Preview Newsletter
ACC AM March 2
-
How Small Businesses are Supporting America's Energy Renaissance
Mar 2, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Location: Police Jury Meeting Room, Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, LA/ 12:30 PM CST -
Budget Hearing - Consumer Product Safety Commission
Mar 2, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 3:00 PM -
Examining the FY 2016 Budget Requests for the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Transportation
Mar 3, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building - 253/ 9:00 AM -
Budget Hearing - Installations, Environment, Energy and BRAC
Mar 3, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2358-A Rayburn/ 1:00 PM -
21st Century Energy Markets: How the Changing Dynamics of World Energy Markets Impact our Economy and Energy Security
Mar 3, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn/ 1:30 PM -
Understanding the Cyber Threat and Implications for the 21st Century Economy
Mar 3, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 2:00 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Commerce
Mar 3, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: H-309 Capitol/ 2:00 PM -
Oversight Hearing: Examining the President’s budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building, EPW Hearing Room/ 9:30 AM -
Business Meeting
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM -
Subcommittee Hearing: Industry Perspectives on the President’s Cybersecurity Information Sharing Proposal
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: Cannon House Office Building/ 2:00 PM -
Budget Hearing - Department of Treasury
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 2:00 PM -
Oversight Hearing on "Examining the Department of the Interior's Spending Priorities and the President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Proposal."
Mar 5, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 9:00 AM -
United States Arctic Opportunities Hearing
Mar 5, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM -
Oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the FY 2016 Performance Budget Request
Mar 5, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:15 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Global and U.S. CPRI rose in January, ACC says
Mar 27, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) rose in January on a three-month-moving-average basis, as did the U.S. CPRI, the American Chemical Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) said in its latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Production up for 10th Consecutive Month
Feb 27, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index (U.S. CPRI) continued to expand, rising by 0.4 percent in January following a downwardly revised 0.3 percent gain in December, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Experts Explain Why Resin Sales are Down in a Healthy US Economy
Feb 27, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
The economies of the U.S. and Canada posted solid growth in 2014 — even though resin demand in those countries lagged behind. Most major commodity resins posted full-year sales losses in the U.S. and Canada, even though the economies of both countries grew around 2.5 percent for the year. -
(ACC Mentioned) North America Sees Polypropylene Prices Rise, Amid Falling PE and PS
Feb 28, 2015 | Plastemart
North American prices for polyethylene and polystyrene resins continued to fall in February, while regional prices for polypropylene showed a surprising increase, as per Plastics News. Prices for all grades of PE are down an average of 5 cents/lb since Feb. 1. Regional PE prices now have fallen for four consecutive months, after not seeing... -
Another Week, Another Shutdown Deadline
Mar 1, 2015 | National Journal
By Fawn Johnson
What a difference a week doesn't make. On Friday, Congress faced a deadline to fund the Homeland Security Department before midnight. Democrats wanted a clean long-term funding bill, while Republicans wanted to block President Obama's executive action on immigration or—at least—force the Senate to go to conference... -
(ACC Mentioned) California to Try Again to Add Styrene To Proposition 65 List of Carcinogens
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has launched a new attempt to add styrene to the list of carcinogens maintained under Proposition 65. The Feb. 27 notice of intent follows two earlier efforts, one of which a state appeals court blocked after deciding the agency lacked sufficient evidence that styrene... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report Notes Sharp Increase in Film Plastic Recycling Levels
Mar 1, 2015 | Recycling Today
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has released its annual film plastic recycling report that shows the recycling of postconsumer plastic film packaging in 2013 increased by 116 million pounds from the prior year. The report notes that a total of 1.14 billion pounds of postconsumer plastic film packaging was recycled in 2013. -
(ACC Mentioned) DVFA: No Basis for BPA Legal Action
Mar 2, 2015 | Food Quality News
By Joe Whitworth
The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark revealed it was maintaining its assessment (made in September 2013) of bisphenol A (BPA) despite the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA)’s decision in January this year . According to the National Food Institute's calculations the new tolerable daily intake (TDI) should... -
Calif. Proposes Listing Styrene as Carcinogen
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
California regulators today proposed listing styrene on the state's list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, noting the chemical was designated as a possible carcinogen by a federal research body. The National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, classified styrene... -
Determining Phthalates' Potential to Harm Beset by Many Unknowns, Scientists Tell EPA
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Reaching conclusions about whether combined exposure to multiple phthalates harms human health and the doses that would cause such harm will require the Environmental Protection Agency to grapple with manifold scientific uncertainties, industry and university scientists told the agency during a two-day meeting. -
Persistence Pays Off In Studying Persistent Organic Pollutants
Mar 2, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Stephen K. Ritter
As an organic analytical chemist, Ronald A. Hites of Indiana University has been taking the measure of persistent organic pollutants in the environment for decades. In a career spanning 50 years, Hites has watched some of these chemicals survive only a few days in the atmosphere. -
Solvents Must Not Be Controlled as Narcotics In Treaty, Manufacturers, Military Contend
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Two widely used industrial chemicals must not be controlled as narcotics through an international treaty, according to manufacturers of chemicals, apparel, electronics and plumbing pipe, as well as the Department of Defense. “The Department of Defense (DoD) and many of our defense contractors use gamma butyrolactone... -
Artificial Food Dyes: Risky Business?
Feb 27, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Artificial food dyes are used to color many foods, snacks, sweets, and beverages in the United States and around the world. Nutritionists advise a plate of food to resemble a rainbow, with fruits and vegetables of different colors filling the plate and stomach. In recent decades, artificial dyes have given the illusion of this being achieved. -
Safety Board Back Under House Oversight Microscope, Hearing Set for March 4
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
A congressional oversight committee will examine claims of governance and management problems at the embattled Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board during a March 4 hearing. In an apparent signal of the importance of internal issues at the Chemical Safety Board, the full House Committee on Oversight ... -
House Lawmakers to Examine Agency Conduct After Email Disclosures
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
House Republicans are set to evaluate the Chemical Safety Board's management practices this week for the first time since a new inspector general's report flagged records violations at the agency. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had sought since last year to obtain copies of private emails -
(ACC Mentioned) Boiler, Incinerator Arguments Won't Be Held Until 2015-2016 Term, D.C. Circuit Says
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Oral arguments in litigation challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's air toxics standards for industrial boilers and incinerators won't be held until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit returns from its planned summer recess, the court announced (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, No. 11-1108, D.C. Cir... -
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Claim EPA Erred By Exempting Many Incinerators From Air Rule
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court to force EPA to tighten an air toxics rule for commercial, industrial and solid waste incinerators (CISWI) that they say unlawfully exempts the vast majority of the units from regulation, while industry is asking the same court to back its claim that the regulation is too stringent. -
(ACC Mentioned) By The Numbers: Manufacturing Group Says EPA Ozone Proposal Still Too Costly
Feb 27, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
The National Association of Manufacturers lowered its projected price tag for a new limit on ground-level ozone, but said it would remain the costliest regulation in U.S. history. $140 billion: NAM’s updated study said reducing the federal threshold for ozone, or smog, from 75 parts per billion to 65 parts per billion would reduce the country's ... -
(ACC Mentioned) LOIS HENRY: Unchecked Science No Basis for Onerous Air Rules
Feb 28, 2015 | The Bakersfield Californian
By Lois Henry
New ozone regulations being proposed by the federal EPA would essentially force us all into electric cars and we probably still wouldn't come into compliance. Ho hum. Kind of the same old story for the San Joaquin Valley, where we're never in compliance and we're constantly being told our "FILTHY AIR" is killing us all. -
FracFocus Making Changes to Improve Registry of Data on Fracking Chemicals
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
FracFocus, the online registry of chemicals the oil and gas industry uses to hydrofrack wells, has announced improvements designed to expand the public's ability to search records, among other changes. Additional new features for 2015 include measures aimed at reducing the number of human errors in disclosure of fracking fluids... -
EIA Chief to Testify as Subpanel Considers Easing Ban On Oil Exports
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
A key House panel tomorrow will continue its consideration of whether to liberalize U.S. oil companies' ability to sell to foreign customers with a hearing featuring the government's top energy analyst, as well as independent economists and industry representatives. -
Fracking Opponents Feel Police Pressure In Some Drilling Hotspots
Mar 1, 2015 | NPR
By Marie Cusick
Wendy Lee, an anti-fracking activist and philosophy professor at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, has always protested peacefully. So she was stunned last winter when a state trooper came to her home to ask her about eco-terrorism and pipe bombs. -
Gulf States Battle for Drilling Proceeds
Mar 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Gulf Coast lawmakers are up in arms over an Obama administration proposal to reduce the money that their states receive for offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. President Obama proposed in his budget early in February to roll back a 2006 law that, beginning in 2017, would give the Gulf states up to $375 million a year ... -
Maryland, Virginia Members Disagree on Atlantic Oil Drilling
Feb 27, 2015 | Roll Call
By Lauren Gardner
The Obama administration’s recent proposal to lease oil and gas drilling in a swath of the Atlantic Ocean generated the expected mix of cheers and jeers on Capitol Hill, but local reaction was mostly divided along state borders rather than party affiliations. Marylanders are reluctant, while Virginians appear... -
Atlantic Drilling Back on Table After Spill Delay
Feb 27, 2015 | Roll Call
By Lauren Gardner
President Barack Obama first put Atlantic drilling on the table in March 2010, as part of a strategy to bring more Republicans to the negotiating table for a comprehensive climate change bill in the Senate. But just weeks later came the worst oil spill in U.S. history, when the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion caused millions of gallons ... -
No Climate Deal Could Make Up for Keystone XL
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By May Boeve
Two days ago, President Obama pulled out his veto pen to derail the latest attempt by Big Oil’s members of Congress to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Since then, there’s been a lot of chatter among pundits about what the veto means for the environmental movement, what it means for the President politically... -
Dems Unlikely to Make Override Vote Easy
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
The Senate tomorrow will likely begin the process of trying to override President Obama's veto of legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. And even though pro-pipeline lawmakers don't have enough votes to succeed, the Democratic leadership appears unwilling to allow the vote to happen without roadblocks. -
Oil and Gas Lobby Says Up Means Down
Feb 27, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up. Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions ... -
Oil Drilling, Taxes, Zoning Will Appear on Southland Cities' Ballots
Feb 28, 2015 | LA Times
By Soumya Karlamangla
Voters in two Los Angeles County cities will step into the contentious debate over where and how the nation should drill for oil when they consider ballot measures on Tuesday that would alter local restrictions. In the coastal city of Hermosa Beach, voters will decide whether to loosen a ban on oil and gas drilling to allow ... -
House May Consider Bills on EPA Board, Boosting Transparency Week of March 2
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The full House could take up two bills as soon as the week of March 2 aimed at altering the structure and duties of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board and boosting data transparency in the agency's rulemaking proceedings, according to notices on the House Rules Committee website. -
Judiciary Panel to Begin Moving Next Batch Of Bills to Streamline Regulatory Procedures
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Republican-controlled House is set to move a new batch of bills to roll back regulatory burdens and streamline permitting, with a March 2 hearing scheduled on three new bills in the Judiciary Committee's regulatory reform subcommittee. -
Clean Power Plan Already Affecting Coal Industry, Murray Energy Tells Court
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.84 percent between 2012 and 2013, driven by lower temperatures and a decreased use of natural gas to generate electricity, the Environmental Protection Agency said in its annual emissions inventory. -
We Could Keep A Huge Amount Of Carbon Out Of The Atmosphere Just By Changing People’s Behavior
Feb 27, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
It may be one of the few parts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” — a regulation to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — that’s not controversial. In its proposed rule published back in June, the EPA suggested that one key tool that states and utility companies can use to... -
Probe of Climate Research Funding Threatens Academic Freedom, Republican Senators Say
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
All 11 Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee warned Feb. 27 that an investigation into climate change research funding launched by three Senate Democrats is a “wholly inappropriate effort” to challenge academic freedom. Democratic Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse... -
What Will the GOP Do About EPA Climate Regs?
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jerry Taylor
Last June, EPA released an ambitious proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Many state regulatory agencies and attorneys general went into near panic, coal companies into shock, business trade groups into battle, and conservatives into existential alarm over one of the most ambitious... -
House Likely to Vote on EPA ‘Secret Science’ Bill
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Rules Committee will vote next week on a bill to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using “secret science,” setting up a likely vote on the House floor. The committee said will vote on the bill Tuesday, which would allow a probably vote in the full House Wednesday. -
'Aggregation' Ruling Leaves Door Open For Citizen Suits Over Air Permits
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
A federal district judge has rejected environmentalists' novel suit aiming to force an oil and gas company to “aggregate,” or combine, emissions from its operations and trigger stricter Clean Air Act permitting requirements, but the decision leaves the door open to future citizen suits relying on an EPA test for aggregation ... -
Daily News IG Says EPA's Equity Screening Updates Could Help Air Toxics Inspections
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA's Inspector General (IG) says the agency's updates to its environmental justice (EJ) screening tool could boost efforts by its 10 regional offices to use equity as a factor when inspecting facilities to determine their compliance with air toxics rules, including making it possible to provide data on multiple facilities and locations at once. -
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Up Slightly In 2013 but Continue Decrease From 2007
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.84 percent between 2012 and 2013, driven by lower temperatures and a decreased use of natural gas to generate electricity, the Environmental Protection Agency said in its annual emissions inventory. -
Groups Challenge Startup ‘Exemption' For Power Plant Mercury Standards
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Three environmental organizations plan to ask a federal appeals court to review whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act when it established what the groups described as an “exemption” from air toxics emissions standards during power plant startup ... -
Pipeline Incident Communication Guide Is Available
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A guide to help emergency responders and pipeline operators address hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline incidents was posted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Feb. 26. The guide identifies the key information to be communicated, the best methods for communicating it and strategies...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
How Small Businesses are Supporting America's Energy Renaissance
Mar 2, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Location: Police Jury Meeting Room, Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, LA/ 12:30 PM CST
-
Budget Hearing - Consumer Product Safety Commission
Mar 2, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 3:00 PM
-
Mar 3, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building - 253/ 9:00 AM
Two Cabinet-level officials, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Transportation, will testify about the President’s FY 2016 budget request for their respective agencies. The budget request seeks $9.8 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Commerce and a total of $94.7 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding for the Department of Transportation. The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee serves as the primary authorizing committee for both agencies and conducts general oversight over their activities.
-
Budget Hearing - Installations, Environment, Energy and BRAC
Mar 3, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2358-A Rayburn/ 1:00 PM
-
Mar 3, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn/ 1:30 PM
-
Understanding the Cyber Threat and Implications for the 21st Century Economy
Mar 3, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 2:00 PM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Commerce
Mar 3, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: H-309 Capitol/ 2:00 PM
-
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building, EPW Hearing Room/ 9:30 AM
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the policies and programs of EPA in the President’s budget request for 2016.
-
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building/ 10:00 AM
-
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security
Location: Cannon House Office Building/ 2:00 PM
-
Budget Hearing - Department of Treasury
Mar 4, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
Location: 2359 Rayburn/ 2:00 PM
-
Mar 5, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 9:00 AM
-
United States Arctic Opportunities Hearing
Mar 5, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing to evaluate opportunities for the United States to build on its status as an Arctic nation for the betterment of the nation and those who live in the Arctic.
-
Oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the FY 2016 Performance Budget Request
Mar 5, 2015 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2322 Rayburn/ 10:15 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global and U.S. CPRI rose in January, ACC says
Mar 27, 2015 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) rose in January on a three-month-moving-average basis, as did the U.S. CPRI, the American Chemical Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) said in its latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report.
ACC’s Global CPRI rose 0.4% in January, “indicating that production during 2015 started on a good note,” the ACC report says. The chemical production index rose in North America, Western Europe, Africa & the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region, according to the report.
The Global CPRI was up 3.3% from last year at the same time.
Meanwhile, the U.S. CPRI also rose 0.4% in January, following a downwardly revised 0.3% gain in December of last year, the ACC report says.
The report notes that the gain in January was the tenth consecutive monthly gain in the U.S. CPRI, and all geographic regions of the U.S. posted gains in January. Compared to January 2014, total chemical production in all U.S. regions was ahead by 4.6%, the ACC report says.
By chemical segment, however, chemical production in the U.S. was mixed. “There were gains in the output of organic chemicals, chlor-alkali, synthetic rubber, synthetic dyes and pigments, industrial gases, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals,” the ACC report says, but these gains were partially offset by “declines in the production of fertilizers, coatings, adhesives, plastic resins, synthetic fibers, acids, pesticides, and other inorganic chemicals, the report notes.
Assessing the week’s economic reports overall, ACC says the data convey “a cautious mood” and reflect, in part, “the effects of a difficult winter in some parts of the country.” The ACC’s Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB) edged lower in February, suggesting moderating growth prospects, the ACC report says.
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Production up for 10th Consecutive Month
Feb 27, 2015 | Powder & Bulk Solids
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index (U.S. CPRI) continued to expand, rising by 0.4 percent in January following a downwardly revised 0.3 percent gain in December, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). The gain in January was the 10th consecutive monthly gain. All major chemical producing regions posted gains in January.
Also measured on a 3MMA basis, chemical production by segment was mixed. There were gains in the output of organic chemicals, chlor-alkali, synthetic rubber, synthetic dyes and pigments, industrial gases, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals. These gains were partially offset, however, by declines in the production of fertilizers, coatings, adhesives, plastic resins, synthetic fibers, acids, pesticides, and other inorganic chemicals.
Nearly all manufactured goods are produced using chemistry in some form or another. Thus, manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production. Overall manufacturing growth continued into the first month of the year. Production expanded in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including motor vehicles, construction materials, machinery, computers and electronics, fabricated metal products, structural panels, paper, printing, plastic and rubber products, structural panels, printing, apparel, and furniture.
Compared to January 2014, total chemical production in all regions was ahead by 4.6 percent on a year-over-year (Y/Y) basis, a strengthening trend. Chemical production was up from a year ago in all regions.
The chemistry industry is one of the largest industries in the United States, an $812 billion enterprise. The manufacturing sector is the largest consumer of chemical products, and 96 percent of manufactured goods are touched by chemistry. The U.S. CPRI was developed to track chemical production activity in seven regions of the United States. It is comparable to the U.S. industrial production index for chemicals published by the Federal Reserve. The U.S. CPRI is based on information from the Federal Reserve. To smooth month-to-month fluctuations, the U.S. CPRI is measured using a 3MMA. Thus, the reading in January reflects production activity during November, December, and January.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Experts Explain Why Resin Sales are Down in a Healthy US Economy
Feb 27, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
The economies of the U.S. and Canada posted solid growth in 2014 — even though resin demand in those countries lagged behind.
Most major commodity resins posted full-year sales losses in the U.S. and Canada, even though the economies of both countries grew around 2.5 percent for the year. Among six major commodity resins tracked in the U.S. and Canada by the American Chemistry Council, only low density polyethylene finished 2013 in positive sales territory, eking out an increase of 0.4 percent. Polypropylene — including sales in Mexico — came close to breaking even, but finished down 0.2 percent.
Linear low density PE, high density PE and PVC each saw sales declines for 2014 of between 0.5 percent and 2 percent. Polystyrene — also including Mexican sales — took an even bigger tumble of 3.2 percent.
For PVC and all three grades of PE, domestic sales were up but drops in exports created overall negative results. PP saw the opposite, with higher export sales lifting negative domestic results closer to the break-even level.
ACC does not track sales for PET bottle resin, but market watchers said North American sales of that material also were slightly down in 2014.
These results are in contrast to 2014 gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 2.4 percent in the United States and 2.5 percent in Canada, as those countries continue to recover from the Great Recession of 2007-09.
Resin market veteran Phil Karig said the difference in results likely is the result of economic macro-factors, including the continuing push for increasing recycled resin usage, and for thin-walling or otherwise reducing the amount of resin in various products. He added that it’s important to remember that demand for resins and the goods produced with them “are very much a part of global markets.”
“The U.S. and Canadian economies don’t exist in a vacuum,” said Karig, managing director of the Mathelin Bay Associates LLC consulting firm in St. Louis. “Many other major parts of the world grew slower or were seeing their economies decelerate in 2014 after a lackluster 2013.”
The euro zone grew at a rate of less than 2 percent in 2014, while Japan’s economy actually shrunk and China’s growth rate slowed down as well, he explained.
Image By: Plastics News archives Robert Bauman Long-time industry analyst Robert Bauman said it was “too soon to tell” if lower oil, gasoline and resin prices will spur demand growth.
“My belief is that the recent resin price decrease may spur sales, but some of this will be used for rebuilding inventory through the chain,” added Bauman, president of Polymer Consulting International in Spring, Texas. “We won’t really know the impact until much later in the year.”
In general, Bauman said he is “a bit pessimistic” on U.S. resin demand growth for several reasons, including the fact that the U.S. market is very mature, with high per capita plastics consumption.
“Essentially, all traditional material substitution has been done,” he explained. “Companies continue to down-gauge film and bottles, and with anti-plastic bag sentiment and legislation; more people are bringing their own bags to the supermarket.”
Bauman also cited imports of plastic products, increased recycled content and smaller bottles for detergents and cleaning product concentrates as factors that could affect U.S. resin demand.
“I’m not that positive that we will see true [demand] growth above 3 percent,” he said. “But even at 3-5 percent growth, the amount of new [resin] capacity coming on stream during the next few years will greatly exceed domestic demand growth, creating an acute oversupply.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) North America Sees Polypropylene Prices Rise, Amid Falling PE and PS
Feb 28, 2015 | Plastemart
North American prices for polyethylene and polystyrene resins continued to fall in February, while regional prices for polypropylene showed a surprising increase, as per Plastics News.
Prices for all grades of PE are down an average of 5 cents/lb 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/lb 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 US$48 per barrel in late trading Feb. 26, a drop of more than 50 % from prices seen 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%, according to the American Chemistry Council, with high density PE sales down 8% and sales of low density PE down 2% compared to the same month in 2014.
A 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.
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% to US$2.01 per gallon in February.
In PP, the tide reversed itself, sending regional prices up 1 cent/lb 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 5% in January vs. the same month in 2014. Domestic sales for the month grew almost 6%, even as export sales slumped more than 20%. -
Another Week, Another Shutdown Deadline
Mar 1, 2015 | National Journal
By Fawn Johnson
What a difference a week doesn't make.
On Friday, Congress faced a deadline to fund the Homeland Security Department before midnight. Democrats wanted a clean long-term funding bill, while Republicans wanted to block President Obama's executive action on immigration or—at least—force the Senate to go to conference on a measure that might do so. Neither side could get what it wanted, so they punted for another week.
Which means that this coming Friday, March 6, will present the Hill with the same set of bad choices and another shutdown deadline. The Senate is expected to take a procedural vote Monday on whether to go to conference on the long-term DHS bill, but with Democrats unwilling to provide the necessary votes to get to 60, House GOP leaders will be stuck exactly where they were last week.
At the urging of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrats went along with the one-week extension because they believe Speaker John Boehner will put the long-term bill they want on the floor this week. Boehner has said he made no such promise—but that doesn't mean he won't end up doing exactly that by Friday. The question is whether he can do so, thereby averting the shutdown both he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell want to avoid, without imperiling his speakership.
Appearing on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Boehner didn't tip his hand. "The promise I made to Ms. Pelosi is the same promise I made to Republicans, that we follow regular order," Boehner said. ADVERTISEMENT
The second major Hill drama this week isn't something anyone in Congress will vote on, although absences and presences will be noted. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday morning. Several Democrats already have said they would boycott the speech, arguing that Netanyahu's timing is inappropriate during that administration's highly sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. It doesn't help matters for Democrats that Netanyahu agreed to visit the United States without consulting Obama.
Republicans say it makes no sense not to at least listen to the leader of another country who visits the United States.
Meanwhile, lawmakers on the House floor will vote this week on a pair of bills aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific process, including one that would bar agency regulations without the public release of scientific data backing them. The White House threatened to veto previous versions, and EPA officials have said the bill could slow the regulatory process and force the disclosure of confidential information from health studies.
The Senate also is moving on to other business. Senate Republicans already have capitulated to a longer-term appropriations bill for DHS. Many of them voted with Democrats on Friday to fund the agency through the end of September. Senators also have reluctantly agreed to go along with the House's stopgap funding plan for DHS to avert a shutdown, which means the fate of the agency is in the House's hands.
A top item on the Senate's agenda this week will feature a predictably partisan fight over union organizing. Senators will vote on a resolution of disapproval on a National Labor Relations Board rule that changes how union elections take place. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, calls the procedures "ambush elections" that require employers to hold elections about union representation before they have time to "figure out what's going on."
The debate will give Republicans and Democrats the opportunity to talk about something the public cares deeply about—employment. Alexander says the rule allows a few workers to quietly organize for months before springing a petition on an employer, who must participate in a hearing eight days after being formally notified of the union activity. That harms workers who won't be able to understand the full implications, he says.
Democrats say the resolution shows Republicans' corporate bias. They maintain that the NRLB rule is a long-overdue modernization of clunky union election processes that allows management to delay organizing campaigns to death.
The Senate also is expected to pass legislation combating human-trafficking, which was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last week. The legislation would provide more services to human-trafficking victims and crack down on the perpetrators.
Keystone will be back, too. The Senate will initiate the procedural process to override Obama's veto of a bill to green-light the Keystone XL pipeline. A final vote to override the veto is expected sometime during the week, which will generate a lot of fodder for campaign ads. But Keystone supporters still have not mustered the requisite 67 votes, and the override appears doomed to fail.
ENERGY
Will there be more snowballs? EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will appear before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday to defend the agency's 2016 budget request to Congress. The budget ask is sure to face scrutiny from committee chair and climate skeptic Republican Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who hurled a snowball on the Senate floor last week in an attempt to argue that global warming is not real.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell is expected to clash with the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee, Alaska's Sen. Lisa Murkowski, on Wednesday. Jewell will appear before the panel to defend her department's budget request. Jewell also is slated to appear before the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday.
The House Oversight Committee also will hold a Wednesday hearing on management reforms to the Chemical Safety Board, which has been dogged by morale problems. The hearing comes a week after the committee released an EPA inspector general's report accusing CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso of using personal email to conduct official business.
HEALTH
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the challenge to Obamacare's insurance subsidies. Republicans in Congress are confident that Obama's signature health care law won't survive the challenge, and they are pressing the administration for contingency plans that are not forthcoming. Democrats say they won't even talk about next steps until they see how the high court rules.
The oral arguments could hint as to where the justices are leaning in King v. Burwell, although longtime court watchers say that tends to be a fool's errand. However, people looking for pontifications on the topic can attend the Alliance for Health Reform and the Kaiser Family Foundation's briefing Friday on "The Affordable Care Act: What You Need to Know."
On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee holds a hearing on a federal discount program for prescription drugs.
TECHNOLOGY
Four House committees will hold hearings on cybersecurity this week, as Congress continues to look for consensus on how to shore up the nation's digital defenses. The House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to examine President Obama's cybersecurity information-sharing proposal. The president unveiled the template earlier this year, but language has drawn scrutiny from privacy advocates who fear it may grant the National Security Agency access to more personal data.
WHITE HOUSE
President Obama will spend most of the week at the White House.
On Monday, he will receive recommendations from the police task force he formed after the Ferguson, Missouri, protests. On Tuesday, his focus shifts to programs that benefit adolescent girls. Joined by First Lady Michelle Obama, he will talk about efforts to keep girls in schools around the world.
For the rest of the week, no public events are on the president's early schedule until Saturday, when he will travel to Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery marches led by Martin Luther King Jr. The occasion gives him a chance to talk about the state of voting rights half a century after passage of the Voting Rights Act.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California to Try Again to Add Styrene To Proposition 65 List of Carcinogens
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has launched a new attempt to add styrene to the list of carcinogens maintained under Proposition 65.
The Feb. 27 notice of intent follows two earlier efforts, one of which a state appeals court blocked after deciding the agency lacked sufficient evidence that styrene is “known” to cause cancer (Styrene Info. & Research Ctr. v. OEHHA, Cal. App. Ct., No. C064301, 10/31/12; 214 DEN A-10, 11/6/12).
This time around, the agency is relying on the 2011 report from the National Toxicology Program that concluded styrene is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” a classification that the National Academies supported in a 2014 report (145 DEN A-17, 7/29/14).
The Styrene Information & Research Center successfully challenged the OEHHA's initial effort to list the chemical under Proposition 65's “labor code” listing mechanism, based on evidence in a monograph the International Agency for Research on Cancer published in 2009.
Here, the OEHHA is using an alternative administrative authority to list styrene, one that allows chemicals to be listed once an authoritative body, such as the NTP, formally identifies the chemical as a carcinogen.
Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65, California must maintain a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive toxicity. Businesses must provide clear warnings whenever the public is exposed to an unsafe level of a listed substance.
Styrene is used in the manufacture of a wide variety products, including construction materials, fiberglass, automobile parts, synthetic rubbers, lighting fixtures, packaging materials and disposable food containers.
Reliance on NTP Findings
The OEHHA said the NTP's findings on styrene are “based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis.”
Specifically, the OEHHA is relying on the NTP's finding that styrene, when administered to male and female mice through inhalation or stomach tubes, causes increased incidences of malignant lung tumors and combined malignant and benign lung tumors.
In a written statement, Styrene Information & Research Center Executive Director Jack Snyder said the announcement was expected and that the industry will develop a response to the proposed listing.
“Evaluation is needed to clarify whether or not the criteria used in NTP's Report on Carcinogens adequately aligns with and supports the Prop 65 listing criteria under the ‘authoritative body mechanism,' ” Snyder said.
The American Chemistry Council said the proposed listing should not alarm consumers.
“This action is based on a review of styrene by the National Toxicology Program, which itself agrees the safety of polystyrene in foodservice is not in question,” Mike Levy, senior director for the council's Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, said in a written statement.
“Polystyrene is an FDA-approved and sanitary choice for foodservice packaging made by schools, hospitals, restaurants, food carts and stadiums,” Levy said. “Its ability to insulate and maintain food temperature make polystyrene a great choice for keeping food fresh, hot or cold and ready to eat. It is also used in a variety of other important consumer products, such as insulation and cushioning for shipping delicate electronics.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report Notes Sharp Increase in Film Plastic Recycling Levels
Mar 1, 2015 | Recycling Today
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has released its annual film plastic recycling report that shows the recycling of postconsumer plastic film packaging in 2013 increased by 116 million pounds from the prior year. The report notes that a total of 1.14 billion pounds of postconsumer plastic film packaging was recycled in 2013.
The 2013 National Postconsumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report shows that the figure for 2013 is the highest annual collection of plastic film—a category that includes product wraps, bags and commercial stretch film made primarily from polyethylene (PE) —for recycling, since the survey began in 2005.
The ACC report also finds that PE film collected for recycling has increased by 74 percent since 2005.The consulting firm Moore Recycling Associates Inc., Sonoma, California, which authored the report for the ACC’s Plastics Division, attributes the gain to a combination of increased collection and more comprehensive reporting.
The increases detailed in the National Postconsumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report show that greater collection is taking place among small- and mid-sized businesses, and that consumers are bringing more used flexible plastic wraps to at-store collection programs to be recycled.
“We are pleased to see such strong growth in the recycling of polyethylene wraps,” says Steve Russell, ACC’s vice president of plastics. “These increases highlight the critical role that grocers, retailers and other businesses play in collecting this valuable material.”
To strengthen the efforts to increase film recycling, in recent months, several major brands and retailers have started placing the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s (SPC’s) store drop-off label on their film packages to remind consumers to bring their used PE wraps to participating grocery and retail stores to be recycled.
In addition, the SPC, along with the Flexible Film Recycling Group and the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers have launched the Wrap Action Recycling Program (WRAP), which is focused on making it easier for state and municipal governments, brands and retailers to increase awareness of opportunities to recycle used PE wrap at local retailers.
A separate ACC report recently released finds that slightly more than 1 billion pounds of rigid plastics, excluding bottles (measured separately), was collected to be recycled in the United States in 2013. The 2013 National Postconsumer Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling Report shows that the volume represents triple the amount collected since 2007, although the 2013 figures show a modest 1 percent decline from the prior year’s figures.
The ACC report also found a 17 percent annual increase in domestic processing of postconsumer items, with 67 percent processed in the U.S. and Canada—the highest rate since the ACC introduced the annual report in 2007.
Of the resin categories measured in the survey, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) showed modest increases in 2013, with HDPE making up 36 percent and PP making up 39 percent of the total 1 billion pounds collected.
The primary domestic uses for these postconsumer materials include automotive parts, crates, buckets, pipe and lawn and garden products.
An important driver of domestic processing is the growth of plastic recovery facilities, which purchase mixed rigid bales (typically less valuable) and separate them into segregated resins.
According to Moore Recycling Associates, which also published this report, the decrease in rigid plastics recycling in 2013 is the only dip in the report’s history and is largely attributable to China’s Green Fence standards, which began in 2013.
The Green Fence had a two-fold impact on markets for recycled plastics, according to Moore Recycling Associates: China’s tighter controls resulted in more material available for U.S. plastic processors, and U.S. recyclers have had to meet higher quality standards to sell this material domestically and abroad.
“Recyclers addressed the challenges and opportunities presented by the Green Fence, and we believe that the plastic recycling industry emerged stronger as a result,” says Patty Moore, president of Moore Recycling. “Recycled plastic producers have invested in advanced separation infrastructure or taken other steps to create higher quality bales with greater yields.” -
(ACC Mentioned) DVFA: No Basis for BPA Legal Action
Mar 2, 2015 | Food Quality News
By Joe Whitworth
The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark revealed it was maintaining its assessment (made in September 2013) of bisphenol A (BPA) despite the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA)’s decision in January this year .
According to the National Food Institute's calculations the new tolerable daily intake (TDI) should be 0.7 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day or lower to be sufficiently protective.
EFSA concluded that an intake of less than 4 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day does not pose a health risk.
Previously the TDI was less than or equal to 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.
DVFA response
DVFA said while there was no basis for legal action it will work to lower the use and exposure of BPA even further through a positive dialogue with the industry.
“The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration cannot judge what level of tolerable daily intake, of BPA is most correct, but we listen to the experts from the EFSA and theNational Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark, DTU Food.
“However, we do work to lower the exposure from BPA, and we are pleased to see that the average citizen is exposed to a lower level of BPA than any of the two suggested levels of TDI.”
France is the only EU country to have a ban on BPA but that has recently come under pressure .
TDI is not protective
According to the researchers, one reason for the TDI not protecting from endocrine disrupting effects is that EFSA does not apply an appropriate uncertainty factor.
It was also claimed that EFSA did not sufficiently take data from animal studies showing effects on female mammary gland, the male reproductive system, and brain development and function into account.
EFSA evaluated that for people with the highest level of exposure, men and women are exposed to more than 1 microgram of BPA per kilogram per day, while children and teenagers are exposed to between 1.26 and 1.45 micrograms per kilogram day.
Ulla Hass, a professor from the National Food Institute, said the tolerable intake should be lower than one fifth of the EFSA recommended limit.
“We maintain the National Food Institute's previous risk assessment of bisphenol A," she said.
“…comparison of the exposure to the TDI recommended by the National Food Institute shows that humans with a high exposure may exceed the safe limit. Their intake can come from food, cash receipts and cosmetics.”
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has launched a communications campaign to highlight conclusions from the EFSA and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Both agencies found that BPA is safe in levels people are exposed to after evaluating the substance.
The ads encourage consumers and manufacturers to: “Listen to the Science: Experts Say BPA is Safe”.
-
Calif. Proposes Listing Styrene as Carcinogen
Feb 27, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
California regulators today proposed listing styrene on the state's list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, noting the chemical was designated as a possible carcinogen by a federal research body.
The National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, classified styrene as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in 2011 but saw the designation immediately challenged by industry groups and Republicans in Congress.
A mandated review from the National Research Council, part of the National Academies, published last year upheld the NTP report, finding its decision to include styrene was supported by "sufficient" evidence from animal studies and "convincing relevant information" from mechanistic studies (Greenwire, July 29, 2014).
In addition, the review panel said the evidence of styrene's harm was so convincing that "a strong argument could be made" to name it a "known human carcinogen." California's listing proposal launches a 30-day comment period for interest groups and members of the public to weigh in on the issue.
Under California law, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which administers the warning label program approved under Proposition 65, may list chemicals if the agency justifies their inclusion by meeting specified conditions. The state said it was including styrene under the "authoritative bodies" rule, which it said was satisfied by the NTP report.
The filing noted styrene is used to synthesize polymers and resins used to make products like polystyrene packaging, synthetic rubber, fiberglass, vehicle parts and food containers. Styrene is also present in tobacco smoke and vehicle exhaust, the agency said.
It's not the first time the state agency has tried to take action on styrene. In 2009, OEHHA proposed listing styrene under a different criteria called the "labor code" mechanism (E&ENews PM, June 12, 2009). Eventually, the agency withdrew the request after a state judge's ruling that there was "no finding of sufficient evidence" that styrene causes cancer in animals or people was upheld on appeal (Greenwire, Aug. 13, 2009).
The agency said in a public notice filed today it's using the "authoritative bodies" clause because the earlier method is no longer appropriate, since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules that set requirements for it have changed. Under the "authoritative bodies" listing mechanism, the agency may consider evidence by agencies designated as authoritative sources, including the National Toxicology Program.
Jack Snyder, executive director of the Styrene Information Research Center, said in a statement that an evaluation is needed to determine whether the National Toxicology Program's research is sufficient under California law as the basis for a listing decision.
The move "has the potential to result in unnecessary public alarm concerning the safety of the thousands of products made from styrene and styrene-based resins," Snyder said. "Consumers can and should continue to use these products with confidence in their safety."
-
Determining Phthalates' Potential to Harm Beset by Many Unknowns, Scientists Tell EPA
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Reaching conclusions about whether combined exposure to multiple phthalates harms human health and the doses that would cause such harm will require the Environmental Protection Agency to grapple with manifold scientific uncertainties, industry and university scientists told the agency during a two-day meeting.
Despite years of research, the specific molecular changes through which phthalates adversely affect the development of the male reproductive system in laboratory animals are not known, Kim Boeckelheide a molecular toxicologist teaching at Brown University, told the EPA Feb. 26.
“It's very frustrating,” Boeckelheide said.
Yet the number of scientific studies that report not only male reproductive effects in laboratory animals, but associate phthalate exposure with asthma, diabetes, obesity, preterm births and other human health concerns, is growing every week, said Glinda Cooper, an EPA epidemiologist.
The EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program hosted a meeting Feb. 25-26 to discuss five scientific questions about butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP, CAS No. 85-68-7), dibutyl phthalate (DBP, CAS No. 84-74-2) and diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP, CAS No. 84-69-5).
Millions of Pounds Produced
Millions of pounds of BBP and DBP were produced in or imported into the U.S. in 2012 by companies including BASF Corp., Eastman Chemical Co. and Ferro Corp.
Lanxess Corp. reported making 453,710 pounds of DiBP in 2012 at a facility it owns in Greensboro, N.C., according to information the company submitted to the EPA.
The three phthalates that these and other companies have been making are part of a family of chemical compounds used primarily for their solvent properties and to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible.
The chemicals are used in hundreds of products used in homes, hospitals, cars and businesses as well as in food packaging, shampoos, scents and other personal care products.
Reproductive Problems in Animals
Individual phthalates differ in the severity of their effects, with some causing less severe or no effects, a National Academies committee wrote in a 2008 report, “Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks Ahead.”
Nonetheless, laboratory animal studies have shown the group of chemicals tend to cause a constellation of effects on the male reproductive system, including infertility, decreased sperm count, undescended testes and malformed penises, the committee said (244 DEN A-5, 12/19/08).
Critical Fetal Testosterone Decrease, Other Questions
Questions the EPA sought to explore during the two-day meeting included whether biological changes beyond androgen disruption may play a role in these male reproductive effects.
The function of androgen is known to be affected by phthalates, so the agency asked about other biological changes that may harm the ability of males to reproduce.
The EPA also asked whether there was a particular decrease in fetal testosterone that would trigger harm; how it should use information about the cellular and other “mechanistic” changes phthalates cause; what health effects other than those on the male reproductive system the agency's chemical assessment should consider; and whether phthalates should be grouped together based on what some scientists call the chemicals ability to cause “phthalate syndrome effects.”
This syndrome of male reproductive problems reported in animals is hypothesized to be similar to testicular dysgenesis syndrome in humans, the academies committee wrote in its 2008 report. Problems included in testicular dysgenesis syndrome include malformed penises, undescended testes and testicular cancer.
No Clear Data
“We are asking questions around the margin where there is not a [scientific] consensus, not clear data,” IRIS Director Vincent Cogliano told meeting participants Feb. 26.
The EPA received diverse scientific opinions throughout its phthalates meeting.
For example, Rebecca Clewell, a toxicologist who spoke on behalf of Valerus Speciality Chemicals, said there is no clear threshold reduction of testosterone—such as a 75 percent or 80 percent reduction—that would clearly mean reproduction is likely to be harmed.
Earl Gray, an EPA toxicologist who participated in the meeting due to his experience as a scientist who studies reproductive effects in laboratory animals exposed to various chemicals, said the agency cannot know whether there is a threshold until it evaluates all the data.
New Aspects of Meeting
Audience members told Bloomberg BNA they appreciated the range of opinions that resulted from the participation at the meeting—for the first time—of scientists selected by the National Academies.
These academies-vetted scientists joined other toxicologists and scientists who nominated themselves and were selected by the EPA to serve on expert panels discussing each of the five questions.
A new procedure was used during the meeting in which the facilitator asked all panelists to disclose any financial ties they had that might affect their interpretations of the scientific issues being discussed.
Notwithstanding the compliments, some of the agency's new procedures raised concerns.
For example, several audience members told the EPA they would like to know the key studies the agency plans to use in its assessment and the criteria the agency used to select the studies.
Some audience members also questioned whether there was sufficient consensus about phthalates to proceed with an assessment at this time.
Cogliano said there is enough information on some issues, such as the reproductive effects on male animals, that phthalates can cause, to enable the agency to proceed.
Cogliano told Bloomberg BNA the effort to assess these chemicals also will help the agency generally as it strives to improve its ability to evaluate the combined effect, or cumulative effect, of multiple chemicals.
Whatever conclusions the IRIS program eventually reaches on phthalates also may help the agency as it deals with other chemicals that could harm the reproductive system, he told BNA.
-
Persistence Pays Off In Studying Persistent Organic Pollutants
Mar 2, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Stephen K. Ritter
As an organic analytical chemist, Ronald A. Hites of Indiana University has been taking the measure of persistent organic pollutants in the environment for decades. In a career spanning 50 years, Hites has watched some of these chemicals survive only a few days in the atmosphere. But to his surprise, they never seem to go away completely—some have stuck around as long as he has.
For example, traces of the infamous malaria-fighting insecticide DDT remain 40 years after it was banned in the U.S.—nearly everyone has tiny amounts in their blood. Hites knows firsthand of at least one place it originated.
“Growing up in Detroit in the 1950s, the streets were lined by big elm trees that formed a beautiful canopy,” Hites recalls. “In the summer, men wearing yellow rain slickers would come down the street following a truck and spraying DDT up into the trees to kill mosquitoes and other bugs.”
Hites is one of a persistent group of environmental scientists who develop testing methods and make long-term measurements to track the fate of DDT and other chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and brominated flame retardants. These compounds were once widely used for industrial and agricultural applications and as key components of consumer products. But scientists discovered that the properties that make them useful also make them stable to natural degradation. As a result, the chemicals accumulate globally in water, soil, plants, and animals. They accumulate in people too—in blood, fat tissues, and milk—where, in some cases, they can cause neurotoxic and other negative health effects.
Many of these chemicals were banned or voluntarily discontinued starting in the 1970s. Some of their replacements were also found to be problematic and have been replaced. Each time a problematic compound is replaced, the researchers add more chemicals to the list they study.
“The questions we want to answer are simple ones,” Hites says. “Where do the chemicals come from? How fast are the concentrations decreasing? How are the concentrations varying from location to location? Are they ever going to go away?”
The answers to those questions help shape both environmental policies and business decisions, Hites says. The data he and his colleagues collect verify whether regulations are effective and provide insight for synthetic chemists and chemical companies to develop more environmentally benign alternatives.
-
Solvents Must Not Be Controlled as Narcotics In Treaty, Manufacturers, Military Contend
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Two widely used industrial chemicals must not be controlled as narcotics through an international treaty, according to manufacturers of chemicals, apparel, electronics and plumbing pipe, as well as the Department of Defense.
“The Department of Defense (DoD) and many of our defense contractors use gamma butyrolactone (GBL) and 1,4-butanediol [BDO] either directly or as precursors for other chemical compounds. One example is for the manufacture of electronic circuit boards,” the Defense Department wrote in comments submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.
BDO is important, as it is used to synthesize the industrial solvent tetrahydrofuran (THF), a critical component for solvent cements, which are used in joining thermoplastic piping systems in plumbing, drainage, hot and cold water distribution, and stormwater applications.
“THF is necessary for making the solvent cements that support the use of plastic pipe in the built environment. The proposed reclassification of BDO would rapidly cause a worldwide disruption in THF supply, a significant increase in cost, and therefore, endanger the safe and proper use of thermoplastic pipe and plumbing systems, not just in the U.S., but across the globe,” the Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association told FDA.
UN Discussion, Vote Expected in March
The FDA invited comments in a Jan. 27 Federal Register notice on the World Health Organization's recommendation that 1,4-butanediol (CAS No. 110-63-4) and gamma butyrolactone (CAS No. 96-48-0) be added to Schedule 1, the most restrictive list of the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances (80 Fed. Reg. 4283).
The FDA solicited reactions to WHO's recommendation to help the U.S. government shape its position when the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs considers and possibly votes on this and other matters during a meeting scheduled March 9-17 in Vienna (34 DEN A-14, 2/20/15).
WHO's concern is that, when ingested, the body converts both chemicals into a nervous system depressant called gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), FDA's notice said.
GHB is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration rules. GHB's illegal uses include being a “date rape” drug.
Comments were due Feb. 26. As of the morning of Feb. 27, the agency had posted 45 comments.
Trade associations including the American Apparel & Footwear Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the Specialty Graphic Imaging Association were among the diverse organizations that voiced objections to WHO's recommendation.
High Production Volumes, Many Uses
Gamma butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol are both high production volume commercial chemicals with many downstream uses.
More than 583 million pounds of 1,4-butanediol and 249 million pounds of gamma butyrolactone were either manufactured in or imported into the U.S. in 2012, according to information chemical manufacturers reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. European companies make or import between 100,000 metric tons and 1 million metric tons (220 million-2.2 billion U.S. pounds) of BDO annually and between 10,000 metric tons and 100,000 metric tons (22 million-220 million U.S. pounds) of GBL annually, according to information they reported to the European Chemicals Agency.
Impact on Semiconductor Industry
“Listing GBL on Schedule I of the 1971 Convention ultimately would lead to severe disruptions in the semiconductor industry by limiting the availability of this critical use chemical,” wrote Ann Grimaldi, an attorney with the Grimaldi Law Offices, which said it represented a U.S.-based supplier of specialty chemical formulations to the semiconductor industry.
“These effects would be felt not only in the U.S. to the detriment of the U.S. economy, but also globally because these formulations are sold to semiconductor companies located overseas. The limitations resulting from such listing would have devastating collateral economic effects on all other industries that rely on semiconductor devices, including health care, consumer electronics, transportation, telecommunication and the military,” Grimaldi wrote.
Similar concerns were voiced by the Semiconductor Industry Association.
Grimaldi and the association pointed to controls companies already have in place and the DEA's regulation of GBL as sufficient to limit potential illegal uses of the chemicals.
“The DoD supports restrictions to prevent the human consumption of these chemicals or for use in synthesizing chemicals for illicit use,” the department said, summarizing a goal industry commentators said they shared.
“However, it is vital to maintain production and availability of these chemicals for legitimate applications, including important defense related equipment and weapon systems,” DoD said.
-
Artificial Food Dyes: Risky Business?
Feb 27, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katarzyna Strycharz
Artificial food dyes are used to color many foods, snacks, sweets, and beverages in the United States and around the world. Nutritionists advise a plate of food to resemble a rainbow, with fruits and vegetables of different colors filling the plate and stomach. In recent decades, artificial dyes have given the illusion of this being achieved. In the last 50 years, the amount of synthetic dye used in foods has increased by 500%. But is this “artificial rainbow” safe for consumption? According to data pouring in that shatters the illusion, no.
Issues with artificial food coloring aren’t new, but the science to back up the concerns continues to flood in. To name a couple, about two years ago, Forbes reported on the “potential dangers” of artificial dyes and just this year Purdue University released a report detailing the risks many children face if they consume more than the “safe” level of 30 mg of dye. Potential health risks
While there are no definitive findings on the effects of artificial dyes on children and adults, excessive consumption has been linked to certain health problems. These include: ADHD in children; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a 41% increase in ADHD diagnoses of high school-aged boys that may be linked to the increased level of usage of artificial dyes in the past decade;Cancer, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) stating that chemicals used to create these artificial dyes can cause mutations or damage to chromosomes in eukaryotic cells; andAllergic reactions, according to CSPIOrgan damage, according to CSPI
More studies are underway, but so far it appears that small levels of artificial dye don’t adversely affect human health. However, many children’s food products contain such a mixture of dyes that kids are consuming far more than the recommended “safe” levels of dye. Artificial dyes are most notably found in beverages and sweets, but make no mistake – you can find them where you least expect them.
For example, cheese can be naturally yellow- but the infamous golden yellow of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is really 17.6 mg of artificial dye (per serving). Cereals are another popular hangout for artificial dyes, with Trix containing 36.4 mg of a combo of Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Red 40. Even the proverbially “healthy” Cheerios has 31 mg of food dyes. It seems that all the foods kids love are teeming with these artificial dyes! Imagine kids eating these meals made up of their favorite foods:
Breakfast:
1 glass of Sunny D Orange Strawberry (41.5 mg of artificial dye)
Cap’n Crunch Oops! All Berries Cereal (41.0 mg)
Lunch:
Kraft Macaroni & Cheese (17.6 mg)
1 glass of Orange Crush (33.6 mg)
1 Target Mini Green Cupcake (55.3 mg)
Total by lunch: 189 mg of artificial dye!
Before dinner, your child has already consumed a scary amount of artificial food dye, since behavioral tests found that as little as 30 mg of artificial dye can cause adverse effects. Moms and dads alike should make sure their picky eater is getting enough of the nutrients they need and not just settling for foods that they know their kids will happily consume every day. As you can see from the breakfast and lunch breakdown above, if you give in to their tantrum of wanting Mac n’ Cheese for lunch daily, there can be serious health consequences. Informed moderation
A Purdue study concluded that children are consuming 5x the 30 mg amount of artificial food dye deemed safe for use. In 2011, the FDA stated that a high dosage of artificial dyes in a child’s diet could be associated with behavioral problems.
The lesson here is informed moderation. Once upon a time, manufacturers were not required to include dyes as ingredients. Although many food companies do, not every company does. It is the responsibility of retailers and producers to clearly label artificial dyes and reduce their proliferation. Similarly, it is the responsibility of consumers to know which foods are unsafe to consume large quantities of.
To help your child have a healthy and balanced diet, limit the processed foods you give them and provide more natural options instead. Go Natural
What else can you do to limit your intake? Substitute food that only has natural dyes.
Alternatives to artificial dyes include:
Beetroot extract
Annatto
Turmeric
Paprika extract
Carotene
Saffron
Juniper
Indian madder
Berries
Red cabbage
Cochineal bug (gross, but very natural)
And the best part? They’re all found in nature so they can only do wonders for you and your loved ones.
They give off just as much color naturally and your body will thank you for making the switch!
-
Safety Board Back Under House Oversight Microscope, Hearing Set for March 4
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
A congressional oversight committee will examine claims of governance and management problems at the embattled Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board during a March 4 hearing.
In an apparent signal of the importance of internal issues at the Chemical Safety Board, the full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announced Feb. 27 that it will hold the hearing.
The panel's Interior Subcommittee had planned to convene the CSB hearing in late February or early March, according to Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who chairs the subcommittee.
“Management issues within this agency have been a focus of an investigation that involved many different elements of the committee, not just the newly created Interior Subcommittee,” panel spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 27.
A full committee hearing was deemed appropriate after a review of the recent Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General report, Subbotin said. The report found that top CSB personnel violated federal law by conducting agency business on private e-mail accounts (26 DEN B-1, 2/9/15).
The Oversight Committee's June 2014 hearing on the CSB revealed deep-seated problems at the agency related to attrition, mismanagement, bullying and a lack of productivity (119 DEN A-17, 6/20/14).
Consulting Firm Report to Be Focus
The March 4 hearing will focus in part on the findings of two management consulting firms that the Chemical Safety Board contracted to assess the agency.
“These are a couple of companies that have been working with us to try to address organizational issues,” CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 27. “We've worked with a variety of groups since last year's hearing to address morale issues.”
Horowitz said the CSB is cooperating with the committee and providing all requested documents.
The committee sent letters to CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso and the president of Vantage Human Resource Services Inc. seeking Powerpoint presentations, reports and other materials related to a Feb. 15 briefing that the consulting firm delivered to the agency. The committee also is seeking documents prepared by the Carden Group.
‘Distrust,' ‘Passive Aggressive Behavior.'
The Carden Group met with all levels of CSB personnel to develop its July 2014 report on the agency. The report, obtained by Bloomberg BNA, diagnosed several internal problems at the agency, including the work environment.
“At all levels, there appears to be a distrust and an intentional lack of communication which leads to passive aggressive behavior that should be addressed to create a more positive overall work environment within the CSB,” according to the report.
The report also outlined a broad array of remedial needs, several of which highlight the need to improve relations between the CSB chairman and the other board members. The report also suggests “executive coaching” for the agency's managing director and chairman.
-
House Lawmakers to Examine Agency Conduct After Email Disclosures
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
House Republicans are set to evaluate the Chemical Safety Board's management practices this week for the first time since a new inspector general's report flagged records violations at the agency.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had sought since last year to obtain copies of private emails sent by top CSB officials on personal accounts, but the agency had previously declined to turn over the records. Their recent disclosure from the U.S. EPA inspector general's office may prompt a new round of congressional scrutiny for the struggling safety agency at the hearing, titled "Rebuilding the Chemical Safety Board: Finding a Solution to the CSB's Governance and Management Challenges."
Congressional Republicans are likely to take a hard line on the agency's conduct. Last year, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the former committee chairman, and other House Republicans called for CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso's resignation, but he remains on the job. His five-year term is due to expire next year.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the new committee chairman, was among the group of lawmakers who signed a letter to President Obama asking him to remove Moure-Eraso, citing "a hostile work environment that is undermining the agency's ability to investigate industrial chemical accidents efficiently and effectively" (E&ENews PM, July 7, 2014).
EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. later found that Moure-Eraso, General Counsel Richard Loeb and Managing Director Daniel Horowitz had improperly used personal email accounts to discuss official business.
In a report sent to the White House in January and released to the public last month, the inspector general disclosed that Moure-Eraso did so because he feared disgruntled CSB employees would improperly access his communications -- an embarrassing disclosure lawmakers are likely to use to highlight the agency's litany of management challenges and stalled safety investigations.
The White House is said to be reviewing the findings of the IG's report to determine whether administrative actions are warranted.
Elkins' office sent a rare seven-day letter to Congress last year, noting that CSB had failed to cooperate with the investigation. That led to two hearings before the Oversight Committee. Eventually, the IG's office said it received the emails it was requesting.
Last year, Moure-Eraso told lawmakers he used his personal email account "out of ignorance" and stopped the practice when he realized "how problematic it was" (Greenwire, July 10, 2014).
The agency has maintained that National Archives and Records Administration guidelines did not explicitly ban the use of personal emails for official business prior to 2013 and that all CSB officials have since received training on proper email activities.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 4, at 9 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boiler, Incinerator Arguments Won't Be Held Until 2015-2016 Term, D.C. Circuit Says
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Oral arguments in litigation challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's air toxics standards for industrial boilers and incinerators won't be held until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit returns from its planned summer recess, the court announced (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, No. 11-1108, D.C. Cir., order filed 2/26/15; Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1125, order filed 2/26/15; Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1141, order filed 2/26/15; Eco Serv. Operations LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1189, order filed 2/26/15).
The court, in an order filed Feb. 27, denied a request from the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups that the court schedule oral arguments before the end of the court's 2014-2015 term. The challenges to the EPA standards covering major source boilers, area source boilers and commercial and solid waste incinerators will instead be heard by the same three-judge panel sometime in the 2015-2016 term, which is expected to start in September, according to the court.
The court did grant an industry request to schedule oral arguments in related litigation over the EPA's nonhazardous secondary materials rule, which establishes which combustion materials are considered to be solid waste.
The decision to delay oral arguments in the boiler and incinerator rules will create “tremendous uncertainty” for industry because there is a Jan. 31, 2016, deadline for compliance with the emissions standards for major source boilers, according to Robert Bessette, president of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners.
“If they don't hear it until September, we could very well see the compliance date come before the court's ruling date, where the court could rule against some of the provisions,” Bessette told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 27.
Industry petitioners, which include the council, said in their motion to schedule oral arguments that if the court didn't issue its decision until right before or after that compliance deadline, facility operators could end up making unnecessary investments if the court were to remand portions of the major source boiler standards (35 DEN A-1, 2/23/15).
Extensions Possible for Some Facilities
The major source boiler rule applies to more than 14,000 existing boilers, which are commonly found at chemical plants, refineries and other industrial settings. The estimated capital costs of the rule exceed $4.7 billion.
Bessette said there is a provision in the boiler standards, commonly known as the Boiler MACT rule (maximum achievable control technology), for facilities to receive a one-year compliance extension if they can't meet the standards by the January 2016 compliance deadline.
In order to obtain the extension, facility owners and operators will need to provide their state environmental agency with a compliance plan showing what can and can't be achieved by the compliance deadline.
The EPA has told industry that the agency will support one-year requests for extensions from state agencies, according to Bessette.
Energy Assessments Needed
The decision to delay oral arguments means that facility operators will have to meet an energy assessment requirement that “wholly goes beyond the statutory authority” of the EPA, according to Bessette.
The industry petitioners have alleged that the EPA has illegally imposed an energy assessment requirement on portions of industrial facilities that aren't within the “defined source category” of boilers and process heaters.
The EPA told the court in its brief that the energy assessment requirement, which could result in more efficient combustion and lower fuel usage by facilities, is consistent with the Clean Air Act.
If the court hears oral arguments in September, its decision isn't likely to be issued until December at the earliest. If the court were to uphold the energy assessment requirement, that would give facilities around one month to come into compliance, which isn't enough time to complete the assessment, Bessette said.
Arguments to Be Scheduled
While the court rejected the industry petitioners' request to hear the three boiler and incinerator cases in the spring, the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments on the EPA's related nonhazardous secondary materials rule.
That rule affects how combustion units are regulated because units that burn materials considered to be solid waste are regulated as incinerators, while those that don't are regulated as boilers.
Resolution of the litigation is needed to provide industry with additional certainty on which emissions standards apply to which sources, according to the industry petitioners.
The industry petitioners had asked that the court “at minimum” to hear oral arguments on the nonhazardous secondary materials rule to avoid an unreasonable delay between the end of briefing and the ruling in the case. Briefing in that litigation, Eco Serv. Operations LLC v. EPA, concluded in November 2014. Briefing in the boiler cases didn't conclude until February, while the final briefs in the incinerator litigation are due in March.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Claim EPA Erred By Exempting Many Incinerators From Air Rule
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court to force EPA to tighten an air toxics rule for commercial, industrial and solid waste incinerators (CISWI) that they say unlawfully exempts the vast majority of the units from regulation, while industry is asking the same court to back its claim that the regulation is too stringent.
In a brief filed Feb. 24 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), et al. v. EPA, nine environmental groups say that EPA's 2013 rule setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics standards for CISWI wrongly exempts many devices that should be classed as CISWI, violating a Clean Air Act mandate. EPA should have regulated all CISWI decades ago, and cannot escape its obligation to do so by claiming it lacks data on incinerators in question, the groups argue.
“EPA exempted most CISWI from the standards even though the statute plainly required standards for all CISWI by 1994,” says Earthjustice on behalf of the groups, including Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project.
The CISWI rule is part of a package of “combustion” rules being litigated in the D.C. Circuit that includes MACT standards for large “major source” boilers, smaller “area source” boilers, and a rule defining which materials are “fuel” for use in boilers or “waste” subject to the more-stringent CISWI rule.
In the CISWI suit, environmentalists reject EPA's claim that, because of a lack of data on burn-off ovens, cyclonic burn barrels, foundry sand reclamation units, soil treatment units, and space heaters, the agency is justified in deferring regulation of these units. Environmental groups assert that the deferral amounts to an illegal exemption.
Further, EPA in its earlier reply brief in the suit claimed that these devices “are fundamentally different from the units for which EPA promulgated standards.”
Environmentalists say “this is a distinction without a difference,” because EPA has a statutory obligation to regulate all CISWI, including the units EPA declined to regulate. This obligation “is not conditional on whether the agency has chosen to collect data,” environmentalists say, noting EPA has had 20 years to collect such data.
Advocates further raise concerns that EPA has wrongly classified incinerators that have yet to begin burning solid waste as “existing” sources, rather than new sources that would face more-stringent regulation. The groups say they asked EPA to resolve this issue through a reconsideration process, but the agency declined to do so.
The groups then reiterate criticisms of the agency's use of a statistical technique known as the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) to set the MACT “floor,” or minimum emissions limit. The air law requires EPA to set the MACT for existing sources using the emissions performance achieved by the 12 percent best-performing sources, but environmentalists in several suits over air toxics rules say the UPL is not a true average.
Also, EPA based its UPL-derived MACT floors on three-hours emissions tests, but the agency is proposing to determine compliance with the standards using a 30-day rolling average. Environmentalists say this in effect sets the averaging time for the standards at 720 hours, creating the opportunity for emissions peaks that are higher than the values based on 3-hour tests, which are themselves supposed to be the minimum emissions limits EPA can set.
Industry's Criticisms
Meanwhile, industry groups in their Feb. 24 brief in the CISWI suit raise criticisms of the rule that echo attacks industry groups make on many of the agency's air toxics rules, including EPA's use of a “pollutant-by-pollutant” approach to setting MACT and EPA's failure to account for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), when emissions are high, in setting the level of MACT standards.
Industry says few if any real-world plants can meet standards set for individual pollutants, and that the air law requires taking SSM periods into account, but EPA disagrees, saying it cannot account for many possible different malfunctions in MACT standards. The agency has been forced to eliminate earlier regulatory exemptions for SSM periods as a result of a prior adverse D.C. Circuit ruling.
Industry groups in their brief take specific issue with a provision in EPA's CISWI rule that would assume incinerators are classed as CISWI and subject to the rule's emissions limits if their operators fail to gather and report certain data on their fuel use.
“The portion of the CISWI rule providing for conversion of a unit to CISWI status solely on the basis of the operator’s failure to keep and produce records is unauthorized by the [air law] and arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore unlawful, they argue.
Further, the industry groups say EPA's rejection of emissions averaging across multiple emission sources within an industrial facility is unlawful. EPA argues that section 129 of the air law, which regulates CISWI, applies to “units,” meaning individual emission sources, and the provision therefore does not allow emissions averaging.
Industry groups say that EPA's logic is flawed because other air law sections that also apply to “units” -- such as the boiler MACT rules -- in fact allow emissions averaging. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled in the case. Among the groups that signed on to the brief are AF&PA, the American Chemistry Council, the Council of Industrial Boilers, the National Association of Manufacturers, and others.
-
(ACC Mentioned) By The Numbers: Manufacturing Group Says EPA Ozone Proposal Still Too Costly
Feb 27, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
The National Association of Manufacturers lowered its projected price tag for a new limit on ground-level ozone, but said it would remain the costliest regulation in U.S. history.
$140 billion: NAM’s updated study said reducing the federal threshold for ozone, or smog, from 75 parts per billion to 65 parts per billion would reduce the country's GDP by $140 billion per year. This is nearly half the $270 billion reduction estimated in a NAM study last summer, which evaluated reducing the standard to 60 parts per billion.
1.4 million jobs: In November, the EPA proposed reducing the standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, but the agency's public comment period allowed respondents to discuss a threshold as low as 60 parts per billion. Although the higher limit significantly reduced the ozone rule's cost, the 65 parts per billion cap would still result in 1.4 million fewer job equivalents per year and cost the average U.S. household $830 in lost compensation annually, according to the NAM report. 75 parts per billion: Public health advocates told EPA officials at a series of public hearings earlier this year that the current 75 parts per billion standard has led to a host of long-term health concerns in high-smog areas, including asthma and respiratory failure.
120 million people: Manufacturing and chemical groups argued the current standard is sufficiently stringent, and that it has never been properly enforced nationwide. The American Chemistry Council told regulators 120 million people reside in areas currently classified as non-compliant.
10 years: The EPA faces a court-issued deadline of October to issue a final decision on the ozone limit, and the agency said most states would be able to fully implement the new standard within 10 years. Areas with smog levels already far higher than the current limit, however, would have up to 12 additional years to comply. -
(ACC Mentioned) LOIS HENRY: Unchecked Science No Basis for Onerous Air Rules
Feb 28, 2015 | The Bakersfield Californian
By Lois Henry
New ozone regulations being proposed by the federal EPA would essentially force us all into electric cars and we probably still wouldn't come into compliance.
Ho hum.
Kind of the same old story for the San Joaquin Valley, where we're never in compliance and we're constantly being told our "FILTHY AIR" is killing us all.No, our air isn't killing us. But that's another rant for another time.
The more important issue is that these rules, which even the local air district has said would force the suspension of all internal combustion, are based on health study conclusions that no one can check.
Repeat: studies that claim ozone at ever smaller levels is debilitating and even deadly are not checked to see if the results can be replicated.
So, when EPA officials bleat about how these rules are needed to save countless lives, my response is "prove it."
I've written about the problem of using unverified studies to gin up regulations for years as that's the standard MO of the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
We're seeing it again with these proposed EPA rules, which would be incredibly far-reaching.
The proposed regulations would take the ozone standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion. And the EPA is taking comments on possible future regulations that would lower the standard even more, to 50 parts per billion.
We are just barely meeting the 1997 standard of 84 parts per billion and haven't come anywhere near the current 75 parts per billion standard, which was set in 2008. Neither has the rest of the country, which is a major argument against the proposed rules.
"The full extent of the 2008 regulations aren't known yet," said Anne Kolton, communications vice president for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group. "Most places in the country haven't even implemented that standard yet."
That's because the EPA didn't issue implementation guidance on the standard until this past December.
"These new rules would add a whole new level of cost, complexity and uncertainty" that could stymie the economy, she said.
The American Lung Association, which supports the new rules, pooh poohed such talk of disaster, saying industry has cried calamity for nearly 40 years since air regulations began and, still, business continues.
Kolton countered that these new rules would be a game changer.
If a region has too much ozone -- and we do -- you can't open new businesses or expand businesses if they would emit any ozone. Since most goods- and manufacturing-based businesses involve ozone in one way or another, that could put a chokehold on economic growth.
Don't own a factory? You're still not off the hook. Cars are major ozone emitters. The EPA's proposed rules could result in individuals being told how much they can drive. Or how about a per mile fee?
All of which people may be willing to do if it truly saved lives.
Problem is, no one knows for sure. And there's a lot of evidence no one's dying at all, but you can't check.
To that end, H.R. 1030 (known as the secret science reform act) was approved by committee and sent to the House floor on Feb. 25. That bill would prohibit EPA from promulgating rules using studies that rely on data that can't be replicated by other researchers. That means the underlying data has to be publicly available.
Some data sets used in air pollution studies are held by public and private universities.
But, by far, the largest and most important data sets covering 2.5 million Americans for generations are owned by the private American Cancer Society. It has collected reams of information on people who voluntarily enroll in its various studies, supposedly devoted to cancer prevention. The studies record names, addresses, social security numbers, ages, habits, occupations, family histories and much more.
It was these data sets that the first health studies used to look at how air pollution affects health on a large scale. The EPA, in turn, used those studies to set the first ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) standards.
From 2011 through 2013, members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology asked to see the underlying data of those decades-old studies. They were rebuffed and eventually issued a subpoena in August 2013 to the EPA for American Cancer Society data.
The EPA complied as far as it could, but it couldn't tell the American Cancer Society what to do. And the American Cancer Society was in no mood.
Suffice to say House members didn't get the data.
The main objection to that subpoena, and the loudest criticism against H.R. 1030, has been that making such data sets public could be a terrible invasion of privacy for those people who enrolled in health studies thinking their information would be protected. No one wants that to happen. But considering these data sets have been routinely used by a number of researchers without negative consequences, I think that argument is a red herring.
In fact, the American Cancer Society has gone so far as to give at least one researcher individual addresses (which it said it would never do when the subjects were enrolled), for a 2011 CARB report by Michael Jerrett on air pollution and mortality in California. No identity theft reported so far.
I wrote to American Cancer Society Vice President for Epidemiology Susan Gapstur back in 2013 and again earlier this year to ask why the cancer society wouldn't release data to Congress with its usual strict privacy protections. And, I wanted to know, why had it provided Jerrett with addresses, something that appears against cancer society rules?
I never heard back from her. A public information officer for the cancer society contacted me in late January asking what I wanted to know. I repeated my questions. But, again, never heard anything back.
No matter, I think objections to this bill, H.R. 1030, fall flat.
If personal privacy can be protected for certain researchers, it can be protected for other researchers to replicate these studies' results.
Since it's the public that has to live with rules based on studies using this data, I, for one, would like to have it checked.
-
FracFocus Making Changes to Improve Registry of Data on Fracking Chemicals
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
FracFocus, the online registry of chemicals the oil and gas industry uses to hydrofrack wells, has announced improvements designed to expand the public's ability to search records, among other changes.
Additional new features for 2015 include measures aimed at reducing the number of human errors in disclosure of fracking fluids, the chemicals that are injected into wellbores during the well completion process.
The website, which is maintained jointly by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, also will allow for the extraction of data in a “machine-readable format,” as well as updated information on chemical use, oil and gas production and potential environmental impacts.
Most oil and gas companies in the U.S. provide data to FracFocus, including ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron USA Inc., ConocoPhillips Co. and Occidental Oil and Gas. Baker Hughes, a leading oil and gas service provider, also discloses all the chemicals it uses in fracking on FracFocus.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. said it is the most active participant in the FracFocus registry, having uploaded data from more than 5,000 operated wells to the website.
Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into tight shale formations deep underground to release trapped natural gas and oil. Opponents of fracking say it can harm groundwater and erode air quality, while the industry and many state and federal regulators maintain fracking is safe.
Twenty states use FracFocus to house frack chemical disclosures. A licensed version of the system also is operating in five Canadian provinces.
Nearly 100,000 disclosures are available on the site, which has had more than 1 million visitors from 134 countries.
Will Help Detect Errors
The Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission said the installation of new self-checking features in the system will help companies detect and correct possible errors before disclosures are submitted. The feature is designed to detect errors verifying that Chemical Abstract Service numbers meet the proper format.
The new features take a “systems approach” with an aim to improving chemical reporting transparency for the public and reducing the number of trade secret claims, the council and commission said.
The public's ability to search records will be enhanced by pull-down menus and added search fields, such as the disclosure submission date, they said.
The “machine readable” data sets will improve a user's ability to capture data, they said. At present, FracFocus records are available only in PDF format.
-
EIA Chief to Testify as Subpanel Considers Easing Ban On Oil Exports
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
A key House panel tomorrow will continue its consideration of whether to liberalize U.S. oil companies' ability to sell to foreign customers with a hearing featuring the government's top energy analyst, as well as independent economists and industry representatives.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing aims to educate members about the implications of potentially lifting the ban on crude oil exports but will not likely lead to a quick legislative push on that front, subpanel Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said Friday.
"We've been so focused, it seems like over the last couple of years, on [liquefied natural gas] exports that now we want to start focusing on oil exports," Whitfield said in a brief interview. "And we just want to get a base-line hearing to decide what interest groups are supporting, what interest groups are opposed, and see where we are."
The hearing will feature Adam Sieminski, head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as well as independent market experts and representatives of oil exploration and production and refining companies. It is titled "21st Century Energy Markets: How the Changing Dynamics of World Energy Markets Impact our Economy and Energy Security." Ahead of the hearing, the committee on Friday released a list of questions for stakeholders on the impact of recent changes related to increased oil supplies and falling prices, among other issues; responses are being collected for the next two weeks and will eventually be made public.
Whitfield said he did not expect language lifting the 1970s-era ban on exporting U.S. crude to be included in the comprehensive energy bill he and E&C Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) expect to roll out in the coming weeks. But he noted growing interest in the subject -- pointing to legislation Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the committee's chairman emeritus, introduced last month to lift the ban -- and added, "so we may start looking at it."
While he is still undecided on whether to lift the ban, Whitfield said the question deserves special scrutiny because of voters' sensitivity to gasoline prices, which makes it "easy to politicize" a complex policy question.
"It's really a complicated issue because, you know, so much of what we're producing is light sweet, so much of what we're refining is heavy sour, and as a matter of fact, I guess, if we really start exporting a lot, we'd be exporting a lot of the light sweet ... which is not really being utilized a lot for refining purposes in our country," Whitfield said. "So we just need to be able to look into it and to be able to explain it, and we'll see where the members of the committee, how they feel about it, and have an open process and see what we're going to do."
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, March 3, at 1:30 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Adam Sieminski, administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration; John Kingston, president, McGraw Hill Financial Global Institute; Amy Jaffe, executive director, energy and sustainability, University of California, Davis; Scott Sheffield, chairman and chief executive officer, Pioneer Natural Resources; Charles Drevna, president, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; and Graeme Burnett, senior vice president for fuel optimization, Delta Airlines.
-
Fracking Opponents Feel Police Pressure In Some Drilling Hotspots
Mar 1, 2015 | NPR
By Marie Cusick
Wendy Lee, an anti-fracking activist and philosophy professor at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, has always protested peacefully. So she was stunned last winter when a state trooper came to her home to ask her about eco-terrorism and pipe bombs.
The trooper was investigating an alleged trespassing incident that involved Lee and two other activists visiting a gas compressor in Pennsylvania's Lycoming County in June 2013. Lee says they stayed on a public road and left when security guards told them to go away.
Lee was never charged with anything and believes the trooper's visit was intended simply to intimidate her. "They're clearly there to send the message that they protect the industry," she says.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has been controversial in the U.S. since the business began to boom. As protests have grown across the country, some police departments have begun working closely with the oil and gas industries to monitor activists. The surveillance is taking place in drilling hotspots in Pennsylvania, Texas and the Rocky Mountains.
The same Pennsylvania trooper who questioned Lee also traveled to upstate New York and, along with a New York state trooper, questioned Jeremy Alderson, an activist who was with Lee at the compressor.
"Having two troopers show up at your door when you can't imagine anything you've done wrong, that's kind of scary, because you don't know what's happened," says Alderson.
Like Lee, Alderson was never charged with a crime.
The Pennsylvania trooper, Mike Hutson, declined to comment for this story, as did the state police. (The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group, declined to be interviewed but sent an email stating, "Safety is the industry's top priority.") But documents obtained by NPR member station WITF through an open records request show that he is part of a broader intelligence-sharing network between the oil and gas industry and federal, state and local law enforcement called the Marcellus Shale Operators' Crime Committee.
Similar partnerships have sprung up in other oil and gas plays around the country, including in south and east Texas and the Rocky Mountains.
Some of the biggest drilling companies in the U.S. work closely with FBI task forces to monitor potential threats.
Jim Beiver, a retired Pennsylvania State Police trooper, emphasizes that the priority for the police "is protecting people." Although he never worked on energy issues or eco-terrorism, he spent much of his time as an investigator.
There have been reports of pipe bombs, charred debris and gunshots fired at gas sites in Pennsylvania, but the incidents have not been publicly linked to activists.
Beiver says people without criminal records can still turn to violence.
"We always tried to maintain the balance of gathering information, doing our job and keeping in mind the rights of the people — keeping in mind the Constitution," says Beiver.
But not everyone believes that police are striking the right balance.
Paul Rossi is an attorney for the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, an anti-fracking group in northeastern Pennsylvania that recently settled a lawsuit with the state after it was erroneously labeled a terrorist threat back in 2010.
Rossi says he's disturbed to hear about the surveillance. "I'm about as flabbergasted as an attorney can be at the serial violations of First Amendment rights in this state," he says.
Partnerships between industry and police are not new. In fact, the Pennsylvania State Police was formed to quell violence between mining companies and their workers more than a century ago.
The state police have a proud history of protecting the public, says West Virginia State University College of Law professor Patrick McGinley. "But that history doesn't have to be whitewashed, and historically there were abuses," he says.
Activists like Lee believe those abuses continue to this day. She filed an open records request with the state police to try to find out why she was questioned. Her request was denied because the documents are part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Lee still hopes to get the records and is appealing the decision.
-
Gulf States Battle for Drilling Proceeds
Mar 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Gulf Coast lawmakers are up in arms over an Obama administration proposal to reduce the money that their states receive for offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
President Obama proposed in his budget early in February to roll back a 2006 law that, beginning in 2017, would give the Gulf states up to $375 million a year out of the earnings federal government collects from drillers.
While the water is federal, the Gulf states delegation feels that the money is rightfully theirs, since they provide much of the infrastructure and workforce. They also bear the environmental risk for operations that bring in 17 percent of the nation’s oil and 5 percent of its natural gas, while the region refines more the half of its oil, the states argue.
To be sure, the proposal faces an uphill climb in the GOP-controlled Congress, but Gulf State lawmakers are worried enough to mount a full-scale attack in defense of their share of the money.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) used a Feb. 24 budget hearing to tear into Interior Secretary Sally Jewell for trying to take away money for which he and other lawmakers in the region had fought hard.
“I am incredibly — I can't put enough hyperbole in front of this — opposed to the department's budget proposal to deprive the Gulf Coast states of the revenue promised under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA),” Cassidy said.
Louisiana’s constitution requires that any earnings from offshore drilling go directly to coastal restoration, repairing damage that Cassidy blames on the federal government for actions like channeling the Mississippi River.
“There is a headline recently I read, ‘Does President Obama hate Louisiana,’ ” Cassidy said. “That's a question you're asking when the money we were going to use to build back that wetlands is being taken away.”
The anger spreads across party and state lines, except for Florida, which doesn’t get money because of a moratorium on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf.
“The Gulf states provide the personnel and expertise to develop the offshore resources, and more importantly, these states also absorb the potential risk of deep-water oil and gas development,” Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said in a statement.
“Given all these variables, the allocations devised in GOMESA are there to provide for the environment, economy, and citizens of the Gulf coast states,” he said.
The 2006 law provides for the first-ever state revenue sharing for deep-water oil and gas drilling, directing some of the revenues from leases to states. The Gulf has the only current oil and gas production in federal offshore waters, save for a small amount off the coast of California.
Former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who was ousted by Cassidy last year, counted the revenue sharing law as one of her top accomplishments in Congress.
After the law passed in 2006, revenue sharing started for a single area’s production in the Gulf, which has brought $4 million so far to the states that is divided using a complex formula that accounts for the states’ coastal length and proximity to the wells.
The covered wells will expand dramatically in 2017. The money that goes to states will be capped at $375 million annually out of an estimated $22 billion, though the Interior Department projects that the funding will hit the cap the first year.
Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget request, released Feb. 2, asks Congress to repeal the law, leaving the states with a far smaller fraction of the proceeds.
The administration reasons that federal waters belong to the entire country, and no one area should benefit from their resources more than others.
“Of course I care about those families, as I do about many families in coastal communities that are experiencing dramatic impacts,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told Cassidy at the Feb. 24 hearing.
“The president's proposed budget says we should revisit the revenues from federal waters offshore, beyond state waters, for the benefit of all American people.”
Cassidy was not happy.
“Revisit means take it away from the coastline that will be rebuilt,” he responded.
The Interior Department was not specific about where the money would go, but said it might go to programs involve conservation efforts, grants to states or coastal restoration.
Autumn Hanna, senior program director at Taxpayers for Common Sense, defended Obama, saying the entire country should benefit from offshore drilling.
“For these waters that are many miles offshore, the impacts are spread across multiple states,” she said. “It’s also about that the federal government spends money monitoring and regulating these areas.”
To the lawmakers around the Gulf, it’s only fair that their states get a larger share of the money than others.
“I think it’s a terrible policy,” said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) “And it’s an unfair policy. Louisiana and Gulf coastal states have fought for 50 years to get this revenue sharing, and we finally got the door open on this. It would be a big step backwards in my mind if it were repealed.”
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said the revenue sharing law is important for state efforts to restore coasts and similar needs.
“I will actively oppose efforts to take resources away from these critical priorities for Mississippi and the entire Gulf,” he said in a statement.
Michael Rekola, a spokesman for Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), said his boss wanted simply to refer Obama to the Gonzales flag, a symbol of the 19th-century Texas Revolution that features only a cannon and the words: “Come and take it.”
Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Ala.) called the proposal “highway robbery.”
“What the president calls for would steal from these states and local communities to be used on other ‘priorities’ that the president sees as more important,” he said in a statement.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairmen of the committees that would have to approve the change, largely agree, and support the law on the books.
Luckily for the Gulf states, lawmakers think Obama’s proposal is doomed.
Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) said the proposal was “dead on arrival,” a sentiment shared by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
“Not only is it a bad idea, it’s a non-starter and it’s unrealistic,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). -
Maryland, Virginia Members Disagree on Atlantic Oil Drilling
Feb 27, 2015 | Roll Call
By Lauren Gardner
The Obama administration’s recent proposal to lease oil and gas drilling in a swath of the Atlantic Ocean generated the expected mix of cheers and jeers on Capitol Hill, but local reaction was mostly divided along state borders rather than party affiliations.
Marylanders are reluctant, while Virginians appear to want to charge ahead, especially if it might mean more cash in their state coffers.
Most Maryland members of Congress oppose drilling because they fear the effects of an oil spill would be catastrophic to the Chesapeake Bay, a major driver of the state’s economy in commercial fishing and tourism.
“The return you get for doing it is pretty limited against the potential risks that it presents, and I would have thought the administration would have reached the same conclusion about that,” said Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md.
Meanwhile, many Virginia politicians from both parties favor exploring the sea floor off its shores for oil and gas, interested in the economic opportunities the industry could bring to the state.
“There’s an uncommon amount of unanimity here,” Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., said of the delegation’s perspective.
However, some fissures exist even among the bloc of Virginia Democrats and Republicans who have pushed for years for the federal government to greenlight Atlantic exploration.
The state’s Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, say their support hinges on expanding revenue sharing to include Virginia. That would mean a percentage of drilling and leasing proceeds would go to the states hosting the exploration rather than the U.S. Treasury, and it would require congressional approval.
But Rigell and Rep. Rob Wittman, another Virginia Republican, indicated in interviews that though they want their state to be guaranteed a greater share of the profits offshore oil could yield, they wouldn’t necessarily oppose drilling if Congress couldn’t pass legislation before oil and gas activity commenced off their shores.
“If I was given this choice of either we don’t have revenue sharing but we can have 25,000 very good-paying jobs with all the economic activity that’s generated, or nothing, then I’m thinking about those 25,000 jobs,” Rigell told CQ Roll Call. “I would accept that.”
Local opinion is important. “Input from state legislatures and governors is weighed very heavily as we approach these programs,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said when announcing the draft five-year drilling plan that includes the potential Atlantic lease sale. “Certainly in the Atlantic, that played a role.”
But opponents say the economic return from pumping oil from the ocean floor isn’t worth the risk, particularly given the restrictions that would be placed upon drillers due to shipping lanes and naval exercises that occur off the Virginia coast.
“You’re putting potentially at risk billions of dollars in the form of the presence of the Navy in Hampton Roads, because offshore oil drills — rigs — are potentially a real threat to the Navy’s operations, and they’ve said so,” said Democratic Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, one of the few Virginia members who oppose drilling offshore.
Jewell said Interior would include a 50-mile coastal buffer in the potential sale, which wouldn’t occur until at least 2021. That would minimize any disruptions to the military and commercial activities that occur in those waters, she said. A Navy official said the military branch will assess Interior’s proposal for the compatibility of leasing with offshore operations and training.
The Virginia delegation has pushed for years for the executive branch to allow exploration off its coast and for their congressional colleagues to broaden the reach of the current revenue-sharing law to include their state. Warner and Kaine, both former governors, say they aren’t “fully on board” with Atlantic drilling unless Virginia gets a share of the profits.
“Virginia has been supportive of this, but it’s all based upon, there would be revenue sharing — not only to the states, but also to the Land and [Water] Conservation Fund,” Kaine said.
Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe also backs oil and gas activity off the state’s coast, but that support “is based on an expectation” that revenue sharing is expanded to include Virginia, spokeswoman Christina Nuckols said in an email.
“It’s a bipartisan issue in Virginia, but we also feel very strongly that Virginia needs to be treated on an equal playing field, or on a level playing field, with our Gulf state counterparts,” Wittman said.
But he wouldn’t go so far as to say everyone’s support for the lease sale is contingent upon revenue sharing being expanded.
“It’s a very important part of what we want to have considered,” Wittman said.
That doesn’t mean Virginia members will back down from their push. They still have several years — and a new administration — to work on the issue before rigs might even show up near the Tidewater region.
“I don’t want to misrepresent that we’re not going to fight for it,” Rigell said. “We will.”
The Marylanders remain unswayed. Sarbanes said he understands the “allure” of revenue sharing and the benefits it could reap for a state, but he’s not convinced they outweigh the risks involved in this case — and doesn’t like the idea of basing energy development decisions on it.
“You’ve got to pick the source of your revenue carefully,” Sarbanes said.
-
Atlantic Drilling Back on Table After Spill Delay
Feb 27, 2015 | Roll Call
By Lauren Gardner
President Barack Obama first put Atlantic drilling on the table in March 2010, as part of a strategy to bring more Republicans to the negotiating table for a comprehensive climate change bill in the Senate.
But just weeks later came the worst oil spill in U.S. history, when the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion caused millions of gallons of oil to gush into the Gulf of Mexico.
By May, Obama had delayed new offshore drilling nationwide and pulled the Atlantic lease sale planned off the Virginia coast.
The administration signaled last summer that it was warming up to the idea of exploring the Atlantic again after allowing seismic airgun testing in areas off the East Coast to update decades-old data on oil and gas reserves there. State governments from Virginia south to Georgia have all shown interest in learning more about the reserves’ exact locations and how much oil is available.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell emphasized at a recent hearing that the draft proposed plan is just the first of several steps taken before Interior issues a final five-year drilling strategy, with or without an Atlantic option.
From there, the department will narrow down even further which areas in the approved drilling blocks will actually be offered for leasing.
“This is like the top of the funnel, if you will,” she said of the final offshore plan. “Only things that are included there could possibly happen during that five-year period.”
-
No Climate Deal Could Make Up for Keystone XL
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By May Boeve
Two days ago, President Obama pulled out his veto pen to derail the latest attempt by Big Oil’s members of Congress to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Since then, there’s been a lot of chatter among pundits about what the veto means for the environmental movement, what it means for the President politically, and what it means for Big Oil’s bottom line. That kind of chatter is more often than not just noise--and this time is no exception.
So let’s cut through that, and look at the facts. The president’s veto is a big deal, and a powerful victory for our movement. Few imagined this kind of win even just a few years ago, when DC insiders predicted Keystone XL would be approved by the end of 2011. But the veto is just step one: now Obama needs to move forward and reject Keystone XL once and for all. Pipeline opponents will be working even harder in this home stretch to make sure the President follows through and issues a real rejection.
Yet, as we get down to work, the chattering continues, most of it benign and familiar, but some of it betraying a fundamental lack of familiarity with the science around climate change. Yesterday, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg penned an op-ed arguing that Obama should approve the permit for Keystone XL as a favor to Canada. In return, he argues, the U.S. could convince Canada to sign a broader climate change deal that offsets the emissions from a new pipeline. Soon afterwards, a news story quoted a “U.S. official” floating the same idea. It’s the kind of thing that seems reasonable if you don’t look too closely--but completely falls apart under an even cursory examination.
Keystone XL has never been merely symbolic, nor is it something we can stomach in exchange for leverage in negotiations. The pipeline is a gateway to Canada’s tar sands, some of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels on planet Earth. That’s why the nation’s top climate scientists have repeatedly written Obama and Congress urging them to oppose the project. The logic is simple: if you build the pipeline, more tar sands come out of the ground, and more carbon goes into the atmosphere. Case closed. Just last month, a scientific study in Nature showed that if we’re serious about averting the worst impacts of climate change, and keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, we need to leave 85 percent of Canada’s tar sands in the ground. Considering the impacts we’re already seeing from climate change around the world, even burning that remaining 15 percent is a fools errand. Building new infrastructure like Keystone XL that would lock us in to additional development is the definition of insanity.
Some pundits have written that tar sands will magically make their way to market without new pipelines, but the facts don’t back them up. Oil-by-rail isn’t feasible, Energy East faces massive opposition -- and even according to Obama’s own EPA, Keystone XL would “change the economics of oil sands development and result in increased oil sands production...over what would otherwise occur.” In other words, Keystone would unlock the tar sands, opening the floodgates on another source of carbon emissions that would mean game over for our climate. That’s why this is a fight we have to win, and why this pipeline isn’t something we can negotiate with -- it’s simple math. Signing off on a massive carbon bomb in exchange for a paper promise from a Big Oil politician to cut emissions some percent by a future year is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. It’s a lot like saying “it’s okay to eat three cheeseburgers today as long as I write a plan tomorrow to cut back on fatty foods in two years.”
So as we close out the home stretch, we’re going to see pundits and adversaries try again and again to dodge the science on Keystone XL. We’ll doubtless see more creative “ideas” that try to circumvent making the tough right call and prop up Big Oil’s profit line, but none of them change the basic facts. Keystone would light the fuse to one of the biggest carbon bombs on planet Earth, and push climate change past the brink. It’s a crucial crossroads, which is why our movement will continue the campaign we’ve been waging for years, until we put this pipeline to rest for good.
-
Dems Unlikely to Make Override Vote Easy
Mar 2, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
The Senate tomorrow will likely begin the process of trying to override President Obama's veto of legislation to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
And even though pro-pipeline lawmakers don't have enough votes to succeed, the Democratic leadership appears unwilling to allow the vote to happen without roadblocks.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the Senate would take up the issue no later than tomorrow. And the chamber could theoretically proceed to a vote right away.
But top GOP aides say Democrats may push for debate on the issue plus an initial vote on whether to proceed. Democratic leadership aides did not respond to requests for comment.
The Congressional Research Service late last week released guidance on the veto override process. "The Senate usually considers the question of overriding a veto under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement," that document said.
Pro-KXL lawmakers are confident they will have at least 63 votes to move forward with overriding the president's veto. But that's still four short of the 67 necessary for an actual override.
Failing to override Obama's veto in the Senate, where the legislation in question originated, means the House won't get a chance to try.
KXL bill sponsors are already looking at their options beyond this week.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said the measure may work as a rider to the pending transportation reauthorization. Environment and Public Works Committee top Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), a KXL opponent, called it a "ludicrous idea."
Obama could still approve TransCanada Corp.'s request to build KXL's transboundary leg. Review continues at the State Department without any deadline for completion.
Last week the White House quashed claims that the president would consider Canadian greenhouse gas reduction pledges in decisionmaking on KXL.
Talk has also centered on whether Canada would bring a trade complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement were the White House to reject KXL.
But last year, Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Greg Rickford indicated his country would likely not launch a NAFTA challenge over KXL alone (ClimateWire, Jan. 22).
-
Oil and Gas Lobby Says Up Means Down
Feb 27, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
The Environmental Protection Agency just released the draft of its yearly greenhouse gas emissions inventory. It shows in no uncertain terms that methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector are going in the wrong direction: Up.
Emissions from this overall sector are up two percent in 2013, which includes emissions from oil (petroleum) systems which were at their highest levels ever since estimates began in 1990 – and up 68 percent since 2005. Emissions from natural gas processing, where impurities are removed to produce pipeline quality gas, are up 38 percent since 2005. From transmission and storage: Up 11 percent.
Yet the industry’s public relations machine says emissions are falling. So what’s the disconnect?
The inventory did find that emissions from the natural gas production category, which includes well sites and the system transporting gas to processing plants, decreased from 2012-2013, due to fewer wells being drilled and an increase in the share that use “green completions” as required by a 2012 EPA rule. (The fact that the EPA’s requirements led to a decrease underscores the importance of regulation in addressing methane emissions, by the way.) But by focusing on only one segment of the oil and gas supply chain the oil and gas lobby are only giving you part of the story.
The bottom line is clear: Emissions for many key links in the supply chain have gone up, not down, and in some cases they have increased quite dramatically. The fact remains, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are still too large and widespread .
We have the low cost technology at our disposal right now to fix this problem.
Cutting emissions in half would save our nation’s energy economy nearly $1 billion a year in wasted product, and cut the 20-year climate pollution equivalent of 90 coal-fired power plants. What’s more, a study by ICF International recently estimated that companies could cut methane emissions by 40 percent or more for about one third of one percent of the price of the gas they’re selling.
The case for action couldn’t be more clear.
-
Oil Drilling, Taxes, Zoning Will Appear on Southland Cities' Ballots
Feb 28, 2015 | LA Times
By Soumya Karlamangla
Voters in two Los Angeles County cities will step into the contentious debate over where and how the nation should drill for oil when they consider ballot measures on Tuesday that would alter local restrictions.
In the coastal city of Hermosa Beach, voters will decide whether to loosen a ban on oil and gas drilling to allow for a new production project. And on the opposite edge of the county, voters in La Habra Heights will weigh in on a measure that takes an opposite stance — seeking to tighten the city's restrictions on drilling and, in particular, fracking.
In more than a dozen other cities across the county, voters will head to the polls to select city council and school board members, as well as to resolve ballot measures that involve taxes and zoning.
Supporters of Measure O in Hermosa Beach say that if approved, the new drilling project — which would be run by E&B Natural Resources Management Corp. — could bring hundreds of millions of dollars to the city. That money could be used for things such as more parking and police officers, street upgrades and cleaning the city's beaches. Proponents argue that the health risks to the community from drilling are minimal.
Opponents, however, say the project will push air pollution in Hermosa Beach, a city of approximately 20,000 residents, to unhealthy levels, and that even one fire or explosion from oil drilling eliminates any potential financial benefit from the project.
Concerns about the health risks of drilling also are the impetus for La Habra Heights' Measure A, which would ban future drilling in the city as well as techniques such as hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. Supporters of Measure A say the financial benefits of new oil development in the city of 5,000 residents are outweighed by environmental and health risks, including pollution and increased use of chemicals. Those opposed to the measure say the ban is an overreach, and could reduce city revenue by 13%.
Both measures need to garner a majority of the votes to pass. cComments From the article: "Carson will vote whether to increase utility tax rates."
In Cerritos and Azusa, meanwhile, voters will decide whether to increase their cities' hotel taxes, which are seen as a way to generate more city revenue without raising taxes for residents.
Carson will vote whether to increase utility tax rates, as will voters in the city of Paramount.
In Redondo Beach, residents will vote on Measure B, which offers a solution for what to do with a local power plant. If approved, the measure would rezone the site so it could be a mixed-use building with residential units as well as commercial and open space. Opponents of the measure say the plan would overdevelop the area and cause traffic.
Voters in Bell will decide on several administrative matters, including whether to shorten the city's residency requirement to 30 days from 60, change the procedures for recall elections and adopt new ethical standards for elected officials and city employees.
-
House May Consider Bills on EPA Board, Boosting Transparency Week of March 2
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The full House could take up two bills as soon as the week of March 2 aimed at altering the structure and duties of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board and boosting data transparency in the agency's rulemaking proceedings, according to notices on the House Rules Committee website.
Both bills—the Secret Science Reform Act (H.R. 1030) and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act (H.R. 1029)—passed the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Feb. 25, just one day after their introduction (38 DEN A-6, 2/26/15).
The House Rules Committee will meet March 3 and is likely to consider a rule that would limit amendments on both bills. Typically, bills considered by the Rules Committee early in the week move to full floor consideration that week.
Matt Sparks, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Bloomberg BNA no final decisions had yet been made on the chamber's schedule for the week of March 2.
Companion bills already have been introduced in the Senate. The White House issued veto threats for similar versions of both bills in 2014 prior to their passage by the House.
Two-Page ‘Secret Science' Bill
The two-page Secret Science Reform Act would explicitly bar the EPA from finalizing a risk, exposure or hazard assessment; criteria document; standard; limitation; regulation; regulatory impact analysis; or guidance document unless all data used in the rulemaking are publicly available online and available for independent analysis.
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) also included a provision in the bill that would require the EPA to implement the legislation for less than $1 million per fiscal year. Democrats on the committee said during the markup that the provision was arbitrary and questioned what would happen if the agency could not comply with it.
The other bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, would clarify industry members could serve on the board as long as their potential conflicts of interest are disclosed, expand public comment opportunities, require greater acknowledgement of dissenting views, limit nonscientific advice from the board and reform the selection process of advisory members, among other provisions.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviews the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for regulations, reviews research programs, provides science advice as requested by the administrator and advises the agency on broad scientific matters.
“The heavy costs of these regulations warrant some degree of public oversight to ensure SAB's findings are free from bias or conflicts of interest and not simply provided by a set of handpicked advisers,” Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), the bill's sponsor, said in a Feb. 25 statement.
-
Judiciary Panel to Begin Moving Next Batch Of Bills to Streamline Regulatory Procedures
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Republican-controlled House is set to move a new batch of bills to roll back regulatory burdens and streamline permitting, with a March 2 hearing scheduled on three new bills in the Judiciary Committee's regulatory reform subcommittee.
The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), will focus on measures including a bill he introduced, known as the RAPID Act, that would streamline environmental reviews for projects (H.R. 348).
The panel also will hear testimony on the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015 bill introduced in the Senate (S. 378) by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and in the House (H.R. 712) by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.).
The measures would that target what industry groups refer to as “sue and settle” strategies used by environmental groups to force agencies to strengthen or expedite delayed regulations.
The House has already passed three bills to revamp procedures agencies use to develop regulations since the 114th Congress opened Jan. 6, including measures to require the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to weigh the indirect economic impact of their rules on small businesses and press them to choose the least costly compliance options.
The hearing before Judiciary's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law also will focus on a third yet-to-be-introduced measure, known as the SCRUB Act.
Scrap One Old Rule for New One
The 2014 version of the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act was introduced by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and called for the EPA and other agencies to scrap or amend one existing rule before moving forward with a new regulation.
Marino's streamlined permitting bill, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act, was introduced in January and cosponsored by Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson (11 DEN A-9, 1/16/15)(11 DEN A-9 1/16/15)
The Senate version of the RAPID Act (S. 280) was introduced in February by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and is cosponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Angus King (I-Maine) (19 DEN A-11, 1/29/15).
The House and Senate versions of the RAPID Act would streamline permitting processes by requiring the EPA or another lead agency to set a schedule with deadlines. Other agencies participating in the process would be required to do their work concurrently. The bill also specifies that if an agency failed to act, the permit, license or application would be deemed approved.
Chamber Representative, Others to Testify
Scheduled to testify at the March 2 hearing are Bill Kovacs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs; Sam Batkins, the American Action Forum's director of regulatory policy; Patrick McLaughlin, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; and Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate for Public Citizen.
-
Clean Power Plan Already Affecting Coal Industry, Murray Energy Tells Court
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.84 percent between 2012 and 2013, driven by lower temperatures and a decreased use of natural gas to generate electricity, the Environmental Protection Agency said in its annual emissions inventory.
The U.S. emitted the equivalent of 6,742.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in greenhouse gases in 2013, according to the EPA's Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. Despite the slight increase, emissions in 2013 were the second-lowest since U.S. emissions peaked at 7,450 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent in 2007.
Carbon dioxide accounted for 82.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, followed by methane with 9.7 percent of emissions. Overall, greenhouse gas emissions have increased 7 percent between 1990 and 2013, with carbon dioxide emissions increasing 8.4 percent during that period and methane emissions decreasing by 11.7 percent.
Greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 were 6,526 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the lowest U.S. total since 1994 (73 DEN A-2, 4/16/14).
The U.S. has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 26 percent and 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 as part of a climate change agreement with China (37 DEN A-21, 2/25/15).
Power Plants Lead Emissions
Power plants remained the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, emitting 2,040.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. That was a slight increase from the 2,022.7 million metric tons emitted in 2012. Power plant emissions have increased 12 percent since 1990.
The EPA has proposed regulating for the first time carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in a package of rules targeting the power sector. That includes the proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state.
Transportation was the second-largest source of emissions in 2013, emitting 1,754 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Emissions from the transportation sector increased by 0.01 percent between 2012 and 2013 as the vehicle miles traveled by Americans increased, the report said.
Animals Called Top Source of Methane Emissions
Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas emitted in 2013, is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide when measured over 100 years. Enteric fermentation from animal digestion was the leading source of methane emissions in 2013, emitting 164.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent followed by natural gas systems with 159.9 million metric tons of emissions and landfills with 114.6 million metric tons of emissions.
The EPA will propose this summer a rule to set methane and volatile organic compound emissions standards for new and modified oil and natural gas wells as part of a methane strategy announced in January (10 DEN A-1, 1/15/15).
The EPA also has proposed a rule that would require new landfills to control emissions of methane (RIN 2060-AM08) Demand for coal already is falling due to uncertainty about how coal-fired power plants will comply with proposed carbon dioxide standards, Murray Energy Corp. told a federal appellate court (In re Murray Energy Corp., D.C. Cir., 14-1112, reply brief filed 2/26/15; Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 14-1151, reply brief filed 2/26/15).
Murray Energy told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a Feb. 26 reply brief that the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan is already affecting the coal company's customer base.
“The mere pendency of the proposed rule causes immediate harm because coal producers and utility customers must make—and are making—current business decisions now. EPA's pursuit of this rulemaking continues to pressure states and capital markets to dismantle Murray Energy's customer base,” the company said.
The coal company is asking the D.C. Circuit to use its authority under the All Writs Act to take the unusual step of deciding whether the EPA has the legal authority to propose carbon dioxide emissions standards for existing power plants even before the rule is finalized. Murray Energy argued that waiting until the rule is finalized will cause the company significant economic harm that could not be remedied at a later date.
“The issue under review is a single question of EPA's statutory authority, and judicial review will abate significant and ongoing injury to Murray Energy that cannot be remedied by a later decision of this Court after the nation's existing coal-fired power plants have gone cold. Judicial review is available and appropriate now,” Murray Energy said.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. The rule would be implemented by state officials, who would determine how best to achieve the emissions targets. It is expected to be finalized this summer as part of a package of regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector.
Murray Energy is challenging the EPA's authority to propose the carbon dioxide rule, which it argues is prohibited by the plain text of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Power plants are already subject to hazardous air pollutants standards under Section 112 of the act, and therefore cannot be subject to standards issued under Section 111(d), the company says.
When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the House and Senate approved conflicting amendments to Section 111(d). The Senate amendment would bar the EPA from regulating pollutants under Section 111(d) if they already subject to hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112. The House amendment can be read as barring the agency from regulating industrial sources under Section 111(d) if they are subject to standards under Section 112. Both provisions were included in the final bill.
EPA Argues Against Standing
The EPA has argued that Murray Energy is not directly regulated by the proposed rule and therefore lacks standing to bring its lawsuit (31 DEN A-1, 2/17/15).
“The administration's Clean Power Plan is forcing existing coal-fired power plants to decide now whether to invest millions to prepare for an onslaught of future requirements, switch from coal to other fuels, or shut down entirely,” Murray Energy said. “This plan will dramatically reduce the use of coal to generate electricity at the nation's coal-fired power plants, and thus attacks Murray Energy's customer base.”
EPA Interpretation Challenged
Industry groups that intervened in support of Murray Energy also argued that the EPA's proposal violates the Clean Air Act's plain text.
The National Federation of Independent Business and the Utility Air Regulatory Group said in their Feb. 26 reply brief that Section 111(d)'s provisions are “unambiguous.” They dismissed the EPA's argument that the statute's requirements are ambiguous as “interpretive performance art.”
“Needless to say, Section 111(d) should not be read as a mystery wrapped in a riddle to be unfolded by interpretive gymnastics, but as a straightforward provision of law,” the industry groups said. “That provision declares that source categories regulated under Section 112 are exempt from further regulation under Section 111(d).”
Peabody Energy Corp. argued in its Feb. 26 reply brief that it is incumbent upon Congress and not the EPA to resolve any conflicting language in Section 111(d)'s requirements.
“This is not an exercise in resolving ambiguities but an ambitious gambit to decide what is the law of the land. EPA effectively seeks to play the role of the congressional Conference Committee reconciling two different versions of a bill,” the company said.
D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument April 16.
-
We Could Keep A Huge Amount Of Carbon Out Of The Atmosphere Just By Changing People’s Behavior
Feb 27, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
It may be one of the few parts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” — a regulation to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — that’s not controversial.
In its proposed rule published back in June, the EPA suggested that one key tool that states and utility companies can use to meet their required emissions reduction goals is what the agency calls “demand-side energy efficiency.” For instance, significant energy savings – and emission cuts – could be reaped by programs that incentivize people to buy more energy-efficient home appliances, that encourage buildings to use energy more efficiently, or that change individual behavior itself to reduce energy consumption.
More specifically, the EPA lists energy efficiency as one of four “building blocks” that can help states reach their emissions reductions goals, calling it “a proven, low-cost way to reduce emissions, which will save consumers and businesses money and mean less carbon pollution.” The agency suggests that a 1.5 percent reduction in a state’s emissions might be achieved through this route.
But according to a group of behavioral researchers writing in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change and led by the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Amanda Carrico, EPA is setting a “very modest” target here. As they note, some estimates for how much energy could be saved by energy efficiency initiatives — including programs that try to directly change people’s behavior — run as high as 23 percent of total U.S. electricity demand. In terms of emissions, they continue, ramping up household focused conservation programs could conceivably lead to a seven percent cut overall.
Indeed, a single behavioral energy intervention that many utilities are already pursuing — sending out home energy reports along with monthly utility bills, which compare people’s usage levels with those of their neighbors — leads to a 2 percent reduction in energy use, on average. The reports are created by Opower, a software firm that helps utility companies better connect with their customers, and they work by letting people see how much they’re using compared with others living near them (we humans are, after all, social animals) and giving encouragement to those who are using less.
Here’s an example:
Credit: OpowerThe EPA says that even programs that “seek to alter consumer and building occupant behavior” can be considered by states — the agency “does not want to discourage their implementation,” though it notes that measuring their effectiveness could present challenges.
At a time when bitter political arguments are beginning over the Clean Power Plan — which is often denounced as the chief vehicle for the “war on coal” — the energy efficiency and behavioral route is notably nonpartisan. After all, nobody, either on the left or the right, is against the prudent conservation of energy, through behavioral change, more efficient appliance purchases, or anything else. And liberals and conservatives alike will surely celebrate the lower utility bills that go hand in hand with greater home energy efficiency.
Indeed, as we’ve reported here at Energy & Environment, the military is already implementing behavioral techniques to help Marines and the Navy save vital fuel – whose conservation translates directly into increased tactical capacity and effectiveness.
Meanwhile, one of the biggest changes in the structure of our energy system in a long time — the rollout of 50 million smart meters, with more on the way — has thus far failed to achieve its full energy-savings potential due to a failure to take human and behavioral factors into account, and to be user-friendly. Simply providing people with smart meter data in real time in a form that helps them understand how much power they’re using and how much it’s costing them could inspire many behavioral changes that could add up to big energy savings — and big emissions cuts.
It’s in this context that Carrico and her colleagues call on EPA to make sure that they carefully design the efficiency-focused, electricity demand-reduction side of the Clean Power Plan. The EPA’s approach, they write, is a “rare move” and represents a major new precedent — or, it could. Behavioral programs are “often viewed as minor adjuncts to more traditional regulatory actions, not as a core part of the response to energy and climate challenges,” they note. The evidence above suggests there are many reasons that should change.
One key problem, though, will be whether an agency like EPA has the right DNA to oversee the utility industry’s deployment of social science-heavy behavioral and efficiency programs. It’s not exactly part of the traditional environmental regulatory wheelhouse. “Achieving these objectives,” note Carrico and her colleagues, “will challenge the thinking of regulators who have more experience with mandating the best available technologies than with programs that target decision-making and voluntary behavior.” Measuring how much energy behavioral programs are actually saving – and how many emissions they’ll therefore be averting – is also a challenge.
No one is saying that merely changing people’s behavior, or the objects they use in their homes, will let us stop worrying about coal plants and the emissions they pour into the atmosphere. Nor are they saying that energy efficiency and behavioral change should be the number one strategy for addressing climate change.
Nonetheless, efficiency and behavior could be a much bigger climate wedge than it currently is. And increasing it benefits everybody, and above all the consumer — who ends up paying less on each electricity bill.
-
Probe of Climate Research Funding Threatens Academic Freedom, Republican Senators Say
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
All 11 Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee warned Feb. 27 that an investigation into climate change research funding launched by three Senate Democrats is a “wholly inappropriate effort” to challenge academic freedom.
Democratic Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) Feb. 25 sent over 100 letters to a wide range of publicly traded companies, industry groups, utilities and others in hopes of learning whether they have funded the research of a small number of scientists who don't believe human activity significantly contributes to climate change (37 DEN A-24, 2/25/15).
“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats'] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” the EPW Republicans wrote in their Feb. 27 letter.
The Republicans argued dissenting views on scientific issues are essential and said organizations at the center of the Democratic investigation shouldn't be afraid of “political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond.”
Those organizations should continue to support scientific work “despite efforts to chill free speech,” the Republicans wrote.
Among those receiving letters from the Democratic senators were the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Alpha Natural Resources LLC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Duke Energy Inc., ExxonMobil Corp., Koch Industries, the National Mining Association, the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
Soon Revelations Prompted Push
The push for greater disclosure in climate change funding comes following revelations about Willie Soon, a high-profile climate skeptic, who received more than $1.25 million from fossil fuel interests over the past decade.
Soon, a part-time researcher for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, believes the sun accounts for changes in global temperatures.
Eben Burnham-Snyder, a spokesman for Markey, said the support for science echoed by the Republicans rang hallow given most refuse to acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change.
“If these Republicans and Republicans in Congress were actually this pro-science and this committed to scientific integrity then they would have accepted the reality of climate change a long time ago,” Burnham-Snyder told Bloomberg BNA. “What the senators are asking for is for fossil fuel companies and their trade organizations to simply be transparent about whether or not they are funding scientific research.”
Concerns Raised Over Separate Investigation
Meanwhile, the American Meteorological Society warned in a separate Feb. 27 letter of the “chilling message” an investigation launched by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) could have on academic researchers.
Grijalva, ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, took a different tact in his investigation launched Feb. 24. The Arizona Democrat wrote to seven universities requesting information on sources of external funding, consulting fees, compensation and draft testimony from researchers who have almost all testified before Congress about climate change (37 DEN A-24, 2/25/15).
“Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources—and thereby questioning their scientific integrity—sends a chilling message to all academic researchers,” the letter from Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, said. “Further, requesting copies of the researcher's communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.”
A spokesman for Grijalva said he hadn't discussed the new letter with the congressman and declined to comment.
Scientists Call Probe ‘Witch Hunt.'
Scientists targeted in Grijalva's probe quickly slammed it and described it as a “witch hunt.”
“I don't think anything good will come of this,” Judith Curry, a researcher with Georgia Tech, wrote on her website. “I anticipate that Grijalva will not find any kind of an undisclosed fossil fuel smoking gun from any of the 7 individuals under investigation.”
Roger Pielke Jr., also under investigation by Grijalva and a professor at the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, said “incessant attacks and smears are effective” and have caused him to essentially stop work on climate change issues.
“I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name,” Pielke wrote on his blog. “I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have.”
Pielke strongly rejected the label of climate change denier and has spoken in favor of proposed Environmental Protection Agency power plant regulations and a carbon tax. He has, however, been critical of the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are linked to costlier natural disasters.
-
What Will the GOP Do About EPA Climate Regs?
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Jerry Taylor
Last June, EPA released an ambitious proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Many state regulatory agencies and attorneys general went into near panic, coal companies into shock, business trade groups into battle, and conservatives into existential alarm over one of the most ambitious regulatory initiatives ever to come out of the EPA.
The GOP, however, has no strategy to roll the regulations back save for bitter complaint and wishful thinking. The question for the Right is whether to invest in a hopeless rear-guard action to block the rules or to craft an attractive political initiative to displace those rules with something less onerous.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatens to use the appropriations process to defund agency promulgation and enforcement of the new rules. That road, however, ends in a presidential veto that Republicans lack the votes to override. Raising the ante with threats about a government shutdown would be political suicide given that 78 percent of Americans in a recent survey supported federal limitation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Eliminating the regulations via legislation is hopeless as long as there are at least 40 votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster. With the Republicans defending 24 Senate seats in the next election and the Democrats defending 10, don’t count on a filibuster-proof Senate in the foreseeable future.
Lawsuits might stop the regulations, but only for a time, sending the agency back to the drawing board with new rules will follow. There’s no guarantee that the new rules will be an improvement over the old.
Many conservatives would like to take a page out of the Obamacare resistance playbook and have state legislatures prevent their regulatory agencies from filing the required state implementation plans. But given that the EPA is more than capable of writing the regulations directly, that accomplishes little.
In theory, some future Republican president could order the EPA to reverse course. But that could only happen were the agency to reverse its “endangerment finding”—made under the Clean Air Act—that there are significant human health risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions. As long as the Clean Air Act stands, that finding must be based on scientific evidence. Given that EPA’s present finding is consistent with 97.1 percent of the published papers in the scientific literature that have taken a position on the matter, it is unlikely that the courts would allow such a reversal.
A future Republican EPA administrator could adopt a policy of regulatory delay by extending state implementation plan deadlines, half-heartedly defending industry legal challenges, dragging out rulemakings, and slow walking every step of the process. That can work, but it would only delay the inevitable.
Were repeal-minded Republicans to capture the White House and hold the Congress in 2016, they might conceivably get around a Democratic filibuster via budget or reconciliations bills (which cannot be filibustered). Yet that route leads to political thermonuclear war, which is why neither party has gone down that road very often no matter how important the issue.
Still, many conservatives appear to believe that time is on their side. If they can just hold on for a little while longer, the evidence that climate change is a hoax—or, at the very least, a non-event—will become so overwhelming that the tide of public opinion will turn and, thus, the tide of public policy. That’s unlikely. Scientific evidence of global warming, and man’s responsibility for it, continues to mount. Even the most prominent climate “skeptics”—Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Pat Michaels, and Judith Curry—accept that narrative. How long can conservative elites get away with making arguments rejected by their own scientists?
EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is likely here to stay unless Democrats can be persuaded to voluntarily give it up. And Democrats aren't going to do that for nothing.
There is only one way out of this. Republicans should forward a bill that would (1) eliminate EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and (2) impose an economy-wide, revenue neutral carbon tax. Far better to let market actors decide when, where, and how emissions are reduced than to leave that decision to state and federal regulatory agencies. The revenues from a tax would be used to cut capital gains taxes, corporate income taxes, or other taxes that discourage wealth creation. And some of the revenues could be used to transfer resources to the poor to reduce or eliminate the regressive nature of the tax changes.
Refusing to explore a deal along those lines would tell us that the Right prefers EPA command-and-control regulation to any conceivable alternative. That's not what they would be telling their base, but that's what they would be telling those of us who live in political reality.
-
House Likely to Vote on EPA ‘Secret Science’ Bill
Feb 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House Rules Committee will vote next week on a bill to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using “secret science,” setting up a likely vote on the House floor.
The committee said will vote on the bill Tuesday, which would allow a probably vote in the full House Wednesday.
The legislation would prohibit the EPA from issuing any regulations that rely upon scientific research that is not publicly available.
Republicans have long accused the EPA of keeping its science “secret,” which prevents public scrutiny of its conclusions.
Critics say the bill would severely handicap the EPA’s ability to write regulations necessary to fight pollution and climate change and protect the environment and human health, and would require the EPA to violate patient confidentiality.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has criticized the accusation from the GOP, saying transparency and sound science are among the agency’s priorities.
The House passed a similar bill last year, which the White House threatened to veto.
The House Science Committee passed the bill Thursday, along with another bill that would change the rules regarding the EPA’s external advisory board for scientific matters.
The advisory board bill has a similar history and was also the subject of a veto threat in 2014.
-
'Aggregation' Ruling Leaves Door Open For Citizen Suits Over Air Permits
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
A federal district judge has rejected environmentalists' novel suit aiming to force an oil and gas company to “aggregate,” or combine, emissions from its operations and trigger stricter Clean Air Act permitting requirements, but the decision leaves the door open to future citizen suits relying on an EPA test for aggregation that one appellate court has rejected.
The ruling, which says the “functional interrelatedness” of units may be a factor in deciding aggregation and specifically disagrees with the earlier appellate ruling on the issue, could have important implications in the near term for hydraulic fracturing and other operations seeking to avoid aggregation when applying for Clean Air Act permits. Environmentalists have vowed to pursue case-by-case air permit challenges in various states to force aggregation in lieu of new EPA policy on the issue.
The agency is working on a rule to define oil and gas emissions sources that could resolve the aggregation issue, but until it issues that regulation environmentalists plan to file air law citizen suits over permits.
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) filed suit in July 2011 against oil and gas developer Ultra Resources, Inc., claiming that the company violated the air law by not applying for a strict “major” source air permit aggregating eight compressor stations, and instead seeking less-strict “minor” source permits for each facility. Advocates said both the adjacency and also the interrelatedness of the units warranted aggregation under one permit.
One industry source at the time of the suit's filing criticized it as an “aggressive approach” in trying to force drillers to aggregate emissions in Clean Air Act permits issued by states with delegated air law authority.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Robert Mariani in a Feb. 23 ruling sided with industry in the suit, PennFuture v. Ultra Resources, Inc., finding that their compressor stations were neither adjacent because they were too far apart, nor interdependent, or interrelated, based on how they operated.
While the decision is a loss for environmentalists, it nevertheless shows that courts might be willing to use the interrelatedness factor as key to determining aggregation -- which could be significant because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in a split August 2012 ruling in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA scrapped the agency's functional interrelatedness test that it has used in deciding aggregation in federally issued permits.
The Summit decision has “really clouded the air” on EPA's policy for making case-by-case permit decision on aggregation, one environmentalist has said. They are seeking clarity on the agency's approach to aggregation, and are hoping their citizen suits will spur faster EPA action on the rule to resolve the issue.
Pennsylvania Ruling
In the meantime, parts of Mariani's ruling leave the door open to environmentalists using the interdependence, or interrelatedness, test in future aggregation suits. Although the decision in the suit is not binding in other courts, it could be cited by advocates in suits filed in states not in the 6th Circuit.
“[T]he Court recognizes the risk that a strict application of the plain meaning of the terms 'adjacent' and 'contiguous' may allow oil and gas exploration and production companies to manipulate or structure their wells and compressors in such a technical way as to avoid being deemed a 'major' source, including by avoiding the aggregation of their wells and compressors. As a result, we depart from the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of 'adjacent' to the extent that it prohibits any consideration of interrelatedness or interdependence,” the judge's ruling says.
Mariani says he agrees with the Summit ruling that the “plain meaning” of the terms adjacent and contiguous should “normally operate to allow a determination as to whether stationary sources should be aggregated.”
But he also notes that to “strictly limit that determination so as to never consider functional interrelatedness would run afoul” of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) guidance on aggregation in delegated Clean Air Act permits, “and could very likely lead to the anomalous situation wherein emitting sources which are clearly functionally related are able to avoid the more stringent standards applicable to 'major' sources under the [Clean Air Act] and state law because of a wooden and inflexible definition of adjacency.”
A PennFuture source did not respond to a request for comment by press time, but attorney Mary Szybist on behalf of the group told StateImpact -- a project of NPR member stations -- that the ruling's language about using the functional interrelatedness test in aggregation decisions shows it is still a viable permit test.
“We didn’t succeed in compelling Ultra to get a major source permit,” said Szybist. “But it was a victory for the citizens and the DEP in so far as it affirms that interdependence matters and the DEP may and should take it into account, which should result in more careful review of these facilities by DEP,” he said, meaning that the test could be used in future permit decisions in addition to the adjacent and contiguous test.
Attorneys for Ultra Resources did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Functional Interrelatedness
EPA had used the functional interrelationship test as part of its aggregation method detailed in a 2009 memo from then-agency air chief Gina McCarthy to determine whether to combine emissions from dispersed oil and gas operations for permitting purposes. The memo said EPA assesses whether facilities are contiguous or adjacent; whether they are in common control; and whether they are part of the same industrial grouping.
McCarthy’s memo revoked an earlier Bush-era memo by then-acting air chief William Wehrum stressing that proximity was the most important factor to determining adjacency, and the 6th Circuit's ruling in Summit essentially revived the Wehrum memo's focus on proximity in states covered by the court.
“Together, with amici, Summit argues that the EPA’s conclusion that Summit’s activities are ‘adjacent’ because they are ‘truly interrelated’ is unreasonable, and urges this court to vacate the EPA’s determination. . . . Specifically, Summit argues that the term ‘adjacent’ is unambiguous, and that EPA’s interpretation of it defies its plain and ordinary meaning. We agree,” the ruling by Judges Richard F. Suhrheinrich and Eric L. Clay said.
However Judge Karen Nelson Moore defended EPA’s approach to adjacency in a dissent, saying, “Because I believe that the EPA’s consideration of functional interrelatedness as a factor along with physical distances in its adjacency determination was both reasonable (and thus worthy of deference) and correct, I would affirm its decision to aggregate the various stationary sources in Summit’s drilling operation as a major source.”
After the ruling, EPA's Office of Air Quality and Standards in 2012 then issued a memo aiming to limit application of the ruling to the 6th Circuit states of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky.
But industry sued over the memo in the D.C. Circuit, and the court in a unanimous May ruling sided with industry, finding the memo is a final agency action because it creates a new enforcement regime that unfairly advantages permitted facilities in the 6th Circuit. The court said that EPA had other options it could have pursued, including developing a rulemaking to clarify or revise its aggregation requirements.
Observers have said the rulings have created uncertainty on the aggregation issue, and EPA is now planning to propose in May a rulemaking to define "source terms" as they apply to the oil and gas industry for Clean Air Act permits. EPA says the "additional definition" will help permit writers in determining when aggregation triggers “major" source air permit requirements for the oil and gas industry, rather than potentially less-stringent minor source permits. The agency says the "lack of clarity regarding the term 'source' has resulted in confusion for the regulated community and for permitting authorities, including EPA's regions.”
-
Daily News IG Says EPA's Equity Screening Updates Could Help Air Toxics Inspections
Feb 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA's Inspector General (IG) says the agency's updates to its environmental justice (EJ) screening tool could boost efforts by its 10 regional offices to use equity as a factor when inspecting facilities to determine their compliance with air toxics rules, including making it possible to provide data on multiple facilities and locations at once.
In a report released Feb. 26, the IG concludes that the agency's regions are already using EJ as a component of their facility air toxics inspections, although to varying degrees. To assist in selecting facilities for inspections, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has developed several tools, including one that combines data from EPA's “EJSCREEN” equity tool with the “GeoPlatform” geographic information system.
The agency released EJSCREEN in 2012 to help incorporate EJ into its work, identifying areas of potential EJ concern at the census block level using demographic information and 12 environmental indicators.
The IG finds that there are some existing hurdles that limit EJSCREEN's usefulness for conducting “up-front” targeting for air toxics inspections, including that the tool identifies areas of EJ concern but not air toxics facilities within those areas, and that it can only provide data on one facility at a time, not multiple facilities at once.
But EPA's updates to EJSCREEN appear likely to address some of the concerns about the tool's use in assessing which facilities to target for inspections of their compliance with air toxics rules, the IG says in the report, “EPA Regions Have Considered Environmental Justice When Targeting Facilities for Air Toxics Inspections.”
“Through the modifications made to EJSCREEN and the new GeoPlatform mapping tools being developed by OECA, 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 inspection,” says the report, which makes no recommendations.
For example, the IG says the updated version of the tool known as EJSCREEN v2.0 will have the capability to overlay facility locations on one screen, rather than only showing one facility at a time. The updated tool also provides information for multiple facilities at once, and the ability to process thousands of locations simultaneously.
“These two new functions will better enable the region to use the EJSCREEN tool to identify potential facilities to inspect based on EJ considerations,” according to the report. But the IG also notes that the updated tool will not overcome an existing limit of only incorporating one environmental indicator at a time.
The IG notes that OECA is also beginning to use the GeoPlatform tool in conjunction with EJSCREEN data to produce better air toxics targeting tools, which the report calls a “promising practice.”
“Using GeoPlatform allows OECA and EPA regions to develop more detailed maps to meet specific regional needs and include information that is not available in EJSCREEN, such as a composite view of selected environmental stressors in a given area,” says the report, which did not include a formal EPA response. EJSCREEN is part of EPA's “Plan EJ 2014,” an equity agenda established by former Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who aimed to boost EJ's role in EPA decisionmaking.
-
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Up Slightly In 2013 but Continue Decrease From 2007
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.84 percent between 2012 and 2013, driven by lower temperatures and a decreased use of natural gas to generate electricity, the Environmental Protection Agency said in its annual emissions inventory.
The U.S. emitted the equivalent of 6,742.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in greenhouse gases in 2013, according to the EPA's Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. Despite the slight increase, emissions in 2013 were the second-lowest since U.S. emissions peaked at 7,450 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent in 2007.
Carbon dioxide accounted for 82.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, followed by methane with 9.7 percent of emissions. Overall, greenhouse gas emissions have increased 7 percent between 1990 and 2013, with carbon dioxide emissions increasing 8.4 percent during that period and methane emissions decreasing by 11.7 percent.
Greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 were 6,526 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the lowest U.S. total since 1994 (73 DEN A-2, 4/16/14).
The U.S. has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 26 percent and 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 as part of a climate change agreement with China (37 DEN A-21, 2/25/15).
Power Plants Lead Emissions
Power plants remained the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, emitting 2,040.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. That was a slight increase from the 2,022.7 million metric tons emitted in 2012. Power plant emissions have increased 12 percent since 1990.
The EPA has proposed regulating for the first time carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in a package of rules targeting the power sector. That includes the proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state.
Transportation was the second-largest source of emissions in 2013, emitting 1,754 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Emissions from the transportation sector increased by 0.01 percent between 2012 and 2013 as the vehicle miles traveled by Americans increased, the report said.
Animals Called Top Source of Methane Emissions
Methane, the second most abundant greenhouse gas emitted in 2013, is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide when measured over 100 years. Enteric fermentation from animal digestion was the leading source of methane emissions in 2013, emitting 164.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent followed by natural gas systems with 159.9 million metric tons of emissions and landfills with 114.6 million metric tons of emissions.
The EPA will propose this summer a rule to set methane and volatile organic compound emissions standards for new and modified oil and natural gas wells as part of a methane strategy announced in January (10 DEN A-1, 1/15/15).
The EPA also has proposed a rule that would require new landfills to control emissions of methane (RIN 2060-AM08)
-
Groups Challenge Startup ‘Exemption' For Power Plant Mercury Standards
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Three environmental organizations plan to ask a federal appeals court to review whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act when it established what the groups described as an “exemption” from air toxics emissions standards during power plant startup (Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, No. 15-1013, D.C. Cir., statement of issues filed 2/26/15).
The Environmental Integrity Project, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Sierra Club, in a statement of issues filed Feb. 26, questioned whether the EPA's decision to establish an alternative work standard for compliance with the mercury and air toxics standards violated federal law by failing to establish continuous work practices or other emissions standards.
The alternative work practice standards, established in a November 2014 rulemaking (RIN 2060-AS07), allow for coal- and oil-fired power plants to comply with the MATS standards by initiating startup using clean fuels and continuing to use the maximum possible amount of clean fuels during the startup period.
The environmental groups, along with the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a power plant trade group, and several individual power companies have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review that rulemaking.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group, in its statement of issues, asked the court to consider whether the EPA's reliance on an alternative definition of startup and alternative work practices was arbitrary and capricious under the Clean Air Act, given industry concerns about the ability of power plants to operate certain pollution control technologies upon startup (36 DEN A-1, 2/24/15).
2008 Decision Cited
The environmental groups cited a 2008 decision by the D.C. Circuit, which concluded that the EPA's decision to exempt refineries and other major stationary pollution sources from hazardous air pollutant standards during startup, shutdown and malfunction wasn't permissible under the Clean Air Act (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 68 ERC 1033, 2008 BL 282130 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 245 DEN A-5, 12/22/08).
The statement of issues cited the court's conclusion that, based off a reading of Sections 112 and 302(k) of the Clean Air Act together, Congress required that there must be “continuous” emissions standards in place.
Other Issues Raised
The environmental groups also raised the following issues related to the alternative work standard rulemaking:
• whether the EPA's determination that it is “impracticable” to measure power plant emissions during the first four hours was arbitrary, capricious, outside the agency's direction or otherwise unlawful;
• whether the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by establishing work practices that can't obtain the maximum degree of emissions reductions that are achievable for existing power plants; and
• whether the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by establishing numerical standards and a 30-day averaging period for air toxics that don't comply with minimum stringency provisions.
-
Pipeline Incident Communication Guide Is Available
Mar 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A guide to help emergency responders and pipeline operators address hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline incidents was posted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Feb. 26. The guide identifies the key information to be communicated, the best methods for communicating it and strategies for incorporating and using emergency response plans, should a pipeline emergency occur. The report was sponsored by PHMSA and conducted under the Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program by the Transportation Research Board. It was initially released Jan. 29 by the National Academy of Sciences and the Transportation Research Board, a PHMSA spokesman told Bloomberg BNA. The guide is available at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_37BB02E8C1E593B753D80B876658B908C55A5000/filename/hmcrp_rpt_014.pdf.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested