to ozone levels.
“When you look at the weight of the evidence, when you look at the entirety of the data, it just doesn’t support what EPA is saying,” Honeycutt said.
“In fact, in Texas, our asthmatic hospital admissions increase in the wintertime when we have our lower ozone as opposed to during the ozone season,” TCEQ chairman Bryan W. Shaw told a committee in the Texas House of Representatives on Tuesday.
Shaw, who last November said the metrics behind the proposed EPA ozone regulations “fails miserably”, went on to say the EPA “is chasing the wrong rabbit.”
TCEQ will convene a workshop “to bring some of the leading experts together to hopefully lay out a framework whereby we can have a more meaningful process to identify what the appropriate standard would be,” Shaw said.
Honeycutt said the workshop will bring in economists, public policy and health officials as well as “very good scientists who do very good air pollution work who aren’t funded by EPA directly to talk about the ozone science.”
“We’re looking for an unbiased view of the data,” Honeycutt said, adding the findings will be passed on to EPA chief McCarthy even though the findings would come after the agency’s 90-day public comment period.
Honeycutt said the entire process will cost about $400,000 and the workshop will be held April 7-9 in Austin.
“Instead of just trying to encourage EPA to do better science, we’re trying to do that better science ourselves,” Shaw said.
Craft said the TCEQ is wasting Texas taxpayers’ money, and the $400,000 figure is just a fraction of what the agency has spent battling the EPA.
“Across the board, they have challenged EPA over and over again and they have not been successful,” Craft said. “You have to wonder where the priorities are in terms of public health protection.”
When all is said and done, will the TCEQ’s efforts make any difference?
After all, even though a number of states — such as Kentucky and Louisiana — have expressed opposition to the proposed EPA rules and there’s talk that states will sue the EPA should the new rules be enacted, Honeycutt admitted that historically “courts give deference to EPA” data.
“I don’t know if we’ll be very successful this round, but we’re hopeful for the next round that we’ll make more headway,” Honeycutt said.
TCEQ critics are sure to point out that Texas is a staunch Republican state and the EPA is part of the Obama administration.
“Most people don’t get into the data, they just trust what EPA says,” Honeycutt said. “And on a lot of things, EPA just doesn’t have it right, they’re not correctly representing it or they’re oversimplifying things. So it’s not about red versus blue. It’s about data.”
“TCEQ is in clear violation of the public health principle of protecting those who are most vulnerable in the population,” Craft said. “That’s the bottom line.”
-
Halt to California Hydraulic Fracturing Sought
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
More than 150 advocacy and community groups have asked California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to use his emergency powers to impose a statewide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other types of well stimulation activity. The groups routinely ask the governor to halt “fracking” activities, but this request came in a seven-page petition submitted Feb. 26 under the state's Administrative Procedure Act. Under the statute, the governor has 30 days to respond to the petition, which alleged fracking and other forms of well stimulation activity pose a threat to the public and environment. In the document, the groups pointed to a recent report showing that state has allowed oil waste injection wells in areas that may harm aquifers (27 DEN A-10, 2/10/15). “The oil industry is polluting our air, contaminating our aquifers, using dangerous chemicals near homes and schools increasing earthquake risk by injecting vast quantities of wastewater into disposal wells near active faults and speeding climate change,” the petition said. The groups said a comprehensive health and environmental review of the activities is needed. Text of the petition is available at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/pdfs/Emergency_Fracking_Petition.pdf.
-
House Energy Bill Unlikely to Include Repeal Of Crude Oil Export Ban, Whitfield Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A repeal of the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports is unlikely to be included in comprehensive energy legislation being drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA.
Changes to the ban, put in place in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, have been considered a possibility for the bill being written by Republican leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. However, Whitfield, who chairs the subcommittee on Energy and Power, said he “didn't think” such a measure would be included.
“I would be surprised if it were in there,” Whitfield said in an interview. “We've already laid out the four concepts for the energy bill.”
A policy framework outlining a vision for the bill released by Republican committee leaders Feb. 9 makes reference to a “decision to allow the export of energy commodities,” but it didn't specify the type of energy. Upton, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the framework would be used to write a comprehensive energy bill to be brought to the floor later this year (27 DEN A-1, 2/10/15).
March 3 Hearing
Whitfield told Bloomberg BNA that he has yet to take position on the issue of crude oil exports and would learn more about the issue during a subcommittee hearing on the topic planned for March 3.
“It's our first opportunity to really start exploring the issue,” Whitfield said. “This is our first opportunity to really start asking questions about the pros and cons of crude oil exports.”
The hearing, titled “21st Century Energy Markets: How the Changing Dynamics of World Energy Markets Impact our Economy and Energy Security,” will “examine the impacts of the rapidly changing energy markets on the U.S. economy, jobs and consumers,” according to a committee notice.
Witnesses scheduled to testify include Adam Sieminski, administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration; Scott Sheffield, chairman and chief executive officer, Pioneer Natural Resources Co.; Charles Drevna, president, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; and Graeme Burnett, senior vice president for fuel optimization, Delta Air Lines, according to a list obtained by Bloomberg BNA.
The ban, enacted as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, bars crude oil from being exported except in limited cases, such as crude oil that is exported to Canada.
It has been getting a second look as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques have led daily U.S. oil production to soar to more than 9.2 million barrels per day in January, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Upton, in remarks to reporters Feb. 11, said proponents of loosening restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports still “need to build the case for it” (29 DEN A-11, 2/12/15).
-
Markey Reintroduces Bill to Boost Scrutiny of Export Reviews
Feb 26, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Nick Juliano
Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey and some fellow Democrats today reintroduced legislation to require additional scrutiny before U.S. companies export liquefied natural gas.
The bill serves to counter the ongoing push among Republicans and some energy-state Democrats to speed up LNG exports in the name of increasing supply for gas-thirsty allies and spurring additional domestic production.
Markey and his allies say authorizing too many exports too quickly risks increasing energy prices for domestic manufacturers and causing job losses; his bill requires the Department of Energy to consider a raft of additional factors, including energy prices, job creation and climate change.
"Instead of rushing to send our American natural gas to the highest bidder, we should first carefully determine whether it is in our best economic and national security interests to do so," Markey said in a statement. "Passing this legislation would ensure that we are fully considering the impacts that exports will have on American consumers, manufacturing and businesses, and our national security before sending our natural gas to foreign competitors."
Markey introduced a similar bill last year, although it was unable to gain traction despite Democratic control of the Senate, and it is unlikely to fare any better this year now that Republicans are in charge. Original co-sponsors this year are Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats. Franken and Sanders are members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Energy and Natural Resources last month held a hearing on an LNG export bill introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), but a markup has not been scheduled.
-
Colorado Senate Approves Bill to Require Compensation for Mineral Rights Owners
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Colorado Senate has approved legislation (S.B. 93) that would require local governments to compensate owners of mineral rights when a local regulation reduces the fair market value of the right by at least 60 percent.
The Senate approved the legislation Feb. 24 and sent it to the House for consideration, according to the Colorado Legislative Council. The primary aim of the bill is to require local governments that place bans or other restrictions on hydraulic fracturing and other drilling activities to reimburse the mineral rights owner for the regulatory taking.
A similar measure (H.B. 1119) died Feb. 25 in the House State, Military & Veterans Affairs Committee. Democrats hold the majority in the Colorado House, and Republicans are the majority in the Senate.
Rep. Perry Buck (R), sponsor of the bill that died in committee, said she feels government entities should be held liable to mineral right owners for lost access to their property.
“All property owners in Colorado should be concerned when politicians allow their personal ideologies to dictate whose property rights will be protected,” Buck said.
Regulatory takings was one focus of a special oil and gas task force appointed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) to recommend ways to resolve conflicts between the state and local governments over siting of wells and other oil and gas facilities in Colorado.
The task force forwarded nine recommendations to the governor, some of which called for greater local government input on siting large-scale drilling operations, but which stopped short of proposing local authority over the industry (38 DEN A-18, 2/26/15).
-
Nebraska Court Blocks TransCanada's Efforts to Acquire Land for Keystone Pipeline
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Brown
A state court in Nebraska issued a temporary injunction Feb. 26 blocking TransCanada Corp. from exercising eminent domain to acquire land needed to construct the Keystone XL pipeline across the state (Dunavan v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP, Neb. Dist. Ct., No. CI 15-12, 2/26/15).
The ruling by the Nebraska District Court, York County, was the second in two weeks by a Nebraska court against TransCanada, which began to initiate eminent domain proceedings against holdout landowners in the wake of a complex and contested ruling in January by the state Supreme Court that turned back a constitutional challenge to the state's pipeline-siting law but that also pointed the way to renewed challenges to the law (30 DEN A-1, 2/13/15).
As a result of the injunctions, TransCanada will be unable to resume using eminent domain to acquire land for the pipeline in the state until the constitutional issues that were left unresolved by the Supreme Court in January are revisited by that court, according to a statement by the attorney representing the landowners in the two lawsuits, David Domina, a principal in the Domina Law Group PC LLO in Omaha, Neb.
The likely time frame for a return of the challenges to the state's high court is 18 months, which represents a significant roadblock for the company, Domina said.
In a statement, TransCanada said: “Today's decision is what we asked the court for and was not unexpected. We concluded it would be best to resolve the recent legal challenges to the law that gave us our route in Nebraska, before proceeding further with eminent domain lawsuits. We entered into this agreement voluntarily; this was not a ruling we fought but rather a proposal we suggested to landowners and brought to the court by mutual agreement.”
In an earlier statement, TransCanada said it was seeking an “accelerated trial schedule to expedite the process.”
Supreme Court Ruling
In the case before the Supreme Court in January, the landowners claimed that the state's pipeline-siting law, which was passed by the Legislature in 2012 amidst controversy over TransCanada's plans in the state, violated the state constitution in placing the authority to approve a route for the pipeline in the hands of the governor rather than the Public Service Commission. Gov. Dave Heineman (R) approved a proposed route for the pipeline in January 2013.
Although four of the seven members of the Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the law violated the state constitution, the law was ultimately upheld because the three other members of the court ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge the law.
The plaintiffs weren't able to show that their land was on the pipeline route and that they would suffer a particular harm as a result, the minority said.
In Nebraska, the constitution requires a vote of five members of the Supreme Court to overturn a statute.
New Lawsuits Could be Filed
But the minority members made it clear in their dissent that new lawsuits could be filed by landowners who were able to show that their land was on the route. The two new lawsuits challenging the pipeline siting law were filed one week after the Supreme Court ruling .
According to Domina, if the route evaluation process is returned by the Supreme Court to the PSC, the result will likely be stronger guarantees that the company will clean up spills and remove the pipeline from Nebraska should the project ever be abandoned.
“The process used to approve this route left landowners and the people of Nebraska with virtually no protections against a huge private pipeline company,” Domina told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 12. “We know that spills will happen, and under this process, the landowners are going to have to fight the company over the cleanup. And if the company ever decides the pipeline doesn't make sense, they can just walk away. This isn't right.”
-
Natural Gas Storage Capacity Holding Steady, Government Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Natural gas storage capacity was nearly unchanged in November 2014 compared to November 2013, as increases in salt facilities offset declines in other types of storage capacity, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released Feb. 26.
With natural gas storage at low levels in most of 2014 and production relatively high, minimal new storage capacity was built except for salt facilities in the producing region, which includes eight south-central states. Capacity in the eastern U.S. fell slightly.
The EIA measures natural gas storage capacity in November of each year, which is typically when storage withdrawals begin to exceed storage injections.
The EIA uses two measures of natural gas storage: demonstrated maximum working gas and design capacity. Demonstrated maximum working gas, the sum of peak volumes by the active storage facilities, barely increased from 4,333 to 4,336 billion cubic feet between November 2013 and November 2014, the report said. Working gas design capacity, the sum of the working gas design capacity of the active storage fields, edged up from 4,664 to 4,665 billion cubic feet in that same time frame, the report said.
For salt facilities in producing states, demonstrated maximum working gas increased from 395 to 412 billion cubic feet between November 2013 and November 2014 and working gas design capacity increased from 448 to 481 billion cubic feet, the report said.
The two primary factors behind the modest change in storage capacity were low storage volumes due the unusually cold winter of 2013-2014 and no new storage facilities, the report said. Any increases in working gas design capacity came from expansions to existing caverns, and capacity growth in the coming years is expected to be relatively modest and to be concentrated in salt facilities, the report said.
-
Feb 26, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Denny Freidenrich
On Tuesday, the Orange County Register ran an editorial about the Keystone XL Pipeline entitled, "A pipeline to jobs." Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the word "jobs" never appeared in the editorial. Instead, the paper attacked President Obama's opposition to the project based on raw politics.
In the Register's words, the president "... has cast his lot with environmental hysterics like former hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, whose 'friends and allies' oppose the pipeline project." What does that have to do with jobs?
ADVERTISEMENTHere in Orange County, Calif., we have confronted the need for jobs against the need to protect the environment several times. In the mid-1980s, Orange County rejected the Reagan administration's plan to expand offshore oil drilling along the coast. I know, because the cities of San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach joined with the Orange County Board of Supervisors and hired me to coordinate the region's "No on Offshore Oil Drilling" campaign.
The arguments in favor of offshore drilling then were similar to those in support of the Keystone Pipeline now. First, jobs would be created building the rigs and second, America's energy independence would be enhanced by finding new sources of oil. Thankfully, a determined coalition of local Republican and Democratic lawmakers were able to join forces and push back against the Reagan White House.
Another example of balancing jobs vs. the environment occurred in the early 1990s when Laguna Beach residents taxed themselves in order to purchase land from The Irvine Co. along Laguna Canyon Road/Hwy. 133. Back then, it was no secret the largest development company in the county wanted to build hundreds, maybe thousands, of homes in the hills adjacent to the road.
There's no question many jobs would have been created building those homes; but, there also is no question about the long-term environmental impact that development would have had in the canyon. Clearly, the Orange County Building Industry Assn. would have preferred the former but, thanks to many forward-thinking people in Laguna, the project never got off the ground. The bond measure local residents passed to buy the land means those hills never will be developed.
The Keystone XL Pipeline bill that President Obama just rejected had all the earmarks of projects Orange County residents rejected in the past. My hope is the president's veto was the result of the same kind of analysis we conducted years ago, not his bending under the weight of current political pressure. -
EPA to Get Much Less Money in FY 2016 Than Requested, House Appropriators Say
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency's request for $8.59 billion in funding for the coming fiscal year was met with skepticism among the top Republican appropriators in the House during a Feb. 26 hearing.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before a the House Appropriations Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee that “the president is not only sending a clear signal about the resources EPA needs, … [his funding request] is also part of an overall federal budget that does not accept the overall bad policy-making of sequestration. The President's budget finds a way to avoid sequestration.”
However, Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee, said it would be futile to even entertain the president's proposed 5.6 percent increase in spending on the agency (22 DEN B-1, 2/3/15).
“Policy decisions will dominate today's hearing, given there is little merit to discussing the agency's proposed budget in depth,” Calvert told McCarthy at the outset of the hearing. “I know you are going to have to defend the indefensible here today.”
Water Rule Big Concern
Republican appropriators expressed major concerns with the EPA's development of a rule to clarify which waters are subject to Clean Water Act regulation.
Rogers said the so-called waters of the U.S. rule (RIN 2040-AF30) was intended to clear up confusion about water regulation, but instead it has created more confusion about which types of waterways it would affect and wouldn't.
He asked McCarthy how farmers would be able to tell if, under the rule, they would need to obtain a Clean Water Act exemption from the EPA for a stream on their property.
She replied that “if they had an exemption yesterday, they can rely on that today. If they need a permit, they can rely on that today.”
Case-By-Case Considerations
When asked by Rogers why the agency needs to implement this rule, McCarthy said the EPA is spending too much time and too many resources on making water rulings on a case-by-case basis. “We need to send clearer signals to businesses about when they need to ‘pass go.' ”
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) described the waters of the U.S. rule as a slippery slope that eventually will lead to the EPA asserting regulatory authority over groundwater.
McCarthy, however, strongly denied that the agency would do this.
“We're not regulating groundwater under this act,” she said. “It's not jurisdictional. We don't believe that's a part of the Clean Water Act.”
Confusion Over Comments
Republicans at the hearing expressed frustration with McCarthy over a discrepancy about the nature of the almost 1 million comments from the public about the waters of the U.S. rule.
Jo-Ellen Darcy, the assistant secretary of the Army who oversees the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, had said earlier that 60 percent of those comments had expressed opposition to the rule.
However, McCarthy disputed that number, saying that in fact 87 percent of the comments were in favor of the rule.
“It's incredible to me how the EPA and the corps can look at same data and come to different conclusions,” Rogers said. “One of you is wrong.”
McCarthy told the subcommittee that the corps had only reviewed a small subset of the comments and that Darcy would soon be clarifying her statements.
Democrats Defend Budget Proposal
Subcommittee Democrats defended, for the most part, the president's funding request for the EPA.
Rep. Betty McCollum (DFL-Minn.) said the funding is desperately needed given prior cuts, and she tried to dispel the notion that the EPA is a drag on the economy. “The EPA does not exist to kill jobs,” she said.
However, several Democrats took issue with the president's reduction in funding for regional environmental restoration programs, especially his proposed $50 million cut to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Democrats also took issue with the president's requested funding levels for programs in Puget Sound and Long Island Sound.
Climate Change
As has been the case for several years, EPA funding to address climate change was a contentious issue between McCarthy and the Republicans on the subcommittee.
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asked McCarthy whether she agreed with statements from the president and other top administration officials that climate change is the top national security threat facing the country.
However, she declined to weigh in, saying only that “it's the greatest challenge that my agency is facing.”
Rogers was critical of how the agency's actions on the issue, particularly its development of the Clean Power Plan, are affecting the coal industry in his home state of Kentucky, particularly since he believes that “global warming” isn't taking place.
“Just this past week in my district in the mid-South we had two consecutive nights of below zero with snow on the ground,” he said, adding, “global warming?”
Later in the hearing, McCarthy noted that “global warming was not the right term to come out with” at the outset of the climate change debate.
-
House GOP Appropriators Reject EPA's Bid For $452 Million Boost In FY16
Feb 26, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee say they will reject EPA's request for a $452 million boost to its fiscal year 2016 budget in part because the agency would use the funds to craft water and climate rules they oppose, though the lawmakers say they might still agree to boost EPA's water infrastructure funds.
At a Feb. 26 House appropriations panel interior subcommittee hearing, GOP members described as unrealistic President Obama's request to increase the agency's funds from its current $8.139 billion budget to $8.591 billion in FY16. “I'm skeptical that the agency needs [additional funding] . . . and we have no interest in returning to those funding levels,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), chair of the interior and environment panel.
Lawmakers are holding a series of hearings on EPA's budget request for FY16, including a Feb. 25 House energy panel hearing and a Senate environment panel hearing slated for March 4.
Calvert and other Republicans at the Feb. 26 House appropriations hearing -- where EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified -- attacked both EPA's funding request and its work on proposed rules to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants and to define which waters are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
“I simply cannot accept a 6 percent increase in your funding when by all accounts the EPA is still working hard to eliminate steady, well-paying jobs in the coal industry” through GHG and other regulations, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), who chairs the full appropriations committee, said during the hearing.
No committee members at the hearing explicitly suggested blocking EPA rules through policy riders attached to an appropriations bill. But Calvert told Inside EPA after the hearing that “I would not be surprised” to see language barring the agency from implementing its GHG and CWA jurisdiction rules in the House spending legislation.
While GOP members of the panel were critical of EPA's overall budget plan and its focus on high-profile rules such as the CWA and GHG policies, they also questioned the proposal to cut overall spending on the state revolving funds (SRFs), which support state drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
EPA's proposal would cut overall SRF funding by $53 million. The clean water SRF would drop by $332 million, taking it down to $1.116 billion compared to its current level of $1.448 billion, while the drinking water SRF would receive a $279 million boost, taking it from its current level of $906 million up to $1.186 billion.
“This sounds strange when I'm worried about the deficit, but I think one of the biggest challenges we face right now is the water and sewer infrastructure in this country. . . . Somehow, I think, this agency needs to be at the forefront of deciding how we are going to address that need, because the state revolving loan funds, while a great idea when they started out, are insufficient,” Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID) said during the hearing.
He also added that the panel is likely to continue past years' “Buy American” budget mandates requiring any SRF-funded project to use a broad range of domestic iron and steel goods unless the recipient can secure a waiver from EPA, telling McCarthy, “I suspect there will be efforts -- and probably successful efforts -- to put that back in.”
Funding Provisions
Simpson also said the agency should explore other ways to fund infrastructure projects in addition to the SRFs, highlighting two new such initiatives at EPA -- the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), which Congress authorized in 2014, and the recently announced Water Finance Center, which has no explicit congressional mandate and which the agency says will promote public-private partnerships.
Congress authorized future funding for WIFIA in 2014 but has yet to appropriate money for the program, without which it cannot begin active operation. EPA in its FY16 proposal is seeking $5 million to establish policy goals, procedures, evaluation criteria, internal controls and other necessary steps to create the program. The agency says it would work within overall staffing levels in order to support the program.
Speaking after the hearing, Calvert did not commit to funding the program in the coming year but said that infrastructure programs “are always challenged for money, and this is a way to think outside the box.”
Committee members also questioned McCarthy on EPA's plans for individual programs and accounts in FY16, including a proposed cut to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and new spending for 25 attorneys who McCarthy said would help speed permit development and approvals.
Addressing GLRI spending, which under the agency's proposal would drop from its current $300 million to $250 million, Rep. David Joyce (R-OH) said “it just doesn't make sense to me,” especially considering the 2014 cyanobacteria outbreak in Lake Erie that led to a “Do Not Drink” advisory for water sources in Toledo, OH.
“We'll have to work with the agencies” to prioritize future actions under EPA's proposal, Joyce said.
Addressing the plan to hire additional staff attorneys, Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-WV) expressed concerns that the agency is planning to step up its legal defense of controversial rulemakings, including the GHG policies. “I don't want to fund more lawyers to defend what I see as overreach,” he said. McCarthy countered that the positions would be tasked with legal review of air and water permits in development, and that funding for the positions would lead to quicker permit issuance. “We'll be able to show” improvements over the coming year, she said.
-
Senate Environment to Hear From McCarthy
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy will testify March 4 at 9:30 a.m. before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee announced Feb. 26. McCarthy will be the only witness and will discuss the fiscal year 2016 budget. The EPA administrator testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 26 and before two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees the day before. Discussion is likely to include a number of regulations, including proposed carbon pollution limits for power plants. President Barack Obama is seeking a $451.8 million increase in funding from the current fiscal year in his fiscal year 2016 budget request for the EPA(22 DEN B-1, 2/3/15).
-
House Appropriators Press McCarthy Over Administration's Climate Agenda
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Republican House appropriators yesterday grilled U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy about the Obama administration's climate agenda.
At a hearing on the agency's budget, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said he was "disappointed" in EPA's request for more funding in fiscal 2016 and slammed the agency for waging a "war on coal."
The Obama administration has requested an increase of about $452 million, or 6 percent, from the current enacted level of $8.1 billion for EPA in fiscal 2016. Under the proposal, EPA would receive a discretionary budget of about $8.6 billion.
"I continue to be disappointed with the way this agency approaches its regulatory missions," Rogers said. "I simply cannot accept a 6 percent increase in your funding when, by all accounts, the EPA is working hard to eliminate more steady, well-paying jobs in the coal industry."
The concerns raised by Republican appropriators likely foreshadow policy riders that will be attached to the committee's spending plan for the agency.
According to EPA, the requested increase in funding would help boost the agency's efforts to address climate change. Specifically, the agency has requested more money to help states shape plans to comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan, which would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The budget requests $1 billion total for work to address climate change and improve air quality, according to EPA.
The administration has also proposed, in addition to the discretionary budget request, to build a $4 billion fund to help states collaborate on multistate and individual programs if they achieve greater or earlier reductions than EPA requires under the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Feb. 2).
Rogers raised doubts over the plausibility of climate change, telling McCarthy that places in his state of Kentucky have recently seen extreme cold temperatures.
"Global warming?" he asked.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, raised doubts about the legality of EPA's power plant proposal.
"It's clear the White House has little interest in how the rule is structured, what that rule says or the impacts to American jobs," Calvert said. "The White House is more interested in circulating a regulation on a time frame that is convenient for a term-limited administration."
He said the administration had shown "willful ignorance" toward the discretionary spending caps agreed to by Congress, noting that EPA's budget would be its third-highest budget ever.
McCarthy defended the budget request in her opening statement at the hearing, saying climate change is a broad-ranging issue that threatens both public health and the national economy.
"The president is very serious when he says that climate change is an issue that is not just an environmental one but one that is fundamental to our economy, fundamental to our national security," she said.
She also touted the Clean Power Plan as a technology-based standard that would provide states with flexibility and was unequivocal about its legality.
"This is a Clean Air Act rule that is following the Clean Air Act as Congress authorized EPA to implement it," McCarthy said.
McCarthy also defended her agency's Waters of the United States proposal, a plan to automatically regulate all tributaries that connect to a downstream water body and all streams and wetlands in floodplains or riparian areas of regulated water bodies, against harsh criticism by Republican appropriators.
McCarthy said that, contrary to GOP claims, the waters proposal was not an expansion of the agency's jurisdiction and that 87 percent of the comments received by EPA on the proposal have been favorable.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, also defended EPA, arguing that the agency "does not exist to kill jobs."
Without additional funding for EPA to combat climate change, McCollum said, appropriators would be forced to spend more money elsewhere on addressing its impacts. Since 2013, for example, costs for fighting wildfires have risen by $1.5 billion, she said.
"We are spending more and more money in other parts of the Interior bill to cope with the devastating effects of climate change," she said. "It makes no sense for us to shortchange the EPA of the funds necessary to address climate change."
-
Senate Bill Would Direct DOE to Support 10 Carbon Capture, Storage Projects
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Legislation was introduced Feb. 26 by Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to boost Energy Department research and funding support for coal-fired power plants that capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions.
Their bill is similar to a measure Heitkamp introduced in the previous Congress (57 DEN A-8, 3/25/14).
The new bill, the Advanced Clean Coal Technology Investment in Our Nation Act of 2015, or ACCTION, would authorize the issuance of $5 billion in clean energy coal bonds to support carbon capture and other coal-related technologies.
The bill also would direct the energy secretary to enter into cooperative agreements to provide financial and technical assistance to as many as 10 large-scale geological storage or enhanced oil recovery projects that would store carbon dioxide emissions.
The measure also would create a new Energy Department Transformational Coal Technology Program to accelerate development of next-generation carbon capture and storage technologies.
Moreover, the bill would allow power plants that build the projects to seek federal funding support that would reward them for the tons of carbon they successfully capture and store.
Heitkamp noted that power plants have already shown, through various demonstration projects, that capturing and storing carbon dioxide emitted from coal combustion is a viable technology that can be commercialized with the right incentives.
Heitkamp Says Technology Proven
“Those who say it's not possible to capture carbon are wrong,” the North Dakota Democrat told reporters Feb. 26.
It's also unrealistic to assume that the U.S. will move away from coal as a significant source of electricity generation anytime soon, the senator said.
She pointed to estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration that by 2040, nearly one-third of the nation's electricity will still come from coal combustion, only a slight decline from the 37 percent share today.
-
Dems Introduce Bill to Help ‘Clean Coal’
Feb 26, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A pair of moderate Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would increase federal support for “clean coal” technology.
Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said their legislation is meant to provide a viable path forward for coal-fired electricity as the country moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Talking about adhering to an all-of-the-above energy strategy in America is easy — and there’s a lot of talk — but actually seeking a true strategy that includes using all of our energy resources to secure a safe, economically strong future for our children is another story,” Heitkamp said in a statement.
“My common-sense legislation would help make that possible by providing a sustainable path forward for coal — an energy industry that already supports high-paying jobs across the country and reduces our dependence on foreign oil,” she said.
Heitkamp’s bill would provide new incentives for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, which has yet to be developed on a large scale for coal plants.
It would direct more funds at the Energy Department toward carbon capture, provide variable price support for companies that capture the carbon and increase tax credits, among other actions.
“This bill represents the large-scale [research and development] investment we need in cleaner coal technologies,” said Kaine.
“If American innovators can successfully deploy these technologies, we can not only reduce the carbon intensity of our fossil fuels but also bolster our manufacturing exports to developing economies like China and India that need to reduce their carbon emissions while providing energy for growing populations.”
The Coal Utilization Research Council, an industry group that pushes for more research funding for coal, applauded the legislation.
“Sen. Heitkamp has long recognized the robust history of technical innovation and improvement and the strong domestic engineering capability in the U.S. that has been the foundation for developing better and better technology to support use of coal,” the group said.
North Dakota ranks No. 9 in the country in terms of coal production, and Virginia ranks No. 15.
Heitkamp introduced the same bill last year, but it did not move forward.
-
Long Confirmation Process Discourages Many Candidates, Pending EPA Nominee Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Lengthy delays faced by Environmental Protection Agency nominees in the Senate confirmation process are “tough” and discourage many potential candidates from being considered for roles within the agency, one of those nominees awaiting confirmation said.
Ann Dunkin, tapped to be assistant administrator for environmental information and current chief information officer at the EPA, told Federal News Radio Feb. 24 that candidates “incur a lot of personal cost” due to the delays and said 10 of the 14 spots at the agency requiring Senate confirmation are currently vacant.
“This, typically has not been such a long process, and so it's kind of been uncharted territory,” Dunkin said. “This process right now certainly makes it harder, and I hope that the president and Congress are able to find out a way to clear up this gridlock.”
Dunkin, originally nominated by President Barack Obama in January 2014, cleared the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in August 2014 but never received full Senate consideration. Obama renominated her Feb. 12 (30 DEN A-18, 2/13/15).
Requires ‘Creative' Solutions
Nominees find it “hard to be patient,” and the agency looks for “creative ways” for them to contribute as they await Senate action. Dunkin, for example, has served as a senior adviser to Administrator Gina McCarthy and recently assumed the role of chief information officer at the EPA.
“You're not going to get the very best people if we continue to make people wait,” Dunkin said. “There have been more nominees passing and citing they don't want to continue in the process.”
Senate delays are “tough” on career agency employees who must assume acting roles and make it more difficult for the agency on the whole, Dunkin said.
“The career folks and the nominees who are in the agency are doing great work,” Dunkin said. “It's just not the same as having the full team on board.”
Republicans Delaying EPA Nominations
Both Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the panel, previously told Bloomberg BNA that EPA nominees would have an even harder time getting confirmed now that Republicans control the Senate (237 DEN A-2, 12/10/14).
The Obama administration has slowly been nominating candidates this year to fill those 10 empty slots at the agency. Beyond Dunkin, Obama has nominated Jane Toshiko Nishida to the position of assistant administrator for international and tribal affairs, as well as Stanley Meiburg to be deputy administrator.
-
Cost Consideration Not Required for Decision On Power Plant Mercury Rule, EPA Says
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency wasn't required by the Clean Air Act to consider the cost of regulation when the agency determined it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, the agency told the U.S. Supreme Court (Michigan v. EPA, U.S., No. 14-46, respondent briefs filed 2/25/15).
In a brief filed Feb. 25, the EPA argued that industry and state government petitioners have failed to establish that Section 7412(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act unambiguously compels the EPA to consider costs when making that determination, which triggered a requirement that the agency promulgate standards limiting power plant emissions. The agency in 2012 promulgated the mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), which are estimated to cost the power industry $9.6 billion annually.
The Supreme Court is reviewing an April 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which found that the EPA decision not to consider costs is consistent with the Clean Air Act because Congress didn't expressly require the agency to do so (White Stallion Energy Center LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222, 2014 BL 103957 (D.C. Cir. 2014); 73 DEN A-1, 4/16/14).
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments March 25.
Split Over Congressional Intention
The mercury and air toxics standards are being challenged by the National Mining Association, the power plant trade group Utility Air Regulatory Group and a coalition of 21 state governments led by Michigan. The petitioners have requested that the court invalidate the 2012 MATS standards because the determination to regulate power plants is based on an unlawful interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
The state and local petitioners argued in their briefs, filed in January, that Congress did not intend for the EPA to ignore costs when deciding whether it is appropriate to regulate power plant emissions. The state petitioners argued that if the EPA considered costs, it would have found that regulating power plants is not appropriate due to “disproportionately high” costs compared with minimal public health benefits (15 DEN A-1, 1/23/15).
The EPA said in its brief that the petitioners have failed to identify any “textual or practical justification” for requiring a different approach to regulating power plant emissions.
“With respect to all other source categories, the CAA unambiguously directs EPA to consider costs only in setting the proper level of regulation, not in making the threshold determination whether a particular source category should be listed,” the agency said.
The text, structure, context and history of Section 7412(n)(1)A) support EPA's decision to consider costs when setting the proper level of regulation, not in making the determination it was appropriate and necessary to regulate, according to the EPA.
Chevron Test Not Met
The EPA said the D.C. Circuit correctly upheld the agency's decision under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, a 1984 Supreme Court decision that established a two-part test for review of agency actions. Under Chevron, a court must decide whether the plain text of the law is clear. If the statutory text is ambiguous, then the court must decide if the agency's interpretation of the law is permissible.
The petitioners' claims can only prevail if the petitioners show that EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act is unreasonable, the agency said. The petitioners have not satisfied the standard under Chevron to establish that the Clean Air Act unambiguously requires cost consideration, according to the EPA.
The agency argued that it “reasonably concluded” that Congress did not intend for cost to be considered when the agency decided whether to list power plants for air toxics regulation. Even if cost consideration were required, the regulatory impact analysis that accompanied the 2012 MATS standards does not provide a basis for inferring that the EPA would or should have made a different decision, the agency said.
That regulator impact analysis document found that the associated benefits of the MATS standards would “greatly” exceed costs.
Respondents Support EPA Argument
State and local governments, industry groups and public health and environmental organizations all filed respondent briefs in defense of EPA's decisionmaking.
The state and local petitioners, which include Massachusetts, California and Chicago, agreed in their brief that the Clean Air Act permitted the EPA to decline to consider costs in making its threshold determination and that the agency properly considered costs when actually setting the MATS standards.
The state and local governments also touted the public health benefits of the MATS standards. While many states have implemented state requirements on power plant emissions, those state regulations cannot address the issue of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants that cross state lines.
“The Air Toxics Rule imposes national controls that are essential to both protecting public health and the environment and leveling the regulatory playing field across the country,” the state and local petitioners said.
The nonprofit organizations and the industry respondents agreed in their briefs that the EPA made a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act with respect to cost.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Lung Association and other health and environmental groups attempted to refute the petitioners' argument that under the EPA interpretation, the agency could impose regulations that impose $9.6 billion per year in compliance costs and result in $1 in annual benefits. The agency's interpretation did not lead to “such absurdly unbalanced results,” as the agency applied the section 7412(d) standard-setting criteria to power plants, according to the environmental and public health respondents.
The petitioners failed to show how those criteria, which have been applied to refineries, steel mills and other industries in the past, has resulted in “irrational or wildly unbalanced costs,” the environmental and public health groups said.
The industry respondents, which include Calpine Corp. and Exelon Corp., said that even if the Supreme Court determines the EPA should have considered costs, it should affirm the MATS standards because EPA found the benefits of the rule significantly exceed the costs.
-
'We're a Strong Agency,' McCarthy Tells Employees
Feb 26, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
U.S. EPA is in good shape, agency boss Gina McCarthy told staffers in a new video pep talk, despite years of budget cuts, sagging morale and political attacks.
"The state of our agency is strong," McCarthy said in a video sent to all EPA employees today.
She noted that President Obama asked for a boost in EPA's budget for fiscal 2016 after the agency saw its budget and workforce levels decline in recent years.
"We know investments in environmental protection pay off, and that's why President Obama proposed an $8.6 billion budget for EPA in 2016 -- that's half a billion dollars above last year's levels," she said. "The simple fact is our success is all because of your hard work every day. You're keeping our air and our water clean. You're keeping our families and our communities healthy. Your scientific research is helping us identify and meet new challenges. And in every region and in every office, you're working to make sure EPA carries out its mission."
McCarthy also defended the agency's science as EPA critics on Capitol Hill plow ahead with legislative efforts to target the science underpinning the Obama administration's environmental rules (E&E Daily, Feb. 26).
"Science is the heart and soul of what we do at EPA; it is our North Star," she said. "EPA is essentially a science entity and one that is respected not just in the U.S. but respected internationally. We are a leader; we will not give that up."
McCarthy also touted the agency's continuing work on climate change, clean water and enforcing environmental laws.
"We're a strong agency. We are one EPA. We know the American people care about public health and the environment, and we are going to continue to deliver for them. And it's all because of the work you do," she told her staff. "Thank you, each and every one of you."
-
EPA, Supporters Defend 'Co-Benefit' Pollution Cuts To Justify Utility MACT
Feb 26, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and its environmentalist, state and utility industry supporters are defending the agency's use of “co-benefit” cuts in pollution not regulated by its power plant maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule as a justification for the regulation, saying the human health protections from the cuts are a vital part of the MACT's benefits.
In briefs filed Feb. 25 with the Supreme Court, proponents of the air toxics rule also reiterate their arguments that EPA was justified in not considering costs when it developed its finding that the MACT was “appropriate and necessary” to protect public health, a prerequisite to developing a Clean Air Act section 112 MACT for the sector. Critics want the court to scrap the rule, saying EPA erred by not considering costs in the finding.
To develop the 2012 rule, EPA first conducted a study on health risks from the sector, then a finding that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the plants with a strict MACT air toxics rule.
Power companies, several states and others filed suit over the rule, claiming the agency should have reviewed what they say are the massive costs of the rule when crafting the finding. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling in April rejected those claims, noting the air law is silent on the issue of considering costs. As a result, the majority sided with EPA and upheld its approach to the rule.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent in the divided ruling in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, et al. upholding the MACT found that EPA should have considered the costs -- estimated by EPA at $9.6 billion, compared to $37 to $90 billion in benefits -- in its finding that regulation was “appropriate.”
Critics of the rule appealed it to the high court, which agreed to hear consolidated challenges to the rule -- National Mining Association v. EPA, et al., Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, et al. and State of Michigan, et al. v. EPA, et al. -- solely on the question of whether EPA should have considered costs in the rule.
Although EPA did conduct a cost-benefit analysis when actually setting MACT emissions limits themselves, industry groups and states challenging the rule say that this also was flawed, because it relied heavily on co-benefit cuts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) achieved by the standard to show that the rule's benefits outweigh its costs.
PM2.5 is widely thought to cause serious health problems. It is, however, not a hazardous air pollutant, such as mercury, regulated by a MACT standard. The rule's opponents say that EPA cannot therefore rely on PM2.5 benefits to justify a hugely expensive rule, because without those benefits its costs would greatly outweigh its benefits.
However, in the Feb. 25 briefs, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of EPA, states supporting the rule, environmentalists and “clean” utilities with low-emitting power plants stress that under the air law, EPA has no duty to consider costs when making its “appropriate and necessary” finding. The law's silence on the matter means the court should defer to EPA's interpretation under the Chevron legal doctrine, under which courts defer to agencies' views when a statute provides no explicit direction, so long as the agencies' interpretation is “reasonable,” the say.
Supporting this view, DOJ in its brief notes that, “With respect to all other source categories [of air toxics], the [air law] unambiguously directs EPA to consider costs only in setting the proper level of regulation, not in making the threshold determination whether a particular source category should be listed” for regulation.
Co-Benefit Reductions
DOJ defends EPA's reliance on co-benefits in the MACT rulemaking, arguing that this is a long-established and important principle of cost-benefit analysis required by executive order for federal rules.
Several legal observers believe the high court took the case based almost entirely on the large costs of the rule in the absence of other novel legal issues. Therefore, the court's treatment of co-benefits is key, not only for the utility MACT but for other EPA rules the agency seeks to justify in part with co-benefits.
It is also critical because the rule's supporters argue that even if EPA was wrong to ignore costs at the outset, it did consider them when it set the MACT limits, concluding the monetized health benefits far outweighed the costs. As a result, vacating the rule would be unjustified and a remand to EPA would be pointless, as EPA has already proven the rule's worth, supporters say. An adverse ruling from the court on the use of co-benefits would undermine this argument on the rule's costs and benefits, legal observers have said.
DOJ in its brief says consideration of co-benefits “is an accepted practice in cost-benefit analysis, the whole purpose of which is to measure the net impact that a regulation will have on social welfare.” Petitioners' contention “that an 'appropriate' consideration of costs would have produced a different result, depends on their view that EPA must ignore a huge portion of the benefits that the rule is likely to produce,” DOJ says.
Further, EPA was unable to quantify the monetary benefits of reducing certain harmful pollutants under the rule, but these emissions cuts will still have substantial public health value, DOJ argues. “Even apart from the co-benefits, power plants are responsible for approximately 50% of total anthropogenic mercury emissions and 82% of total anthropogenic hydrogen chloride (a listed hazardous acid gas) emissions in the United States,” DOJ says.
The MACT rule “will reduce emissions of those pollutants from coal-fired plants by approximately 75% and 88%, respectively. It is not possible to quantify, in monetary terms, many of the benefits to be achieved from reducing such emissions. But petitioners are wrong to imply that no such benefits exist,” DOJ argues.
Supporters' Arguments
Environmentalists in their brief supporting EPA say that “taking account of co-benefits is the standard and sensible practice in cost-benefit analysis,” and reinforce DOJ's argument regarding the value of benefits from air toxics reductions that EPA could not quantify when it developed the rulemaking.
States supporting EPA in the litigation, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and others also back the co-benefit approach in their brief. “Contrary to Petitioner Michigan’s assertion that co-benefits from reduced fine particulate matter emissions are 'not relevant' to EPA’s decision to regulate, reducing that pollution will directly benefit public health by reducing exposure to the nonmercury metals -- such as arsenic and selenium -- which make up a significant portion of the fine particulate matter emitted by coal-fired power plants,” they say.
Utilities Calpine Corporation, Exelon Corporation, National Grid generation LLC and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. in their brief say that the co-benefits “are real benefits from the Rule and cannot be ignored when weighing its benefits against its costs -- just as ancillary or indirect costs cannot be ignored, either.”
The utilities continue, “The notion that the agency should count only some benefits, and presumably only some costs, would have far-reaching consequences and would be contrary to well established economic principles and case law.” They note EPA in its Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared in support of the rule followed the applicable guidelines set by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the agency itself.
The utilities cite to support their case a D.C. Circuit ruling from 1992 in Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and a 2008 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, both of which reversed NHTSA for its failure to fully assess benefits and costs of fuel economy standards, including ancillary costs and benefits. “In light of EPA’s actual finding that the benefits of the Rule significantly exceed its costs, this Court should affirm the Rule even if it determines that EPA should have considered costs when deciding whether regulation was 'appropriate,' the utilities argue.
-
Environmental Justice Weighed in Selecting Targets for Air Toxics Inspections, OIG Finds
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Environmental justice issues are considered by Environmental Protection Agency officials when targeting industrial facilities for air toxics inspections, according to the EPA's Office of Inspector General.
The inspector general, in a Feb. 26 report, found that environmental justice is one of several factors used by the EPA's regional offices to focus limited resources allocated to inspecting facilities for compliance with hazardous air pollutant emissions standards. Other factors identified by the EPA staff include cancer risk in the community around a facility, overall facility emissions and compliance history.
The report said the EPA regional offices conduct “a relatively small number” of total air toxics inspections, with most inspections handled by state and local air quality agencies.
However, the EPA has established a national enforcement initiative targeting leaks, flares and excess emissions from petroleum refineries, chemical plants and other industrial sources of hazardous air pollutants.
The EPA estimates that 13.8 million people in the U.S. live in communities where the estimated individual risk of getting cancer due to exposure to outdoor hazardous air pollutants is double the average national risk, according to the report.
Air toxics emitted from facilities may elevate concentrations of air toxics in the surrounding community, rather than having those emissions disperse over a larger area.
The report, which was conducted to determine if the EPA is targeting facilities in overburdened communities or communities with disproportionate impacts, contains no recommendations.
EPA Tools Improving
The Office of Inspector General interviewed regional EPA employees who identified several limitations of an agency tool, known as EJSCREEN, which was designed to help agency staff incorporate environmental justice issues into their work. The report concluded that recent updates to EJSCREEN will make it more useful for targeting facilities for compliance inspections.
EJSCREEN is an online mapping tool for identifying areas of potential concern using demographic information and various environmental indicators, including levels of particulate matter and ozone in the air and cancer risk associated with air toxics exposure.
Regional staff told the inspector general's office that the initial version of the EJSCREEN tool was unable to identify air toxics facilities within areas of concern and was unable to provide information for multiple facility addresses at once. It wasn't feasible to use the tool to assess regions that have hundreds of facilities that emit air toxics, according to the report.
Updated Version Released in September
The EPA in September released an updated version of EJSCREEN that is capable of overlaying facility locations onto a screen showing an area of concern and of providing information for multiple facilities at once.
Agency staff also is beginning to use the GeoPlatform tool, which allows for the building of custom maps, in conjunction with EJSCREEN data to produce detailed maps showing regional needs, according to the report.
“The agency is taking important and proactive steps to enhance the ability of EPA regions to consider areas of EJ concern when targeting air toxics inspections,” the inspector general's office concluded.
-
Air, Water Rules Threaten Sovereignty, State Officials Tell House Subcommittee
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Several Environmental Protection Agency rules under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act infringe on state sovereignty and would impose significant economic burdens on farmers and industries, states told a House subcommittee Feb. 26.
The proposed Clean Power Plan, stronger air quality standards for ozone and a water jurisdiction rule all interfere with the ability of states to manage their own resources and regulate their electricity generation sector, the attorneys general of Montana and Arkansas told the House Oversight and Government Reform Interior Subcommittee.
Economic analysts also argued that the EPA hides the true costs of compliance with its rules by adding in the health benefits of controlling pollutants that aren't directly regulated but will be reduced as a result of compliance with the regulations.
The EPA's proposed waters of the U.S. rule, which would clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act (79 Fed. Reg. 22,188), infringes on Montana's authority to manage its own natural resources, Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) said. States have already taken steps to preserve their waterways, he added.
“The people of Montana have taken steps to fully protect that priceless resource,” Fox said.
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) said the water jurisdiction rule would cause significant uncertainty for farmers.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) agreed. “The waters of the U.S. rule still doesn't provide the regulatory certainty that farmers, small businesses and homeowners need,” she said.
Power Plant Rule Called Illegal
Rutledge argued that the EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, violates the text of the Clean Air Act.
Rutledge said the EPA can't regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because power plants are already regulated under Section 112.
“This is a serious overreach of the EPA's authority and different from the implementation of any other limits set under the Clean Air Act,” Rutledge said.
Apparently conflicting amendments to Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act were adopted in 1990. A House amendment would bar the EPA from regulating under Section 111(d) any industrial source category that is already regulated under Section 112, which would include power plants.
The Senate language would merely bar the EPA from regulating under Section 111(d) any pollutants that are already regulated under Section 112.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the full Oversight Committee, said he also is concerned that the EPA's rules impinge on states' authority.
“Time and time again the EPA has been in here talking about all of these problems with mismanagement and waste, and they want to go into states and tell people about their business,” he said.
Air Rules Impose High Costs
Economic analysts said the EPA's proposed air rules would impose significant costs on the economy and could increase electricity costs for ratepayers.
David Harrison from NERA Economic Consulting said the EPA's Clean Power Plan could increase electricity rates in 44 states by an average of 10 percent annually during its 15-year compliance period.
“These two major environmental policies could have major economic impact on states and the nation as a whole,” he said of the Clean Power Plan and the EPA's proposal to set more stringent air quality standards for ozone.
In an August 2014 study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, NERA Economic Consulting estimated that revising the national ambient air quality standards for ozone from the current 75 parts per billion down to 60 ppb would cost $270 billion per year and force the closure of one-third of the nation's coal-fired power plants (148 DEN A-13, 8/1/14).
The EPA has proposed setting the ozone standard in a range between 60 ppb and 70 ppb, which was recommended by its science advisers.
EPA Critics ‘Scare Mongering.'
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) accused the EPA's critics of “scare mongering.”
“History tells us environmental regulations don't cause an economic calamity,” she said.
NERA announced Feb. 25 that it has released an updated version of its report to reflect that proposal (see related story).
Sue Tierney, senior adviser to the Analysis Group, said accounting for the co-benefits of other pollutants that will be reduced as part of the EPA's proposed ozone standards is an important consideration when tallying the rules' health benefits.
“Economic impact analyses that fail to look at benefits to public health are inherently inconsistent with what the ozone standard is all about, which is public health,” she said.
-
Industry Report Identifies Higher Costs For Ozone Proposal Than EPA Estimates
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A report commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the costs of more stringent national ozone standards would be much higher than Environmental Protection Agency estimates.
The report, prepared by NERA Economic Consulting and released Feb. 26, estimated that ozone standards of 65 parts per billion could impose about $1.1 trillion in compliance costs on industry from 2017 through 2040, with the industry projected to spend more than $100 billion in some years. The EPA has estimated that the annual cost of a 65 ppb standard would be around $16.6 billion.
The EPA has proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current national ambient air quality standards of 75 ppb to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. The agency is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to finalize its decision on whether to revise or retain the existing standards.
Aric Newhouse, senior vice president for policy and government relations for the National Association of Manufacturers, told reporters during a Feb. 26 media call that the report illustrates that a 65 ppb ozone standard would be “the most expensive regulation of all time.”
Representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Policy Integrity both criticized the study, telling Bloomberg BNA that NERA assumed the pollution controls needed to attain a 65 ppb standard would be unrealistically expensive, resulting in an overestimated regulatory cost.
The EPA, in a Feb. 26 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA, said that industry claims “consistently ignore” the benefits of reducing emissions of pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone, also known as smog. The agency has estimated that a 65 ppb standard could result in benefits of up to $38 billion annually from reduced incidents of asthma, premature death and other health problems.
The NERA report is an update of a July 2014 study that concluded an ozone standard of 60 ppb could cost the U.S. economy up to $270 billion per year and force the closure of up to one-third of the nation's coal-fired power plants (148 DEN A-13, 8/1/14).
Difference in Unknown Control Estimates
Anne Smith, senior vice president and co-chair of the environmental practice at NERA, told reporters that the report's cost estimates are higher than EPA's “almost entirely” due to a different method for calculating the cost of unknown controls, which would be needed to meet a more stringent standard.
Smith said the EPA took a “very simplistic” approach to estimating the cost of unknown controls, which would be needed to achieve the type of emissions reductions needed to attain a 65 ppb standard. The agency's regulatory impact analysis of its proposal estimated that unknown controls would cost $15,000 per ton of emissions reduction, according to Smith.
NERA staff developed an approach that identified the likely nature of unknown controls that would be used, then estimated the cost of those controls based on existing data. Those unknown controls would include the closure of coal-fired power plants and the turnover of older motor vehicles to less-emitting models.
Effect on GDP, Workers
In addition to compliance costs, the NERA report estimates a 65 ppb standard would reduce the gross domestic product of the U.S. by about $140 billion annually and eliminate 1.4 million job equivalents.
The report doesn't include an assessment of the EPA's estimated benefits of a 65 ppb standard, but Smith of NERA said that benefits associated with reductions in ground-level ozone are less than even EPA's lower cost estimates.
The EPA's regulatory impact analysis also includes co-benefits of reducing particulate matter and other pollutants that would be reduced under a more stringent ozone standard.
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, told reporters that the association sent a copy of the report to the EPA and offered to brief agency staff on the report's findings.
The EPA said in its e-mail that it welcomes review of the agency's economic analysis and is looking forward to reviewing all comments on the proposal. The agency is taking public comments on its proposal until March 17.
Cost Model Criticized
While the report touts NERA's approach to unknown controls as “more evidence-based” than the EPA's estimates, John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council said the consulting firm took a flawed approach that resulted in “ludicrously exaggerated compliance costs” of $500,000 per ton.
Walke, NRDC's clean air director, told Bloomberg BNA that NERA's analysis based its cost estimates on an economic stimulus program that has “nothing to do” with ozone control efforts.
While the updated NERA report refers to a “vehicle scrappage” program to phase out older motor vehicles that don't meet the EPA's Tier 2 emissions standards, the July 2014 version of the study clearly used the Car Allowance Rebate System, an economic stimulus program commonly known as “Cash for Clunkers,” to estimate the cost of unknown pollution controls.
Smith of NERA told reporters that the revised report used the same method as the July 2014 report to estimate the cost of unknown controls.
Walke said economic experts called the use of Cash for Clunkers “insane” and “unmoored from economic reality” after the release of the July 2014 report.
When asked to explain how NERA chose its methodology, Smith said they looked at the known cost of scrapping older cars and replacing them, then developed a cost curve based on the price per ton of emissions reduction.
State Flexibility Cited
Michael Livermore, a senior advisor with the Institute for Policy Integrity, agreed that the NERA report overestimates compliance costs by making “unrealistic” assumptions, including the assumption that shutting down coal-fired power plants would be needed to meet a revised ozone standard.
In response to NERA's claim that the EPA's approach is simplistic, he said “a convoluted model isn't necessarily better than a simple one.”
Livermore told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 26 e-mail that states have a “great deal of flexibility” in determining how to meet emissions reductions goals and can balance costs against other considerations. The history of environmental regulations shows that states and industry find reasonable ways to achieve needed reductions, according to Livermore.
“New, lower-cost controls are constantly being developed,” he said. “The assumption that ‘shutting everything down' will be the cheapest way to improve air quality is as silly today as it was in the 1970s, when industry predicted that the Clean Air Act would destroy the economy.”
Areas Could Rely on Established Controls
Walke noted that despite the NERA report's focus on the cost of unknown controls, most areas that would be in nonattainment of a 65 ppb standard would be “moderate nonattainment” areas and would be able to rely on known, established pollution control methods.
Unknown controls would be needed in areas like California that will need to find greater reductions, but those areas would have a much longer period of time, up to two decades, to attain the standards, Walke said.
During that time, those areas will “certainly take advantage” of technology developments to further reduce pollution, according to Walke.
Both the EPA and Walke pointed out that despite industry's focus on costs, the agency isn't allowed to consider cost in deciding whether to revise or retain national ambient air quality standards.
Supreme Court Ruled Against Cost Considerations
The Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from considering the cost of compliance when setting national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (U.S. 2001); 40 DEN AA-1, 2/28/01).
The agency said that its proposal on ozone is “about setting a health standard and determining that level,” though a cost-benefit analysis was prepared to inform the public. The EPA noted that its estimates are intended to be illustrative and that ultimately the costs of meeting a revised standard will be determined by how states implement the standards in the future.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Feb. 26 statement that the NERA report shows a revised standard would cause economic growth to “come to a grinding halt.”
“I am committed to working with my colleges in Congress to put a halt on this misguided agenda at the EPA,” Inhofe said.
-
Study Links Long-Term Ultrafine Particle Exposure to Death From Heart Disease
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A study by California researchers linking long-term exposure to the ultrafine airborne particles generated from the combustion of gasoline, diesel and other fuels with death from heart disease means more aggressive action is needed to curb vehicle-related air pollution, environmental and public health advocates said Feb. 26.
The study, released by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Feb. 25, strongly associated certain constituents with fatal heart attacks. They include copper, iron and elemental carbon, or soot, in the ultrafine particles, measuring 0.1 micron or less in diameter.
“We've been concerned for a while about the impacts of ultrafine particles on our health, and OEHHA's research confirms that new safeguards are needed,” Bill Magavern of the Coalition for Clean Air told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 26 e-mail.
Chronic Exposure Study
Lead author of the study Bart Ostro, the former chief of the OEHHA's Air Pollution Epidemiology Section, told Bloomberg BNA that the study is the first to examine the health effects of chronic exposure to the tiny particles.
“What this one study will mean is unclear, but we hope it will motivate additional studies,” Ostro said.
Earlier studies have linked long-term exposure to fine particles, or particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, with cardiovascular mortality and other adverse health effects.
The study, “Associations of Mortality with Long-Term Exposures to Fine and Ultrafine Particles, Species and Sources: Results from the California Teachers Study Cohort,” was published in the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives in January.
For the study, researchers from the OEHHA, the University of California-Davis, the Cancer Prevention Institute of California and the City of Hope National Medical Center used data from a prior PM-2.5 health effects study that tracked the health of more than 100,000 middle-aged California women from 2000 through 2007.
After eliminating risk factors, like smoking, and other factors, researchers compared data from the earlier study with newly developed exposure data on particulates and the updated addresses of the cohort.
In addition to finding “significant positive associations between ischemic heart disease and the ultrafine constituents,” the researchers found “statistically significant associations” of heart disease with PM-2.5 mass, nitrate, elemental carbon, copper and secondary organics and the sources from gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, meat cooking and high-sulfur fuel combustion.
No Ultrafine Exposure Limits
Both the EPA and California have ambient air quality standards for PM-2.5 and for coarse particulates (PM-10)—particulate matter measuring 10 microns in diameter and less—but not for the ultrafine particles.
Ultrafine particles can penetrate deeply into the respiratory tract, into the bloodstream and even be transported to other organs, including the heart and brain.
“There has been some discussion at the EPA and California Air Resources Board on ultrafine particles,” Ostro, who retired last July but still works as an air pollution researcher at the OEHHA and is on the faculty at the UC Davis, said.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees air quality in the Los Angeles area, also is studying the potential health impacts of ultrafine particles, especially in neighborhoods close to high-traffic roadways and near airports and rail yards.
“This study further confirms that particle pollution is deadly and the Environmental Protection Agency, California and other states need to continue and expand regulations, incentives and enforcement programs to clamp down on soot pollution from trucks, buses, agricultural and marine equipment and other dirty on-road and off-road engines,” Bonnie Holmes-Gen, a senior policy director at the American Lung Association of California, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 25.
-
Some Railroads Would Have to Analyze Risks, Develop Plans Under Transportation Proposal
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Certain railroads, including some that transport hazardous materials, would be required to develop and submit plans on improving operation safety to a Transportation Department office under a proposed rule (RIN 2130-AC11) to be published Feb. 27.
The Federal Railroad Administration's proposed Risk Reduction Program would require each Class I railroad (large freight haulers such as CSX, Norfolk Southern and BNSF) and any railroad with an inadequate safety record to submit a risk management plan to the agency, the proposal said. The plan would include a requirement to identify hazardous materials risks that could damage the environment, it said.
Over 10 years, the proposed rule is expected to cost Class I railroads roughly $15.4 million (undiscounted) and railroads with inadequate safety performance approximately $3.2 million, according to the proposal that will appear in the Federal Register.
“The proposed rule is expected to improve railroad safety on Class I freight railroads by ensuring that railroad accidents/incidents, associated casualties, other railroad-related incidents and workplace injuries decrease through the process of identifying hazards, mitigating the risks associated with those hazards, and decreasing unsafe work practices,” the department said. “Decreases in unsafe behaviors or hazards create a decrease in railroad-related incidents and casualties.”
Energy Transport, Environment
The rule is considered significant by the department, but it is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution or use or on the human environment, according to the proposal.
A Risk Reduction Program would identify scope of services such as whether the railroad carries hazardous materials, potential hazards and plans to address those issues, the proposed rule said. Railroad plans would include risk analysis and technology implementation documents, and the companies would conduct their own annual assessment as well as being subject to federal audits, the proposal said.
There are only seven Class I railroads, which are large freight operations that have an operating revenue of $433.2 million or more, according to the Federal Railroad Administration, as opposed to the hundreds of other smaller railroad operations. All of the Class I railroads would have to submit these plans regardless of their safety records.
Other railroads not already required to submit plans would only have to develop one if they have inadequate safety performance records.
These railroads would be identified through annual FRA quantitative and qualitative reviews, including assessing incident rates and soliciting railroad employees' comments, for example. Forty-five railroads or fewer are expected to be required to report under this category by the tenth year of the rule, the proposal said.
Class I railroad operations' plans will be more complex and require more work, accounting for the significant difference in cost, the railroad administration confirmed to Bloomberg BNA.
Congress required the FRA to implement these Risk Reduction Program requirements under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
The White House completed its review of the proposal Jan. 23. Comments may be submitted under Docket No. FRA-2009-0038 through April 28 (17 DEN A-15, 1/27/15).
-
Options Outlined for Improving Safety Of Oil Transport in Great Lakes Region
Feb 27, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
States and provinces near the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River have untapped options for improving crude oil transport safety in the region, a Great Lakes Commission report found.
These governments could take on a larger oversight role in pipeline safety inspections and enforcement and could bolster existing communication, coordination and notification mechanisms for oil transport and spills, the Feb. 25 report said.
Additionally, there may be funding, knowledge and federal or state oversight gaps in addressing safety in this type of transportation, the report said.
Movement of crude oil by pipeline, rail and vessel has spiked throughout the region as domestic crude oil production has increased by an estimated 75 percent from 2009 to 2015, according to the report.
The rise in production has increased safety concerns for protecting the nearby public, property and the environment from harm related to resulting oil spills and more from the transport of crude, the report, “Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region,” said.
The relative oil spill risks that arise with the increased transportation of crude oil and the existing funding, inspection, enforcement and reporting mechanisms are just two areas where there is room for study, the report said.
As to regulation, existing U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Response Plans requirements may be unrealistic for transporting heavy crude oil by ship on the Great Lakes, the report said. The Coast Guard has said that there is no existing technology that could contain or clean up a heavy crude oil spill in freshwater, the report said.
Other Ways Cited to Improve Safety
Properly classifying the oil being transported by rail, retrofitting or eliminating older DOT-111 rail tank cars and requiring two-person rail crews also would improve oil transportation safety in the region, the report said. These are safety gaps federal regulators are already working to fill through Transportation Department proposed rules.
The commission is an interstate compact agency focused on water and natural resources conservation, use and development.
-
Oil Train Wrecks Increase Pressure for Tougher Safety Rules
Feb 27, 2015 | AP (in SF Gate)
By Joan Lowy
Fiery wrecks of trains hauling crude oil have intensified pressure on the Obama administration to approve tougher standards for railroads and tank cars despite industry complaints that it could cost billions and slow freight deliveries
.
On Feb. 5, the Transportation Department sent the White House draft rules that would require oil trains to use stronger tank cars and make other safety improvements.
Nine days later a 100-car train hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed and caught fire in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than 48 hours later, a 109-car oil train derailed and caught fire in West Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation. As the fire spread across 19 of the cars, a nearby resident said the explosions sounded like an "atomic bomb." Both fires burned for nearly a week.
The two accidents follow a spate of other fiery oil train derailments in the U.S. and Canada over the past few years. The most serious killed 47 people and destroyed the town center of Lac Megantic in Quebec, Canada, just across the border from Maine, in 2013.
The government hasn't yet unveiled its proposed regulations. But among them are a stronger tank car design that includes thicker tank walls and electronically-controlled brakes that stop rail cars at the same time rather than sequentially, said Brigham McCown, a Washington-based consultant who was head of the federal agency responsible for safe transportation of hazardous materials during President George W. Bush's administration.
Typically, safety regulators propose tough regulations and the Office of Management and Budget, which looks at economic and other implications of the rules, demands they be scaled back. This time, however, there may be less resistance.
"The more incidents we have, the less likely the administration will be willing to listen to industry," McCown said. "I think the railroad industry starts to lose credibility every time there is an accident."
Kevin Book, an energy industry analyst, said it has become harder to imagine the administration accommodating the industry.
The oil and rail industries want thinner tank walls — half an inch thick, instead of the 9/16ths-inch that regulators propose. The thicker the shell, the less oil a tank car can hold, and with about a half-million carloads of crude hauled by rail in the U.S. and Canada last year, the cost difference could add up.
The tank cars in the recent accidents were built to a voluntary standard written by industry in 2011 to answer criticism that cars used to transport flammable liquids were prone to rupture in an accident and spill their contents and ignite spectacular fires. But the two most recent accidents show that the newer cars — known as 1232s — also are prone to rupture, even at slow speeds. Both trains were traveling under 40 mph.
"Those folks who were arguing that the 1232s may in fact be puncture-proof really can't make that argument anymore," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., told reporters.
A Transportation Department analysis predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S.
Chris Hart, the acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, urged federal regulators in a blog post this week to act swiftly to set new tank car standards, noting that while the government deliberates over new rules, more 1232 cars are entering service.
Industry officials say they need every car they can get to meet shipping demands, and it will take time for manufacturers to retool for a new design. U.S. and Canadian officials also have not agreed on a phase-out period for the train cars that regularly cross their border.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told The Associated Press that administration officials understand the gravity of the issue and are committed to a "comprehensive approach" that includes better braking and slower train speeds, as well as enhancing the ability of fire departments to respond to accidents.
Railroads complain that electronically-controlled brakes would cost them $12 billion to $21 billion and that lower train speeds would back up other rail traffic through much of the country, slowing freight deliveries and passenger service. Last year they agreed to reduce oil train speeds to 40 mph in high-population areas. Regulators have discussed turning that voluntary limit into a requirement.
But former NTSB Chairman Jim Hall said that until safety is improved, oil trains shouldn't be allowed to travel any faster than the typical school bus — about 25 mph.
-
Who’s to Blame for the Exploding Oil Trains?
Feb 26, 2015 | Bloomberg
By Jim Snyder and Matthew Philips
TheA week after a CSX train hauling crude oil derailed and exploded 30 miles southeast of Charleston, W.Va., on Feb. 16, its mangled, charred tank cars were still being hauled from the crash site. Of the 27 cars that derailed, 19 had been engulfed in flames. The wreckage burned for almost three days. “It’s amazing no one was killed,” says John Whitt, whose home is one of a handful clustered near the crash site, along the banks of the Kanawha River. Some were within 30 yards of the site. One home was destroyed.
Exploding oil trains—this was only the latest in a series—have emerged as a dangerous side effect of the U.S. energy boom. A lack of pipelines connecting new fields in North Dakota and Texas to refineries and shipping terminals has led to an almost 5,000 percent increase in the amount of oil moved by trains since 2009. Much of it is carried in tank cars designed a half-century ago that regulators have long deemed inadequate for hauling the highly flammable types of crude coming out of North Dakota.
The West Virginia accident came less than a month after the U.S. Department of Transportation sent a proposal for new safety standards to the White House for approval. The rules were supposed to have been submitted at the end of last year but were delayed amid lobbying from railroads, oil producers, and tank car manufacturers. Part of the problem has been crafting regulation that’s broad enough to address a range of safety issues—including speed limits, braking systems, and track maintenance—but that can also withstand potential legal challenges from the affected industries. “All the stakeholders have their opinions, and they are aggressive in protecting their turf,” says Joe Szabo, who stepped down as head of the Federal Railroad Administration in January.
The type of tanker involved in the West Virginia incident has been built since 2011. Outfitted with a reinforced body and tougher valves, to keep oil from leaking during a wreck, the CPC-1232 was supposed to be an improvement on the tank car designed in the 1960s that’s still prevalent on the tracks today.
The Transportation Department is pressing the industry to make further improvements. Under the latest version of the draft regulation, tank cars would have to have even thicker shells and better brakes and valves. Even then, analysts say, risks will remain. “You could make tank cars resemble Army tanks, and it still isn’t going to stop accidents,” says Brigham McCown, a former administrator at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Last summer the Transportation Department predicted that trains hauling crude or ethanol could derail 10 times a year over the next 20 years, causing $4.5 billion in damage.
$13.6b
Cost of new oil tank car regulations in their first year, as projected by a rail industry trade groupDespite those forecasts, the industry’s lobbyists appear to have extracted some concessions. U.S. regulators had initially called for a two-year phaseout of oil tank cars—both the old and the improved version. The revised proposal maintains the phaseout schedule for the old cars but extends the deadline for some of the newer tankers to as long as a decade, according to three people familiar with the document who weren’t authorized to speak on the record. Executives from the Railway Supply Institute, a trade group representing companies that make tank cars, argued there isn’t enough manufacturing capacity to turn over the fleet in a couple of years. The institute’s president, Tom Simpson, says too aggressive a deadline would force oil producers to dial down production or move more of their crude in trucks, which come with their own safety hazards: “The option is we don’t have it, or we use highways.”
Sarah Feinberg, the acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, says the rule-making process has been slow because of the need to craft comprehensive regulations that go beyond mandating new tank cars. “A new tank car is not a silver bullet,” she says. “If the product you put into transport is safer, then a lot of these other issues are easier to solve.”
Under regulations adopted last year, oil companies in North Dakota will have to remove volatile gases such as propane from their crude before pumping it into a rail car, starting in April. According to the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, that will raise costs by an estimated 10¢ per barrel for the energy industry, which says it’s already bearing too much of the burden of tougher regulation. Based on the draft proposed last summer, the Railway Supply Institute has estimated the new safety requirements for tank cars would add about $13.6 billion in shipping costs in the first year; oil companies and refiners anticipate they will foot some of the tab in the form of higher lease rates for rail cars. “It’s time we focused attention on the root cause of the problem and get the railroads to keep their trains on the tracks,” says Charlie Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.
It will likely be months before the cause of the West Virginia crash is known. One thing that doesn’t appear to be an issue is speed. The train was traveling at only 33 mph, below the speed limit of 50 mph. Jim Hall, former National Transportation Safety Board chairman, would like to see the trains go even slower. “We don’t have short-term adequate protection to prevent these events other than slowing the trains down,” he says.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested