Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Mar 4
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Output Ticks Up in January on Broad Gains - Analyst Blog
Mar 3, 2015 | Zacks (in Nasdaq)
The U.S. chemical industry kicked off the year on a positive note with production rising in January for the tenth straight month on broad-based gains - according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"). Growth was witnessed across all chemical producing regions for the month. -
(ACC Mentioned) Building a Sustainable Labor Pipeline
Mar 4, 2015 | Area Development
By Matt Jackson
Is America truly experiencing a manufacturing renaissance? National statistics are cloudy — but there’s a reason for that. Some cities are booming with factory expansions and job growth, while others remain stagnant. The economic reality is that not all cities are experiencing this return to manufacturing as an economic driver; tech-friendly... -
(ACC Blog) GlobalChem 2015: CEPA ICG Executive Director Amardeep Khosla Answers Our Questions on How to Advance Chemical Regulations in the U.S. and Canada
Mar 4, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Canada has made some progress in regulating chemicals under the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) — so how can Canada and the U.S. work together to manage chemicals more effectively? Professor John Graham answered three big questions on Monday regarding his keynote speech at this year’s GlobalChem conference about what ... http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Set to Update Labeling Program
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA is close to rolling out an update to its Design for the Environment chemical labeling program that has been in the works for nearly a year, a top official said today. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said the agency would release a new logo for the program during a webinar tomorrow. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Sets More Stringent Goal For Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has changed its public health goal for perchlorate in drinking water from 6 parts per billion to 1 ppb, based on recent research involving the effects of perchlorate on infants. Announced in a Feb. 27 regulatory notice, the new target marks the first step... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Support for Bill to Ban Chemicals in Children’s Toys
Mar 3, 2015 | Capital
By Scott Waldman
Legislators have re-introduced a bill to keep chemicals out of children's toys. The Child-Safe Products Act died in the Senate last year, but it had an unusually large, bipartisan base of support, including more than 40 Senate co-sponsors. The bill easily passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly, but was never brought to the floor of the Senate... -
(ACC Mentioned) Keny-Guyer Hoping Fourth Time a Charm for Toxic-Free Kids Act
Mar 3, 2015 | The Lund Report
By Chris Gray
Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer rolled out her Toxic-Free Kids Act for the fourth time in her four years as a legislator from Southeast Portland on Monday, and this time around, the increased Democratic majority may be what it takes to put one of her flagship issues into law. “Scientific evidence links certain chemicals to an epidemic of disorders,” ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Group Launches Defense Of BPA
Mar 3, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council announced an ad campaign highlighting recent evaluations of bisphenol A as "safe." The ads—running in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and on consumer, news and health websites—urge readers to "listen to the science" on BPA, a synthetic compound found in many plastics and resins. -
EPA Exploring Chemicals Review Program Efficiency
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency has begun to examine whether there are new technologies or modified procedures it could use to streamline its reviews of chemicals that manufacturers would like to make, the director of the agency's chemicals office said March 3. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics... -
Running Start on TSCA Changes Crucial This Year -- Industry Groups
Mar 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
After Congress failed to pass an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 last year, making progress on the issue is crucial this time around -- if politics don't derail lawmakers' work, chemical industry officials said during a three-day convention here yesterday. -
DOE Seeks Waste Treatment, Disposal Proposals
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management is seeking proposals from companies interested in treating, disposing of, managing reuse of and helping craft release limits for low-level and mixed-low level waste. Those waste products would include polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos and other waste ... -
California to Classify Styrene as Carcinogen
Mar 3, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
California regulators intend to list styrene under the state's Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause cancer. The state Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment filed a notice of intent to list styrene last week, citing a 2011 report by the National Toxicology Program classifying... -
REACH Restrictions Updated for PAHs and Phthalates
Mar 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
An EU Regulation amending the REACH restrictions for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and phthalates was published in the EU Official Journal on 3 March (CW 28 May 2014). The Regulation replaces the test method required for checking if extender oils, used for the production of tyres or parts of tyres, contain concentration levels of PAHs... -
White House Selects PHMSA Official As Next Leader of Chemical Safety Board
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The Obama administration tapped the chief counsel for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as the next chairman for the embattled Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, the White House announced March 3. If confirmed, PHMSA's Vanessa Allen Sutherland would replace Chemical Safety Board ... -
Chemical Board Members at Odds Over Management Woes
Mar 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Robin Bravender
Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso doesn't appear to think the management problems facing his besieged agency are as grave as some of his colleagues do. According to Moure-Eraso, he's been making strides in resolving problems in his agency after his management came under fire and House lawmakers urged him... -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemistry Exports Linked to Shale Gas Could Double by 2030, New Report Shows
Mar 3, 2015 | Flow Control
America’s shale gas revolution could lead to dramatic growth in U.S. chemical exports over the next 15 years, according to a new report from Nexant Inc., and sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Gross exports of chemical products, including plastics, linked to plentiful and affordable natural gas are projected... -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Our Air Isn’t Killing Us,’ One Writer Argues. Oh Yeah. According to Whom?
Mar 3, 2015 | Air Quality Matters
By Alan Kandel
Lois Henry writes for the Bakersfield Californian. At any rate, in “Unchecked science no basis for onerous air rules,” (second article in the grouping), she makes the claim that “our air isn’t killing us,” following up later on in the same op-ed by basically stating that the proof is there to support such a claim, although, according to Henry... -
House Republicans in No Hurry to Lift Ban On Crude Oil Exports, Vow ‘Thorough’ Review
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House Republicans March 3 again said they are in no hurry to alter current law prohibiting the export of domestic crude oil, with top members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee pledging a “thorough review” before considering whether to make changes to the 40-year-old ban. -
House GOP Treads Cautiously Into Crude Export Debate
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
House Republicans aren’t barreling toward lifting a 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports. Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) promised Tuesday that any move by his panel to lift the ban “will only happen after an open review of the current policy,” and he cited the process in the previous Congress... -
More Data Needed to Assess Effects Of Fracking on Water Quality, USGS Finds
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
There are not enough data available to assess potential risks to water quality associated with hydraulic fracturing, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study. Additional data in electronic formats on water acquisition, usage, treatment and disposal or recycling associated with unconventional oil and gas well development ... -
Company Challenges Well-Stimulation Ban Approved by Voters in California County
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California oil and gas producer has filed a lawsuit challenging the ban on hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation activities San Benito County voters approved Nov. 4 (Citadel Exploration Inc. v. Cnty. of San Benito, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. CU-15-00028, 2/27/2015). Filed Feb. 27 in California Superior Court, the complaint claims... -
California Orders 12 Oil-Field Wells Shut to Protect Groundwater
Mar 3, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
California officials, responding to concerns about groundwater contamination, are closing 12 wells in the Central Valley used to dispose of chemical-laden water from oil and gas production, regulators announced Tuesday. Steve Bohlen, who leads the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, said the wells are being shut down... -
Obama Says Keystone XL Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Justin Sink
President Barack Obama said a decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline is possible in weeks or months. The president told Reuters in an interview March 2 that the decision definitely “will happen before the end of my administration.” Asked to be specific, he said, “Weeks or months.” -
Republicans Plot Next Steps for Keystone
Mar 3, 2015 | National Journal
By Clare Foran
The ink has barely dried on President Obama's veto of a bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline, but Republicans are already eyeing their next move. Even the most ardent supporters of the controversial project acknowledge that a Senate vote to override the White House veto slated for Thursday is likely to fail. -
New Rules for Oil, Gas Work on Floodplains In Colorado Adopted in Wake of 2013 Floods
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado has adopted a new rule (100, 600 series) requiring remote “shut-in” of new and existing wells and other measures for oil and gas operations on floodplains. The state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved the new standards March 2. They were developed after major flooding struck northeastern Colorado... -
Chevron, Linn, Other Drillers Ordered To Shut California Wells on Water Concerns
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael B. Marois and Lynn Doan
California regulators ordered oil drillers including Chevron Corp. and Linn Energy LLC to halt operations at 12 injection wells in the state because of concerns they may taint groundwater. The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources said 10 of the well operators shut down voluntarily, while two were issued cease-and-desist orders. -
Groups Sue Port of Seattle Over Planned Homeport for Shell's Arctic Drilling Fleet
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Four conservation groups sued the Port of Seattle alleging it signed a lease to provide a homeport for Royal Dutch Shell oil drilling operations in Arctic waters without conducting proper environmental review (Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Port of Seattle, Wash. Super. Ct., No. 15-2-05143-1, complaint filed 3/2/15). -
New Wyoming Law Certifies Carbon Dioxide Storage
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) has signed a bill (S.F. 84) providing for the certification of the quantity of carbon dioxide stored incidentally in certain oil and gas production activities. The act establishes a new process authorizing the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to issue orders recognizing and certifying permanent... -
Common-Sense Solutions to Congressional Gridlock
| The Hill - Congress Blog
By Julia Rotondo
With recent revelations that a prominent climate change denier has deep links to corporate interests, Congress must overcome its obsession with the idea of giving equal time to both climate change deniers and legitimate scientists and act to pass new federal comprehensive energy policy. -
Olson to Offer Two Bills Shortly to Address EPA Treatment of ‘Exceptional’ Air Events
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) in the next several weeks will offer two bills to address the Environmental Protection Agency's treatment of unusual air events, which can open states and utilities to liability under present law, Olson's office told Bloomberg BNA March 3. First up will be a version of the Commonsense Legislative Exceptional Events... -
Sulfur Dioxide Consent Decree Approved by Court Over Objections by State Air Agencies
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal district court judge approved a consent decree that will allow the Environmental Protection Agency to take a phased approach to making attainment designations under the 2010 national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, despite objections from several state environmental agencies... -
Reversing EPA's Spruce Mine Restriction Is Target of McKinley Dredge-and-Fill Bill
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) has introduced a bill that would negate the Environmental Protection Agency's January 2011 “veto” of a dredge-and-fill permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. Introduced March 2, the bill (H.R. 1203) would bar the EPA from altering or vetoing a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit after the... -
Coal Industry Urges Supreme Court To Reverse CWA Permit 'Shield' Ruling
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Coal industry groups are urging the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court's decision that limited a Clean Water Act (CWA) “shield” against legal liability under a general permit for stormwater, arguing the ruling conflicts with another appellate decision and sets a precedent that would undermine certainty for dischargers and regulators alike. -
Clean Power Rule on Advisory Council's Agenda
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which advises the Environmental Protection Agency, will discuss a Clean Power Plan rule and other upcoming rulemakings and policies at a March 19 teleconference. The council also will discuss an EPA chemical safety policy, farmworker protection standards, a proposed refinery rule ... -
Bishop Talks of Priorities for 2015 Action By House Natural Resources Committee
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski and Rachel Leven
Hearings will get under way in April to begin the work of reauthorizing and potentially reshaping programs on federal land management, according to Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Bishop told Bloomberg BNA March 3 that the committee will be looking at short-term action on the Land... -
White House Threatens Veto of EPA ‘Secret Science’ Bill
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto a pair of Republican bills aimed at changing the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses science to justify regulations. The first bill would attack the EPA’s use of “secret science.” In response to common Republican accusations that the EPA is not transparent enough... -
White House Threatens Veto Of House's EPA Science 'Transparency' Bills
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
The White House is threatening to veto two pending House bills that proponents say would bolster “transparency” of EPA's science underpinning its rulemakings and input it receives from its scientific advisers, with the White House warning the bills would undermine advisers' independence and impede the rulemaking process. -
Inhofe’s Snowball
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Conor Lynch
This past week, everyone’s favorite bible citing climate change denier from congress, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), proved once and for all (in his mind) that global warming is indeed a hoax cooked up by the liberal media and those elitist climate scientists. In a nice and simple fashion that everyone could understand, he packed up a big snowball... -
Cantwell to Introduce Crude-by-Rail Bill; First on Tank Car Standards This Session
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Members of Congress are concerned that the final Transportation Department office's rule governing crude-by-rail transport may not resolve the most important related-safety issues, and at least one lawmaker is prepared to act. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) March 3 said she wants more stringent shell and DOT-111 tank car phase... -
Cantwell Plans Crude-By-Rail Safety Bill
Mar 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said yesterday that she plans to introduce legislation requiring stronger standards for oil-carrying rail tank cars than the Obama administration is currently pursuing. "We are not moving fast enough," Cantwell told Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx at a Senate Commerce...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemical Output Ticks Up in January on Broad Gains - Analyst Blog
Mar 3, 2015 | Zacks (in Nasdaq)
The U.S. chemical industry kicked off the year on a positive note with production rising in January for the tenth straight month on broad-based gains - according to the latest monthly report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"). Growth was witnessed across all chemical producing regions for the month.
The Washington, DC-based chemical industry trade group, last week, said that the U.S. Chemical Production Regional Index ("CPRI") went up 0.4% in January after a downwardly revised 0.3% gain a month ago. The U.S. CPRI, which is measured using a three-month moving average, was created by Moore Economics to track chemical production in seven regions nationwide. It is comparable to the Federal Reserve's industrial production index for chemicals.
The January reading showed higher chemical output in all seven regions. Production in the Gulf Coast, where key building block materials are produced, were up 0.3% on a monthly comparison basis in the reported month. Production rose 0.5% across Mid-Atlantic and Northeast while Midwest and West Coast saw a 0.4% gain. Output went up 0.3% in Southeast and Ohio Valley.
According to the ACC, overall growth for the U.S. manufacturing sector - the largest consumer of chemical products - continued in January. The sector is a major driver for the chemical industry which touches around 96% of manufactured goods.
Within the manufacturing sector, production rose in several chemistry end-user markets including motor vehicles, construction materials, machinery, computers and electronics, fabricated metal products, structural panels, paper, plastic and rubber products, structural panels, printing and apparel.
As seen in December, chemical production was once again mixed across the segments in the reported month. Gains across organic chemicals, chlor-alkali, synthetic rubber, synthetic dyes and pigments, industrial gases, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals were partly masked by declines in fertilizers, coatings, adhesives, plastic resins, synthetic fibers, acids, pesticides and other inorganic chemicals.
Overall chemical production moved up 4.6% year over year in January with all regions racking up gains.
The U.S. chemical industry, a more than $800 billion enterprise, is heavily linked to the overall condition of the nation's economy. It has been consistently leading the U.S. economy's business cycle due to its early position in the supply chain.
The chemical industry is finally on the path to recovery after staying down for long. The industry fared reasonably well last year amid an exigent global operating backdrop, exacerbated by lumpiness in Europe and a cooling Chinese economy.
While some industry-specific challenges, concerns over China's future growth and sluggishness in Europe remain sources of near-term uncertainties, the chemical industry is expected to continue to recuperate in 2015, invigorated by strength in the automotive market and significant shale-linked capital investment. The recovery will also be supported by a rebound across housing and commercial construction markets.
The ACC envisions strong capital spending in the coming years, stemming from new investments in petrochemicals and derivatives. The U.S. has emerged as an attractive investment hotspot and chemical makers are aggressively expanding capacity in the country. According to a recent ACC report, domestic chemical investment related to share gas has reached as high as $137 billion, most of which are from firms outside of the U.S.
Chemical makers including majors like BASF BASFY , Dow Chemical DOW , DuPont DD , LyondellBasell Industries LYB , Eastman Chemical EMN and Celanese CE are ramping up investment on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies which is expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
The outlook for the U.S. chemical industry paints an encouraging picture as the ACC envisions national chemical production to rise 3.7% in 2015 (up from a 2% increase in 2014) and 3.9% in 2016. Growth is expected to be backed by healthy demand from light vehicles market and a recovery in the housing market. -
(ACC Mentioned) Building a Sustainable Labor Pipeline
Mar 4, 2015 | Area Development
By Matt Jackson
Is America truly experiencing a manufacturing renaissance? National statistics are cloudy — but there’s a reason for that. Some cities are booming with factory expansions and job growth, while others remain stagnant. The economic reality is that not all cities are experiencing this return to manufacturing as an economic driver; tech-friendly markets are clearly the “haves” while markets without a significant number of skilled workers are becoming the “have-nots.”
On a national level, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth and employment figures seem to contradict each other at times, perhaps due to this dynamic. Looking at where investor dollars are flowing suggests that the jury may still be out on whether we’re experiencing a true national manufacturing renaissance — or if it’s limited to a few key regions.
Are the Jobs Coming Back?
It’s no secret that the manufacturing sector has seen dramatic job loss over the last 30 years. While the mood is more upbeat these days for the sector generally, jobs are only slowly coming back. After all, advances in automation and other technologies have changed the nature of the work and reduced the functions that humans must perform.
An October 2014 article in Bloomberg Businessweek notes that the U.S. has added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs since the spring of 2010, during a time when companies have been moving certain operations back from overseas. However, those jobs comprise only 8.7 percent of the total labor employment in the U.S., down significantly from 15 years ago when it was 13 percent.
The more labor-intensive manufacturing processes — think textile mills and furniture products — tend to stay offshore, where labor is cheaper. As you might expect, those same companies are also seeing lower-than-average GDP growth in the U.S. Typically, it’s the manufacturers with more capital- and talent-intensive plants — such as computer and electronic products — that are investing in the U.S.
That said, economic growth doesn’t necessarily translate to job growth. GDP growth is up 103 percent for electronics manufacturers since 2004, compared with 13 percent GDP growth across all industries. At the same time, more efficient manufacturing processes have kept employment growth at a slow pace, even when functions return to America. According to JLL estimates, even if companies add manufacturing facilities, there will still likely be a continued slide from 12 million manufacturing jobs today to 10 million in 2028.
So, why is there such a buzz about the shortage of skilled labor? Because tech-savvy workers are hard to find.According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 9.6 million people unemployed in August 2014; that same month, 4.8 million jobs were left unfilled. This skills gap is generational; legacy manufacturing employees were trained for the labor-intensive jobs that moved offshore, not the technical jobs that are available now.
As a result, the manufacturers expanding in the U.S. are generally going where the technically trained talent lives. For example, the high-growth computer and electronic manufacturing sector tends to migrate to California and the U.S. Northeast, prioritizing their need for skilled talent above high labor and real estate costs.
Where Are Plant Investments Happening?
While the U.S. workforce is struggling to keep pace with evolving manufacturing processes, it is still very well positioned in the world and remains one of the largest recipients of foreign direct investment. The U.S. shale boom and the low price of natural gas have been a particular boon for the chemicals manufacturing industry. The American Chemistry Council reports that foreign companies account for 62 percent of announced capital investments in the U.S. chemical industry, with chemical-makers planning to invest a record $72 billion in U.S. plants, drawn to cheap and abundant natural gas in the region, according to Bloomberg. German-based BASF, one of the largest chemical-makers in the world, is planning its most expensive plant to date on the Gulf Coast, hoping to leverage the cost advantages of
Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana have all become more attractive targets for manufacturing plants, given their proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and the natural gas industry. In July, Area Development reported that China-based Yuhuang Chemical was investing $1.85 billion in a methanol manufacturing complex in St. James Parish, Louisiana, to take advantage of natural gas feedstock.
Natural gas isn’t the only major draw to the U.S. market; so is having the ability to shorten the supply chain. As labor costs have gone up in China, manufacturers of heavy machinery and other heavy materials are finding multiple benefits in investing in the U.S., including shortened travel times to the end-market and lower transportation costs. JLL data finds that the East Coast is generally a more attractive area for large-scale manufacturing investment than the West Coast. One of the largest U.S. manufacturing investments in the last year was an announcement by China’s Shandong Tranlin Paper Co. to invest $2 billion over the next five years into a new factory in Virginia. Readily available utilities, transportation, and labor resources made it an attractive option.
Regional optimization and reshoring isn’t just good for America; one of the biggest beneficiaries will be Mexico. Recent news stories have touted Mexico as an emerging powerhouse in luxury car production, hosting new factories for BMW, Audi, and Mercedes-Benz since 2012. South Carolina and Tennessee have been the recipients of foreign automotive manufacturing investments in recent years as well.
What Does It All Mean?
If the manufacturing process still relies heavily on people doing the work instead of machines, then companies will zero in on sites with low-cost labor environments. Escalating labor costs in China — where costs have doubled in the last 10 years — are a big reason more companies are re-evaluating their location choices. However, where low-cost labor is a determining factor, the U.S. reshoring impact is minimal. Typically, the choice is made to re-locate a facility to another low-cost labor environment, like Thailand or Vietnam.
Alternatively, if a company requires skilled labor and proximity to technically minded engineers, higher costs are palatable, to ensure access to the talent required for high-tech manufacturing success.
For other companies, it’s the proximity to the end customer that matters most. These investments have generally never left the U.S. What are the cost advantages offered by moving closer? The growth of e-commerce has put more pressure on supply chains, and speed is increasingly a competitive advantage in some sectors. The proximity of a manufacturing facility to distribution centers or end customers can have a dramatic impact on site selection strategy.
Regardless of the driving forces, relocating a facility is a major expense and involves significant risk. Trade-offs between financial and non-financial risks will need to be made. As investments start to come back into U.S., more companies are thinking through the long-term goals of training a sustainable supply of labor, and how they will continue to maintain a productive workforce as technology continues to evolve the manufacturing process.
The real impact of reshoring to the U.S. remains to be seen and will play out in coming years. Significant facility investments are already in progress, so we expect some headlines touting jobs returning to America. But is this a true manufacturing renaissance? Certainly, for some communities. But for the nation as a whole, only time — and ultimately, corporate location decisions — will tell. -
Mar 4, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Canada has made some progress in regulating chemicals under the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) — so how can Canada and the U.S. work together to manage chemicals more effectively?
Professor John Graham answered three big questions on Monday regarding his keynote speech at this year’s GlobalChem conference about what the U.S. can learn from how other countries have tackled key issues in building a sound chemical regulatory system.
Today, we turn to Amardeep Khosla, executive director of the Industry Coordinating Group for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), who will be sharing his thoughts during a panel discussion at the Conference regarding this very topic.
Q1. Has Canada made much progress on regulating chemicals under the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP)?
Yes, in my view, for three main reasons. First, the CMP set clear priorities based on a credible, risk-based approach. Second, manageability and timelines have remained in focus. And third, industry and other stakeholders have consistently been involved to help build a sound scientific basis for the program, and to build awareness that CMP is a program that works.
Let me share a few points to back that up. A key feature of the 2006 CMP was to extend Canada’s regulatory regime to more comprehensively address existing substances, by focusing on ~4,300 of the ~23,000 substances on the domestic Inventory (DSL). The 4,300 were identified as “meeting the criteria for further attention” via an initial, categorization process that considered aspects of inherent toxicity, the potential for bioaccumulation and persistence, and exposure. The remaining ~19,000 substances were identified as “not requiring further action at this time”. The CMP has addressed the 4,300 in 5-year phases: CMP1 launched in 2006 (~1,100 substances); and CMP2 launched in 2011 (~1,500 substances). Given the sequential nature of data acquisition, assessment and management, both CMP1 and CMP2 currently remain in effect. Discussions have begun on the design of a potential CMP3.
Of the ~2,600 CMP1 and CMP2 substances, over 1700 have been assessed via individual initiatives. While the details of these initiatives have differed, and sometimes widely so, the underlying Assessment approach used throughout has been more unified and remained rooted in time-tested policies and practices. Subsequent Management steps are being taken, when needed, via consultation with the affected industries and the use of a pragmatic “Best Placed Acts” approach that may result in control actions being taken under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and/ or other Acts including the Food & Drugs Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act. A summary of RM steps already taken is available online here.
Q2: What are the priority issues that remain under the Canadian CMP?
I see three areas which deserve the greatest attention. First, Canada should continue to set clear priorities and to apply tiered approaches to information-gathering and assessment that target the areas of main concern. Ideas under consideration to reduce unnecessary work, and direct the freed-up resources to where they are needed, include: additional Rapid-Screening using recent Inventory Update information to identify more substances “not requiring action at this time”; the systematic identification of polymers of low concern; and matching the complexity of a given assessment with the level of risk involved.
Second, Canada should continue to search out and apply international best practices within a weight-of-evidence based risk assessment framework. This will be particularly important as the CMP moves into a relatively less data-rich environment and addresses substances that are more challenging to characterize or group for assessment (e.g. substances with Unknown or Variable Composition and Biological materials or UVCBs) or that may require the more extensive use of models, and/or novel data sources and assessment techniques.
Finally, I believe Canada must continue to improve engagement of the supply chain, both within Canada and with key trading partners. This will pay dividends by improving meaningful data acquisition and compliance.
Q3: What opportunities exist for Canada and U.S. to cooperate on managing chemicals more effectively?
There are several, in my opinion. The Canada/US Regulatory Cooperation Council is bringing EPA and its counterpart agencies in Canada together to develop a joint process that will allow “companies planning to introduce a new substance in both countries to approach both governments simultaneously”. The process, named the North American Notification Consultation (Nan-C), is being discussed under the aegis of the Canada/US Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC).
The RCC is also bringing the agencies together to collaborate in efforts to align chemical regulatory processes, specifically through the development of common approaches to address emerging risk issues and jointly considering how the use of novel data can inform the assessment of chemicals. Further, they will collaborate in efforts to develop common approaches for regulatory reporting requirements for new uses of chemical substances (Significant New Activity provisions/Significant New Use Rules).
As a side note, well before any Surveys might be launched, CMP typically involves consultation processes that enable companies/sectors to voluntarily provide the government with timely access to the most relevant, available information needed for assessment and/or management of a given substance or group of substances (hazard and exposure data relevant to uses, models, assessment outcomes in other jurisdictions etc.). I believe the U.S. and Canada should work together to take advantage of these processes.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Set to Update Labeling Program
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
U.S. EPA is close to rolling out an update to its Design for the Environment chemical labeling program that has been in the works for nearly a year, a top official said today.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said the agency would release a new logo for the program during a webinar tomorrow.
The voluntary program allows manufacturers to put the label on their products if they use ingredients federal scientists consider less harmful than similar compounds.
"The program has been very, very successful in the institutional and industrial sector, largely because of procurement requirements at the state level or other levels," Cleland-Hamnett told a chemical industry convention here.
The agency has long acknowledged, though, that the program, in use since 1992, has been confusing to consumers -- prompting it to convene a focus group on how to fix the label. That helped the agency narrow its choices to four final designs.
"The agency developed this sort of clip art logo back in the '90s, and it has not been the most effective in the consumer space," Cleland-Hamnett said.
Addressing a previous industry criticism of the program, Cleland-Hamnett said EPA has consulted with the Federal Trade Commission to ensure the labels comply with FTC guidelines regarding environmental marketing claims. American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley last year said he didn't think the labels would pass muster with the FTC (E&ENews PM, March 5, 2014).
During the public comment period last fall, business groups told EPA the labels should minimize unnecessary text and clutter, while avoiding unfounded safety claims.
In a statement, ACC said the Design for the Environment program was still "in need of significant improvement."
"We believe that consumers should be empowered to make fully informed decisions about the products they purchase, including how these products make a positive impact on the health of their families and the protection of the environment," the trade group said. "But we believe the DfE labeling program is in need of significant improvement. For instance, sustainability programs work best when they take a full range of environmental attributes into account, and it's important that product logos aren't confusing or misleading to consumers. We're concerned that, in addition to other issues, the DfE labeling program falls short in both of these areas."
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Sets More Stringent Goal For Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has changed its public health goal for perchlorate in drinking water from 6 parts per billion to 1 ppb, based on recent research involving the effects of perchlorate on infants.
Announced in a Feb. 27 regulatory notice, the new target marks the first step in a process that could lead to a stricter drinking water standard for perchlorate.
California's maximum contaminant level of 6 ppb was adopted in 2007, based on the OEHHA's prior public health goal for perchlorate set in 2004. There is no federal drinking water standard for the chemical.
State law requires the OEHHA to establish public health goals based solely on public health considerations. The drinking water standards, called maximum contaminant levels, are set by the State Water Resources Control Board and must be set as close to the public health goals as is economically and technologically feasible, but the emphasis must be on protecting public health.
Perchlorate can interfere with the ability of the thyroid to absorb and process iodide, a nutrient essential to brain development, growth, heart function and other systems, the OEHHA said.
Used in air bags, rocket fuel, munitions, fireworks and other explosives, perchlorate has leached into groundwater supplies across the U.S. Perchlorate also occurs naturally in the environment.
The chemical has been found in hundreds of water systems throughout California, according to state data.
Studies by the OEHHA and others have found infants and fetuses may be particularly susceptible to perchlorate or any alteration in thyroid hormone production.
Reflects Infants' Susceptibility
“This updated public health goal reflects infants' increased susceptibility to the health effects of perchlorate,” OEHHA Director George Alexeeff said in a written statement.
Specifically, the target incorporates new data on how much water infants consume per kilogram of body weight, and it considers infants' intake of perchlorate from formula reconstituted with tap water, the OEHHA said.
The OEHHA launched this process to upgrade the perchlorate goal in 2011 based on studies showing even low levels of perchlorate can affect infant health (07 DEN A-8, 1/11/11).
As with the agency's 2004 public health goal, this target considers exposure to all sources of perchlorate, including food. But, the lowered goal “does not suggest any food is unsafe or that the public should change its dietary habits,” the OEHHA said.
Water Agencies, Industry Criticize Plan
In written comments, water agencies and industry groups were critical of the OEHHA's proposal to lower the public health goal for perchlorate, some even arguing the agency “cherry-picked” studies and peer-reviewed research to support its conclusions for lowering the public health goal.
The American Chemistry Council, the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association were among the groups critical of the OEHHA's analysis and conclusions.
Jessica Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a Feb. 27 blog posting that California's lowering of the perchlorate standard “should push [the Environmental Protection Agency] to move forward with a national enforceable drinking water standard that is no higher than 1 ppb.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Support for Bill to Ban Chemicals in Children’s Toys
Mar 3, 2015 | Capital
By Scott Waldman
Legislators have re-introduced a bill to keep chemicals out of children's toys.
The Child-Safe Products Act died in the Senate last year, but it had an unusually large, bipartisan base of support, including more than 40 Senate co-sponsors.
The bill easily passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly, but was never brought to the floor of the Senate—where it would only have needed 32 votes to pass—by Republican-Independent Democratic coalition leaders Dean Skelos and Jeff Klein after intensive lobbying by the chemical industry.
Supporters of the bill said Monday that this year is different.
“We're going to have as many co-sponsors as possible,” said Republican senator Phil Boyle of Long Island, one of the sponsors. “This legislation has to be a priority.”
Last year, lobbyists pressured Senate Republicans with the argument that passage could cost the state jobs because it would shut down some manufacturers if their products are banned. Lobbyists staked out legislators outside the Senate chamber for days at the end of session to ensure the bill never made it for a vote.
The bill would require manufacturers to phase out certain chemicals used in children's products, including benzene, lead, mercury, arsenic and molybdenum. Under the proposal, the state would create a list of priority chemicals that must be phased out and require manufacturers to label toys if those chemicals are used. Despite lobbyists' claims that jobs in New York would be lost, many of the products the bill would regulate are made in China.
And while the bill was sponsored by some of the Legislature's most liberal and conservative members last year, it has a distinct advantage this year: the backing of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has included support for the measure in his budget proposal.
“This law embodies a practical, precautionary approach to reducing exposure of children and other vulnerable populations to harmful chemicals,” administration officials wrote in the book accompanying the governor's budget proposal.
The American Chemistry Council spent about $350,000 to fight against a variety of bills, but has paid particular attention to the Child Safe Products Act.
But this year, for the first time, the bill can also boast some measure of industry backing. Seventh Generation, the Vermont-based eco-friendly products company, is supporting it after getting similar legislation passed in Vermont, said Martin Wolf, the company's director of sustainability and authenticity. He said the company will assist New York's advocacy groups with strategy and campaigning.
Advocates are starting early to increase attention and support, to create momentum behind the legislation, said Assemblyman Steve Englebright, a Democrat from Long Island and chair of the environmental conservation committee.
“This died in the Senate in part because we also ran out of time,” he said. “We've also run out of excuses.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Keny-Guyer Hoping Fourth Time a Charm for Toxic-Free Kids Act
Mar 3, 2015 | The Lund Report
By Chris Gray
Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer rolled out her Toxic-Free Kids Act for the fourth time in her four years as a legislator from Southeast Portland on Monday, and this time around, the increased Democratic majority may be what it takes to put one of her flagship issues into law.
“Scientific evidence links certain chemicals to an epidemic of disorders,” Keny-Guyer told the Senate Environment and Natural Resource Committee in the public hearing on Senate Bill 478. “Parents don’t know if the teething ring they put in their child’s mouth or the rubber duckie they put in their child’s bath … contains dangerous chemicals.”
Senate Bill 478 will require children’s products manufacturers with sales of more than $5 million to disclose to the Oregon Health Authority any use of 66 hazardous chemicals, which will be published on a state website. The company will then be given six years to phase out that chemical or receive a waiver indicating that the chemical as used is safe, either because it cannot be transferred to the child, or because the concentration is diluted enough to be deemed safe.
As Sen. Alan Olsen, R-Canby, pointed out in a series of questions to supporters of SB 478, dental amalgam contains mercury and vaccines contain formaldehyde, but both in low concentrations that studies have shown to be safe. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, formaldehyde is used in vaccines to deactivate bacteria or a virus like polio. The concentrations in the vaccine are lower than what the body naturally produces.
The legislation is modeled after a 2008 law in Washington state, but Senate Bill 478 aims to do something the Washington law fails to do -- guarantee that the replacement chemical in a child’s product is less hazardous than the chemical being replaced.
Carol Kraege with the Washington Department of Ecology held up a child’s shoe that her department found to be loaded with phthalates, chemicals found to interfere with a child’s endocrine system, which regulates hormones, including testosterone and estrogen. The manufacturer quickly pulled the item from stores, but Kraege told The Lund Report that she had no idea what replaced the phthalates -- since that information is considered proprietary.
Predictably, SB 478 is opposed by the American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association, which said that Oregon should defer to Congress on any new regulation.
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, swatted away this argument. "They have been working and working and working on it. It's been years, and I see no action, just talk," he said. "The federal government is not doing this, and we need to stand up for the citizens of our state and the infants and children."
“If we believed that the chemicals we were making were harmful for their intended use, we wouldn’t be making them,” said Tim Shestek of the American Chemistry Council.
But Shestek’s testimony strained credibility as it was said despite ample evidence that some toy manufacturers have been flooding the United States with harmful products from China. The authors of the federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which banned lead in children’s toys, found that the toy companies were selling lead toys right under their nose, in the Congressional gift shop. The federal law is limited because it only bans lead and a handful of phthalates. It does not cover cadmium, formaldehyde, BPA or all phthalates.
Cadmium for Lead, BPS for BPA
Almost immediately after lead was banned, toy companies started replacing the element with cadmium, a heavy metal element which the Centers for Disease Control lists as the seventh-most dangerous substance found in the environment. Tests conducted on behalf of the Associated Press in 2010 found that some children’s jewelry sold at Wal-Mart contained up to 91 percent cadmium by weight.
With a budget of only $800,000, Kraege said the Washington Department of Ecology has never tested products for cadmium, although it plans to do so. All the data collected by the department from manufacturers is self-reported and accepted on the honor system until the state can test otherwise.
In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the estrogen-mimicking Bisphenol-A, or BPA in baby bottles. Manufacturers replaced it with Bisphenol-S, which is not safer. According to Scientific American, the chemical companies using these plastic additives won a lawsuit against scientific researchers who had revealed that their chemicals could leach into humans despite marketing campaigns that claimed otherwise. The lawsuit didn’t overturn the research; it merely led to more thorough studies that confirmed that BPS leaks into animals and disrupts hormones.
No federal agency tests new chemicals before they are put on the market, and the burden of proof lies on the consumer to prove that something is dangerous -- not the manufacturer to prove that something is safe.
Chemistry Council Funds Campaigns
The Toxic-Free Kids Act lost a chief Republican sponsor when Rep. Jason Conger, R-Bend, left the Legislature in a failed bid for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate. But the bill picked up another Republican sponsor -- Rep. Mark Johnson of Hood River. Rep. Johnson is one of two remaining Republicans from the six who voted for a similar bill when it passed the House floor in 2013, the other being Rep. Julie Parrish of West Linn.
The bill that year died in the Senate after sponsoring Sen. Brian Boquist, R-McMinnville, pulled his support for the bill and conservative Democratic Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose, joined a united Republican caucus to block the bill, which died without a floor vote.
According to campaign finance records, Sen. Johnson has received $2,500 from the American Chemistry Council, the chief opponent of the Toxic-Free Kids Act, over the past 2.5 years. Boquist received $1,500. The chemical lobby has also recently given $1,000 to moderate Democrat Sen. Arnie Roblan of Coos Bay and Conger’s replacement in the House, Rep. Knute Buehler, R-Bend.
But with an additional two Democrats in the Senate in 2015, including Sen. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, who has co-sponsored the measure, Sen. Johnson’s ability to derail the legislation this year will be blunted.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Group Launches Defense Of BPA
Mar 3, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council announced an ad campaign highlighting recent evaluations of bisphenol A as "safe."
The ads—running in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and on consumer, news and health websites—urge readers to "listen to the science" on BPA, a synthetic compound found in many plastics and resins.
The chemical industry trade group cites findings by the European Food Safety Authority that BPA poses "no health risk to consumers of any age group," as well as a recent “unambiguous” response from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration affirming that BPA is safe.
"Together, the EFSA and FDA reviews show that today's consumer products that rely on BPA are safe," the ads state.
EU regulators said high doses of BPA could have negative health impacts, but the report concluded current exposure levels—from food packaging, dust, cosmetics and thermal paper—remained well below the chemical's "tolerable daily intake."
And although the FDA has banned BPA in baby bottles since 2012, the agency has not taken action to more broadly restrict use of the chemical.
Scientific studies, however, haven't been as kind, linking BPA to a range of physical and behavioral problems. Several U.S. states have taken action to further regulate the use of BPA in recent years, and plastics manufacturers have responded to consumer concerns with an increasing range of "BPA-free" products.
Many of those manufacturers utilize an alternative chemical called BPS, which researchers say mirrors the endocrine-disrupting effects of BPA and could have many of the same health concerns. -
EPA Exploring Chemicals Review Program Efficiency
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency has begun to examine whether there are new technologies or modified procedures it could use to streamline its reviews of chemicals that manufacturers would like to make, the director of the agency's chemicals office said March 3. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said during a chemicals conference in Baltimore that resource limitations at EPA and other federal agencies have prompted the office to explore whether it could make its new chemicals review program more efficient. Cleland-Hamnett invited chemical manufacturers to share their ideas for improvements with EPA staff as they work through a new chemical review. The review is largely an internal exercise, but if it identifies important procedural changes that change what chemical manufacturers would need to do or could expect from the agency, the EPA would publicly discuss those changes, she told Bloomberg BNA after her presentation.
-
Running Start on TSCA Changes Crucial This Year -- Industry Groups
Mar 4, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
After Congress failed to pass an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 last year, making progress on the issue is crucial this time around -- if politics don't derail lawmakers' work, chemical industry officials said during a three-day convention here yesterday.
"We are on the cusp of bringing our country's nearly 40-year-old chemicals management law into the 21st century," said Michael Walls, the American Chemistry Council's vice president of regulatory and technical affairs.
Industry leaders were optimistic about the previous bills' chances at the annual GlobalChem conference -- sponsored by the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates -- last year, with analysts predicting the bill's passage and ACC President Cal Dooley noting that there was "no guarantee that we could see a bill of similar depth, scope or breadth of compromise appear again in the future."
Ultimately, though, the details of the proposals were too much for divided lawmakers to overcome -- especially with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who opposed the industry-backed bills, leading the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Many of the same stumbling blocks remain -- and to have a chance at becoming law, this year's plan "has to be a bipartisan bill," said Mark Duvall, a partner at the law firm Beveridge & Diamond.
A more marginalized Democratic opposition could pave the way for updates to the decades-old law, though Congress will need to act on the issue before Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)'s gubernatorial campaign heats up in the fall, Duvall said.
"His interest in pushing TSCA legislation is going to be limited after the summer," Duvall said, and if the process drags out long enough, Republican lawmakers will become distracted by the eventual 2016 presidential campaign.
The biggest stumbling block remains devising under what circumstances the new federal law should be able to override state protections. Lawmakers also did not clearly resolve how EPA should receive funding for the additional responsibilities that would be created under a stronger chemicals law -- whether it would be from user fees, a tax or some other source.
Though industry is unlikely to line up behind a requirement pushed by Boxer that EPA verify that chemicals provide "reasonable certainty of no harm," Duvall said, it may be possible to find a middle ground -- such as removing EPA's ability to pre-empt state restrictions when it designates a chemical as a low priority and using last year's proposal by Vitter and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) as a starting point for further negotiations.
Other possible compromises include inserting legislative language exempting specific state programs, such as California's Proposition 65 chemical warning program, which could ease some Democrats' qualms about the changes, Duvall said.
Pre-emption of state laws was "a must-have for industry support," Duvall said. "There simply will not be TSCA legislation passing Congress without a significant pre-emption provision."
-
DOE Seeks Waste Treatment, Disposal Proposals
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management is seeking proposals from companies interested in treating, disposing of, managing reuse of and helping craft release limits for low-level and mixed-low level waste. Those waste products would include polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos and other waste covered by the Toxic Substances Control Act. Proposals are due April 7, and any resulting contracts will be for five years. Additional information is available at http://www.emcbc.doe.gov/SEB/llwmllwtreatment.
-
California to Classify Styrene as Carcinogen
Mar 3, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
California regulators intend to list styrene under the state's Proposition 65 as a chemical known to cause cancer.
The state Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment filed a notice of intent to list styrene last week, citing a 2011 report by the National Toxicology Program classifying it as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."
Styrene is used primarily in the production of polystyrene plastics and resins, and occupational exposure can occur in polystyrene factories and in the reinforced plastics industry. Exposure by the general population generally stems from indoor air that includes emissions from building materials, consumer products or tobacco smoke.
Should the chemical be listed under Proposition 65 — the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act approved by voters nearly 30 years ago — businesses would be required to provide notice about significant amounts of styrene in consumer purchases, in buildings or in materials that are released into the environment.
OEHHA officials are accepting public comments on the proposed listing through the end of March.
Regulators previously filed a notice to list styrene in 2013, but officials withdrew the filing pending the results of federal litigation and a review of the 2011 NTP report.
-
REACH Restrictions Updated for PAHs and Phthalates
Mar 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
An EU Regulation amending the REACH restrictions for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and phthalates was published in the EU Official Journal on 3 March (CW 28 May 2014).
The Regulation replaces the test method required for checking if extender oils, used for the production of tyres or parts of tyres, contain concentration levels of PAHs above those set out in the restriction (No 50 in REACH Annex XVII). It also establishes a transitional period of 18 months (until 23 September 2016), during which both the old and the new analytical methods can be used, in order to give laboratories time to set up and obtain the necessary experience in running the test.
It has removed the outdated reference to the requirement for the European Commission to re-evaluate two entries for phthalates, No 51 on DEHP, DBP and BBP, and No 52 on DINP, DIDP and DNOP, by 16 January 2010. These were completed in 2014 and concluded that no changes to the restrictions were necessary (CW 5 February 2014).
-
White House Selects PHMSA Official As Next Leader of Chemical Safety Board
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The Obama administration tapped the chief counsel for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as the next chairman for the embattled Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, the White House announced March 3.
If confirmed, PHMSA's Vanessa Allen Sutherland would replace Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso. Moure-Eraso's five-year term is set to expire in June.
Prior to joining the Obama administration as PHMSA chief counsel in 2011, Sutherland worked in the tobacco and telecommunications industries. She worked for Altria Client Services, Philip Morris USA, MCI Inc. and MCI subsidiary Digex Inc.
The White House made the announcement on the eve of a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing into management problems at the CSB, including alleged abuses of power and whistleblower retaliation (40 DEN A-14, 3/2/15).
Moure-Eraso has faced calls for his resignation since a June 2014 House Oversight hearing. In January, the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General forwarded a report to the White House finding that Moure-Eraso and two top aides violated federal law by conducting agency business on private e-mail accounts (26 DEN B-1, 2/9/15)(119 DEN A-17, 6/20/14).
-
Chemical Board Members at Odds Over Management Woes
Mar 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Robin Bravender
Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso doesn't appear to think the management problems facing his besieged agency are as grave as some of his colleagues do.
According to Moure-Eraso, he's been making strides in resolving problems in his agency after his management came under fire and House lawmakers urged him to resign last year. Other board members, meanwhile, see things quite differently, insisting that management problems continue to plague the agency and serious reforms are needed.
The agency's four board members today will share their varying opinions -- and grievances -- with lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as the panel convenes a hearing titled "Rebuilding the Chemical Safety Board: Finding a Solution to the CSB's Governance and Management Challenges."
Last summer, the committee released a scathing report that pointed to widespread management problems. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle berated Moure-Eraso for allegedly stonewalling outside investigations and creating a "toxic" work environment that prompted experienced employees to leave and further stall important probes. Then-Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) urged Moure-Eraso to resign (Greenwire, June 19, 2014).
According to the chairman's prepared testimony, things have gotten a lot better since then.
"I was humbled by the messages I heard loud and clear during your hearing eight months ago in June," Moure-Eraso wrote. "I took your criticisms to heart."
He added that he has tried to "work closely" with fellow board members and staff to resolve the issues that were raised during that hearing and produced a plan to address the agency's morale problems.
Moure-Eraso, who said he plans to retire in June when his term ends, said he believes he'll be leaving behind a "newly energized agency." He added, "I acknowledge my shortcomings while assuring you that my commitment to the mission of the CSB -- preventing chemical accidents through top-quality investigations and recommendations -- has never wavered for a moment."
One of CSB's newly appointed board members, Manuel Ehrlich, will tell lawmakers that he's been impressed by the work of the board since his confirmation last December. "Organizationally, I am aware of the issues this committee has raised concerning management and governance at the agency," he wrote in his prepared testimony.
"But I would like to take this opportunity to say that I have a high degree of respect for Chairman Moure-Eraso and the work output of the CSB during his tenure. He has been under heavy fire, but I know him as a man whose entire being is dedicated to preventing these chemical accidents and saving workers' lives."
In his judgment, Ehrlich wrote, "it appears that some board members worked with a few career staff to try to curtail the appropriate administrative authority" of the board's chairman, "so the chain of command within the agency is ambiguous." Agency continues to 'deflect and defend'
Two of the board's members will provide a more scathing review of the agency's leadership.
Mark Griffon, who has served on the board since 2010, will focus his testimony on recent actions that he wrote have stripped the agency's governance system "of necessary checks and balances" and a "failure to honor commitments made to this committee" after the hearing last June.
Among his complaints, Griffon will tell the panel that he was troubled by Ehrlich's surprise introduction of a motion at a January meeting that included "fundamentally modifying the governance of the agency," establishing a new board order for scoping investigations and canceling three investigations.
Despite Griffon's opposition, the motion passed in a 2-1 vote, with Moure-Eraso and Ehrlich voting in favor. A fourth board member, Richard Engler, had been confirmed by the Senate but hadn't yet joined the agency. "The urgency of taking up this sweeping motion just prior to Mr. Engler joining the agency has not been explained," according to Griffon's testimony.
And after former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) put forward recommendations to Moure-Eraso to begin to tackle management problems, "These recommendations, which I considered a reasonable starting point toward improving agency management, have not been fulfilled," Griffon wrote. He added, "It is clear that the agency continues to deflect and defend rather than reflect and reform."
Both Griffon and Engler will advocate that the board rescind the motion from Ehrlich, which they say improperly consolidates the board chairman's power.
"Changes are needed to resolve the controversy over CSB governance and the powers of the chair in relation to other members," Engler wrote in his testimony. "The serious engagement of all CSB members in major decisions provides critical checks and balances and would result in the best decisions."
The motion from Ehrlich, Engler wrote, eliminated the role of other board members in deciding budgets, deciding key contracts and approving appointments of department heads.
But Ehrlich will defend his January motion, which he said was aimed at clarifying "any ambiguities about the chair's administrative authority. My motion was about the future of the agency, and the authority and leadership capacity of future chairs."
Ehrlich's motion was perceived by some as an indication that he'd like to become the board's next chairman after Moure-Eraso's retirement.
"It appears Ehrlich was trying to position himself to be chairman," said a source who closely tracks CSB. Obama announces new nominee
In advance of today's hearing, President Obama yesterday picked a Transportation Department official to join the board.
The White House announced that the president will nominate Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel for DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to serve on the five-member board.
Prior to joining DOT in 2011, Allen Sutherland was senior counsel to Altria Client Services from 2008 until 2011 and was counsel to Philip Morris USA from 2004 until 2008. She also previously worked at technology company Digex Inc. and MCI Telecommunications Corp.
She's one of two nominees recently picked for the board. In January, the White House nominated Kristen Kulinowski, a research staff member at the IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute, to join the board (E&E Daily, Jan. 9).
The board already has four Senate-confirmed members filling the five slots, but Moure-Eraso and Griffon are both facing term limits this year. Moure-Eraso has announced plans to retire; it's unclear whether the White House would renominate Griffon, or whether he would seek renomination.
The chemical board has also announced that it's hiring a new managing director.
Daniel Horowitz, who had been managing director of the board, is now listed on the staff directory as senior adviser to the Deepwater Horizon investigation.
Horowitz was one of several top officials at the board who were found to have improperly used personal email accounts to discuss official business, according to an inspector general report sent to the White House in January (E&ENews PM, Feb. 24).
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chemistry Exports Linked to Shale Gas Could Double by 2030, New Report Shows
Mar 3, 2015 | Flow Control
America’s shale gas revolution could lead to dramatic growth in U.S. chemical exports over the next 15 years, according to a new report from Nexant Inc., and sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Gross exports of chemical products, including plastics, linked to plentiful and affordable natural gas are projected to double, from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030. The U.S. trade surplus for the selected chemicals is projected to increase from $19.5 billion to $48.3 billion over the same period, with China, Mexico and other Americas remaining the leading net export destinations.
The report, “Fueling Export Growth: U.S. Net Export Trade Forecast for Key Chemistries to 2030,” provides estimates of annual U.S. net trade volumes for 66 chemicals derived from unconventional oil, natural gas and gas liquids; their expected destinations (countries and/or regions); and their potential trade value. ACC and Nexant focused on the trade outlook for products that are expected to see the greatest trade increases as a result of U.S. chemical production gains from 2010 to 2030. While energy markets are dynamic, the conclusions of the report point to a long-term competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers on shale gas-advantaged chemicals. It’s a follow-up to 2013’s “Keys to Export Growth for the Chemical Sector,” which identified several policy and regulatory changes that could facilitate billions of dollars in new export growth for the industry.“Boosting exports is one of the surest paths to a stronger economy and new jobs,” said ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley. “Even with the recent drop in oil prices, U.S. chemical manufacturers enjoy a distinct competitive advantage in global markets, which will help them ‘grow the pie’ for other sectors of the American economy.” Chemical companies have begun or are planning 223 shale-related projects to date, including eight announced in December, representing a cumulative investment of $137 billion. Fully 60 percent is foreign direct investment.
“Free-market access to advantaged feedstocks and U.S. infrastructure are two key reasons more than half of the announced chemical industry investments are coming from outside the U.S.,” said ACC Chief Economist Kevin Swift. “Few places can offer investors the trio of lower-cost feedstock, reliable infrastructure and a regulatory environment that is moving toward supporting rather than hindering competitive success.”
The new data foretells an even brighter outlook for American manufacturing pending the outcomes of U.S. free trade negotiations that could eliminate trade barriers and expand access to overseas markets. Historic movement toward greater free trade is expected to continue in leading export destinations, which could enable the U.S. to share its shale gas bounty with the world, while cutting down on costs through the reduction or elimination of tariffs and the promotion of greater regulatory coherence.
“Given that net exports of plastics are expected to swell to more than $21 billion in the next 15 years, reducing or eliminating protective tariffs could have a large impact on the overall growth of U.S. net exports,” said Greg Skelton, ACC senior director of regulatory and technical affairs. “By solidifying an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU, we estimate 6.5 percent duties on linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) to Europe could be eliminated by 2017.”
Japan’s inclusion in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a free trade partner also would help eliminate duties on polyethylene, which currently stand at 6.5 percent for trade between the U.S. and Japan. Were China eventually to join the TPP or negotiate a separate free trade agreement with the U.S., chemical manufacturers could potentially eliminate an additional 6.5 percent in Chinese polyethylene tariffs.
Report Key Findings Gross exports of chemicals could double from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion, while net exports are projected to grow from $19.5 billion in 2014 to $48 billion in 2030. On a commodity basis, the biggest driver of the improving U.S. trade surplus will be plastics (reaching $21.5 billion of net exports by 2030, an increase of $15 billion) and specialties (reaching $20.5 billion, an increase of $9.3 billion), with moderate growth in intermediates (reaching $9.15 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion). Regionally, chemicals and plastics will see a significant rise in exports to destinations like China (reaching $11.7 billion by 2030, an increase of $8.7 billion); other Americas (reaching $10.9 billion, an increase of $8.6 billion); Mexico (reaching $13.8 billion, an increase of $5.4 billion); and Europe (reaching $5.4 billion, an increase of $2.6 billion). -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Our Air Isn’t Killing Us,’ One Writer Argues. Oh Yeah. According to Whom?
Mar 3, 2015 | Air Quality Matters
By Alan Kandel
Lois Henry writes for the Bakersfield Californian. At any rate, in “Unchecked science no basis for onerous air rules,” (second article in the grouping), she makes the claim that “our air isn’t killing us,” following up later on in the same op-ed by basically stating that the proof is there to support such a claim, although, according to Henry, when it comes to getting access to the evidence in question, that’s not an option – at least, this is how I understand things.
Wow! And, I thought I had heard (read, actually) everything.
A seemingly resolute Henry who then goes on about the proposed strengthening of existing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ozone standards even going so far as to utter – and in no less than a stern voice to boot – this: “So, when EPA officials bleat about how these rules are needed to save countless lives, my response is ‘prove it.’”
As it relates, the EPA is proposing regulations that have to do with lowering the ozone health standard from the current 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a more health-protective 65 to 70 ppb level. I wonder if the Bakersfield Californian columnist has read the report: “Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” from the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Health and Environmental Impacts Division, which can be accessed by going here. (I, myself, have finished reading about a third of it).
Not that this matter is unimportant, but relates Henry: “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.” (The “local air district” in this case is the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, presumably).
So, regarding these “health study conclusions that no one can check,” who is it Henry is referring to as “no one”? The general public, the air district; who exactly? I don’t believe that information in her editorial was ever disclosed.
Henry in the op-ed goes on to state “I’ve written about the problem of using unverified studies to gin up regulations for years as that’s the standard MO [modus operandi] of the California [Environmental Protection Agency] Air Resources Board (CARB).” Though the Valley has met the EPA’s 1997 ozone standard of 84 ppb ozone, according to Henry, it is nowhere close to meeting the 75 ppb 2008 standard.
Reading a little farther on in the Henry commentary, quoted is American Chemistry Council Communications Vice President Anne Kolton, who said: “‘These new rules would add a whole new level of cost, complexity and uncertainty,’ that could stymie the economy, she said,” Henry wrote in citing Kolton.
Discussion turning to the economy? Why am I not surprised?!
The American Lung Association offered rebuttal, in essence contending that industry for almost 40 years has cried foul and with no ill-effect resulting.
Henry shot back by pointing out that every business, regardless of type, is an ozone emitter, and by virtue of that, a stranglehold could be put on economic growth.
Next up in the discussion is cars. If not emissions-free, they could add considerably to the ozone problem. Henry seems fearful that the proposed EPA rules could limit the amount of driving by motorists or that a mileage fee could be imposed. Would drivers balk? Perhaps not, according to Henry, that is if in instituting these prescriptive approaches lives were saved.
But it was what Henry wrote next that has more than likely caused more than just a few raised eyebrows.
Here is what Henry wrote: “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.” This is backed up by the many examples provided.
What about the physical evidence that people do die from the effects related to toxic air’s inhalation, even if not ozone per se, whether that be short-term or long, is Henry dismissing this?
Once more, I would ask if Henry has read the EPA “Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” report or even parts of it. Documented is study after study after study reporting on research that has been done on ozone as it has to do with health impacts, mortality and morbidity.
And, I would add, if ozone isn’t a problem, why the need to establish any standard at all? I ask: How can pollution (the type that can be readily seen in the air) that, when breathed in, be anything but bad?
Relatedly
Meanwhile, in “Research shows possible Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon exposure-DNA change link,” I wrote: “… Dr. Kari Nadeau, a Stanford University medical school professor with expertise in the areas of allergies and asthma, a few years ago discovered that ‘many of her child asthma patients had abnormally low levels of regulatory T-cells, which are crucial to maintaining a healthy immune system,’ Rebecca Plevin at KVPR (Valley Public Radio) in ‘Is The Central Valley’s Air Pollution Affecting Our Cells And Genes?’ wrote.
“Quite interestingly and importantly, of Dr. Nadeau’s patients, those studied from Fresno, California, not surprisingly, had the greatest regulatory T-cell-function impairment, according to Plevin.
“‘Nadeau then compared the regulatory T-cell function in kids from Fresno – where there’s heavy air pollution – with kids from Palo Alto, where there’s less air pollution,’ Plevin reported.
“Studied as well were Fresno non-asthmatic children. Most astonishingly, perhaps, was that the non-asthmatic Fresno children studied showed lower regulatory T-cell levels than did the children studied who were from Palo Alto who had asthma, according to the KVPR reporter in question.
“If I interpreted what I read correctly, the cause-and-effect here is: the lower the regulatory T-cell level or function, the more suppressed the function of the immune system affected.
“Added Plevin: ‘That means, [Dr. Nadeau] concluded, that exposure to the pollution was possibly causing changes to kids’ DNA.’”
I believe these passages from “Research shows possible Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon exposure-DNA change link,” are not only highly relevant but important enough that they warrant repeating again.
-
House Republicans in No Hurry to Lift Ban On Crude Oil Exports, Vow ‘Thorough’ Review
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House Republicans March 3 again said they are in no hurry to alter current law prohibiting the export of domestic crude oil, with top members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee pledging a “thorough review” before considering whether to make changes to the 40-year-old ban.
“Our existing energy policy was not created overnight, nor will any changes to it happen overnight,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said during a subcommittee hearing. “This will be a thorough and deliberative process, and one in which all affected parties will be heard.”
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the full committee, added in his opening remarks that any change will occur only “after an open review of the current policy.”
The hearing provided interested parties on both sides of the issue one of their first chances to make their case publicly to the committee.
Among the proponents testifying in favor the lifting the ban, put in place in 1975 following the Arab oil embargo, was Scott Sheffield, chairman and chief executive officer of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., a Dallas-based independent oil production and exploration company, who said such a move would lower crude and gasoline prices for U.S. consumers.
Proponents Make Case
“I can promise you that OPEC loves the export ban being in place in the U.S.,” Sheffield said, referring to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. “If you lifted the ban today, I can promise Pioneer would have more rigs, more jobs, more U.S. investment and the other 7,000 [independent producers] would do the same.”
He said a decision by the Commerce Department in 2014 to allow the company to export condensate, a type of ultralight, minimally processed crude oil, allowed the company to fetch $8 more per barrel in exports to Europe, Japan and South Korea.
Separately, ConocoPhillips Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ryan Lance, in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also called for the ban to be lifted, arguing that doing so would “enable surplus U.S. light oil that exceeds U.S. refiners’ processing capacity to sell on the world market.”
Among those who testified before the Energy and Power Subcommittee in opposition to changing the trade prohibition was Graeme Burnett, senior vice president for fuel optimization for Delta Air Lines, which bought a refinery in Trainer, Pa., in 2012 to help the airline manage it's largest expense—jet fuel.
Domestic Refineries Unable to Compete?
“Repeal of current law would mean domestic crude oil producers will have the ability to ship oil to refineries in Europe at a lower cost compared to delivering the same oil to refineries located on the East Coast of the United States,” Burnett said. “This would render domestic refineries, particularly in the Northeast, unable to compete with foreign refineries.”
In February, Monroe Energy LLC, a Delta Air Lines refining subsidiary, formally challenged the Commerce Department's decision to allow the export of condensate, via a formal petition for rulemaking. Monroe Energy said the department should initiate a rulemaking to “make clear the export of crude oil (including condensate that remains a feedstock) is prohibited” and withdraw recent guidance that said processed condensate would be treated as crude (01 DEN A-4, 1/2/15).
Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade association, said it was a “misconception” that existing refineries aren't configured to process more light sweet crude—the primary type of crude being produced from tight formations in the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations.
While Drevna said AFPM does not necessarily oppose lifting the crude oil export ban, such a move should be made as part of a broader “holistic energy strategy,” which should include altering the renewable fuel standard, and the Jones Act—the 94-year-old law that requires vessels shipping oil and other cargo between U.S. ports to be American-built, owned and operated.
Lawmakers Fearful of Future Fallout
Though multiple studies have found lifting the ban on domestic crude oil likely would reduce U.S. gasoline prices by a small amount because it would put more oil into the global market place, lawmakers have been hesitant to offer their full support because they fear they could be blamed if gasoline prices rise in the future.
“If we do this but some other variable raises gasoline prices, people are going to say ‘See what you did?' ” Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said during the hearing. “It's very hard for politicians to explain” to the public.
Although the Commerce Department issued a policy update in January that clarified condensate is not subject to the 1975 oil export ban, Secretary Penny Pritzker told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that the agency has “no plans for a change of policy” on crude exports.
“We're following the law of the land, which is that crude oil is not exportable, petroleum products are,” Pritzker said.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is also planning to examine the crude oil export issue during a hearing scheduled for March 19. Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is among the Senate's biggest proponents of removing the crude oil export ban, which has been receiving a second look as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques have led daily U.S. oil production to soar to more than 9.2 million barrels per day in January, according to the Energy Information Administration.
-
House GOP Treads Cautiously Into Crude Export Debate
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
House Republicans aren’t barreling toward lifting a 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) promised Tuesday that any move by his panel to lift the ban “will only happen after an open review of the current policy,” and he cited the process in the previous Congress to expedite liquefied natural gas permits, which took more than a year to produce a bill.
“We thoroughly studied the potential impacts,” Upton told a hearing in the Energy and Power Subcommittee, and then “acted only after listening to all of the interested parties and concluding that LNG exports would be beneficial for the economy and a net jobs creator, and we passed it in a bipartisan way.”
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who has co-sponsored a bill with 13 fellow Republicans to lift the export ban, complimented Upton for advocating a “deliberative process and keeping an open mind.”
Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone said questions remained on how U.S. gasoline prices would respond to lifting the export ban as well as what the affects would be on refinery capacity and jobs and the environmental impacts from rising domestic oil production.
“This is a very different world than it was in 1973, but I do not believe a clear picture has yet emerged as to what policies we should pursue,” Pallone said.
The energy industry itself is split on whether the U.S. should kill the ban on crude exports that was put in place after the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s, and both sides pushed their arguments at the hearing.
Oil producers have pressed for the ban to be lifted, calling it an outdated policy and citing the surge in domestic oil output that has reached levels not seen in nearly three decades.
“Today, the ban acts only to bar U.S. companies from competing on equal footing in the very global market that sets the prices driving their business,” testified Scott Sheffield, CEO of Dallas-based independent oil producer Pioneer Natural Resources.
Oil companies are hoping to advance the idea this year of overturning the ban on exports, though a push by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for an amendment to January’s Keystone XL pipeline bill that would have killed the ban drew a tepid response from Republicans, who saw the move as premature. Still, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is a proponent of lifting the export ban and could return to it later this year.
ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance told an audience at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday that the export ban was outdated and gave foreign companies an edge over U.S. oil producers.
The production of light shale oil already exceeds U.S. refiners’ capacity, Lance said, which is helping to keep the price of U.S. crude oil about $10 per barrel cheaper than the international price.
“We shouldn’t put U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage by limiting access to global markets,” Lance said.
And U.S. refiners shouldn’t worry about competition for U.S. light oil, he said, suggesting that only the crude oil that they don’t have the capacity to process will be shipped overseas.
The “light oil revolution” in the U.S. “is in the first inning of a nine-inning game,” Lance said. “I tell our refining friends, ‘Don’t worry, there’s going to be enough to refine in your refineries.’”
Graeme Burnett, senior vice president for fuel optimization at Delta Air Lines and chairman of the board of the airline’s refining subsidiary, Monroe Energy, told the House panel that there was no imperative to lift the ban and that overturning it would hurt U.S. refining jobs.
Allowing U.S. exports would enable European refiners to buy cheaper U.S. crude oil, he said, which would “benefit European refinery workers at the expense of thousands of U.S. jobs.”
He argued that the benefit to U.S. consumers from lower oil prices outweighs the pain for oil producers and that because the U.S. is importing less oil, it is already affecting the global energy markets. Burnett also countered the argument that U.S. refiners cannot absorb the rise in domestic oil production as “simply a myth” and said the sector is investing in raising capacity.
Monroe Energy operates Delta’s Marcus Hook refinery near Philadelphia and is part of the anti-export coalition called Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, or CRUDE. It has officially challenged the Obama administration’s decision last spring to permit exports — including by Pioneer — of some lightly processed oil condensate.
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President Charles Drevna sought to broaden the issue, telling the House panel that while the trade association, which represents refiners, does not oppose lifting the export ban, Congress should only do so as part of a broader set of changes to energy regulations. That includes “a suite of anti-free market policies” he said, such as EPA’s renewable fuels mandate and the Jones Act, which requires goods transported by water between domestic ports to be carried on U.S.-owned ships that are crewed and constructed domestically.
Texas Democratic Rep. Gene Green, whose eastern Houston suburban district houses both oil producers and refiners, said the challenge is that “we want the refinery margin, but we also want to keep those folks working in the oil patch.”
“So this is a balancing act,” he said.
There was disagreement at the hearing on whether lifting the crude oil export ban would raise U.S. gasoline prices.
An Energy Information Administration report released in October said domestic gasoline prices would be more affected by the broader global market than by simply lifting the U.S. crude oil export ban.
EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski told the House panel that there will be “two or three more big studies” released in the next two months. That includes one due out in about a month that will look at options for U.S. petroleum refineries to process additional volumes of light sweet crude oil and another in April on the overall impact on refineries of increased U.S. crude oil exports.
Green said waiting for those studies wouldn’t be a problem for Congress.
“Congress doesn’t move that fast, so I think we’ll probably be able to see those studies before we do,” he said with a smile.
-
More Data Needed to Assess Effects Of Fracking on Water Quality, USGS Finds
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
There are not enough data available to assess potential risks to water quality associated with hydraulic fracturing, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study.
Additional data in electronic formats on water acquisition, usage, treatment and disposal or recycling associated with unconventional oil and gas well development and completion are needed, the USGS said March 3.
The study found no widespread and consistent trends in water quality, such as chloride and specific conductance, in areas where oil and gas wells are present, it said.
“We mined the national water-quality databases from 1970 to 2010 and were able to assess long-term trends in only 16 percent of the watersheds with unconventional oil and gas resources,” Zack Bowen, USGS scientist and principal author of the study, said in a statement.
Unconventional oil and gas resources include those that are trapped in tight shale formations underground and are typically produced using horizontal drilling and fracking, which involves high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into wellbores.
No Monitoring Program
Because no national water quality monitoring program is in place that focuses on oil and gas development, the USGS study, published Jan. 30 online in American Geophysical Union's Water Resources Research, focused on existing USGS and Environmental Protection Agency water quality databases and data on fracking to assess trends in oil and gas areas, the survey said.
Comprehensive, published and publicly available information regarding the extent, location and character of hydraulic fracturing and potential effects on regional or national water quality in the United States is scarce, the USGS said.
“We found that these data were often not available or accessible and that these records are not uniform across the U.S.,” the survey said.
-
Company Challenges Well-Stimulation Ban Approved by Voters in California County
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California oil and gas producer has filed a lawsuit challenging the ban on hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation activities San Benito County voters approved Nov. 4 (Citadel Exploration Inc. v. Cnty. of San Benito, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. CU-15-00028, 2/27/2015).
Filed Feb. 27 in California Superior Court, the complaint claims the state Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has exclusive “power and authority to regulate down-hold” oil and gas operations.
Newport Beach-based Citadel Exploration Inc., a lessee of mineral rights in the county, brought the action targeting Measure J, which prohibits high-intensity petroleum operations, including hydraulic fracturing, acid-well stimulation treatments and cyclic steam injections.
The lawsuit, especially if Citadel prevails, could deter efforts underway by environmental advocates to place similar measures on local ballots.
Located south of San Jose, San Benito County has about 20 active oil and gas wells, according to the state. None of the wells is being “fracked.”
Most of the hydraulic fracturing occurring in California is in oil-rich Kern County.
In 2013, the county approved Citadel's thermal recovery test well project at the Indian Oil Field, which the company said yielded positive results for the use of cyclic steam injection for recovering oil.
Measure J and the related implementing ordinance conflicts with state law and would force the company “to submit to an illegal local statutory scheme in order to further explore, develop, and operate the Indian Oil Field,” Citadel said in the complaint.
In November, Citadel sent a letter to the county seeking $1.2 billion in damages due to the diminished value of its property due to Measure J.
Industry Concerned About Implementation
“The entire industry is concerned about the implementation of Measure J, and its implications for the county,” Rock Zierman, chief executive officer of the California Independent Petroleum Association, told Bloomberg BNA in a March 3 e-mail. “Measure J appears to have serious issues. Numerous operators and royalty owners have already sent letters to the county to begin the administrative review process in Measure J. These issues could result in substantial administrative and litigation costs for the county.“
Kassie Siegel, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and one the groups advocating for such bans, told Bloomberg BNA that Measure J “will withstand this and any other legal challenge.
“This lawsuit won't succeed because California law clearly allows for ordinances like Measure J to protect people from all the damages and risks of fracking and other dangerous oil production,” Siegel said. “In this regard, California law is very similar to that in New York state, where the oil industry took their challenge to local bans all the way to the highest court and lost.”
Citadel couldn't be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
-
California Orders 12 Oil-Field Wells Shut to Protect Groundwater
Mar 3, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
California officials, responding to concerns about groundwater contamination, are closing 12 wells in the Central Valley used to dispose of chemical-laden water from oil and gas production, regulators announced Tuesday.
Steve Bohlen, who leads the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, said the wells are being shut down "out of an abundance of caution for public health." High levels of benzene found in fracking waste water
Ten of the wells, including some owned by Chevron, have been closed voluntarily and the companies have surrendered their permits. Two more are being ordered to cease operations.
Federal officials have expressed concerns about the state's oversight of injection wells. Some of the wells are used to dispose of wastewater produced during hydraulic fracturing, a method of oil and gas extraction better known as fracking.
California has about 50,000 underground injection wells, and 2,553 are in areas with aquifers that have been or could be a source of usable water. State regulators have been focusing their review on 176 wells and expect to complete their study in the next three months. cComments Got something to say? Start the conversation and be the first to comment. Add a comment 0
Jonathan Bishop, chief deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board, said there's no evidence yet that drinking water has been affected.
"We are going to be continuing to look at the information," he said.
But Patrick Sullivan of the Center for Biological Diversity said the state's actions fall far short of what's needed.
"It's inadequate, it's ridiculous, it's unacceptable," Sullivan said. "They've allowed decades of injections into these aquifers that should have been protected. Even now, they're still dragging their feet."
The wells are clustered in Kern County, the heart of California's oil and gas industry.
-
Obama Says Keystone XL Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Justin Sink
President Barack Obama said a decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline is possible in weeks or months.
The president told Reuters in an interview March 2 that the decision definitely “will happen before the end of my administration.” Asked to be specific, he said, “Weeks or months.”
The comments came after the president on Feb. 24 vetoed Republican-backed legislation that would have cleared the way for construction of the TransCanada Corp. project, which is opposed by many environmental activists and supported by business and labor groups (37 DEN A-1, 2/25/15).
In a series of local television interviews Feb. 25, Obama voiced skepticism over the pipeline that would carry crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. Gulf Coast, saying it would not create many permanent American jobs.
“Unfortunately, the Keystone pipeline has been hyped a lot by the oil industry, but the fact of the matter is this is Canadian oil being shipped through the United States and creates approximately 250, 300 permanent jobs,” Obama told KMBC-TV in Kansas City.
In a Reuters interview, the president also dismissed concerns that a key provision of his signature health-care law might be overturned by the Supreme Court, saying there was no “plausible legal basis” for that to happen.
Justices are set to hear oral arguments on March 4 over whether residents in states that use the federal health-care marketplace are eligible to receive tax breaks to help them purchase coverage.
‘Straightforward Case.’
“Look, this should be a pretty straightforward case of statutory interpretation,” Obama said.
“If you look at the law, if you look at the testimony of those who are involved in the law, including some of the opponents of the law, the understanding was that people who joined a federal exchange were going to be able to access tax credits just like if they went through a state exchange,” he said.
Obama also criticized moves by China that would require technology firms to provide the government with back door access to software programs. The president said the Chinese government's mandates would be onerous and prevent U.S. firms from doing business in the country. He said he personally has raised his concerns with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Tech Companies
The rules “would essentially force all foreign companies, including U.S. companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they can snoop and keep track of all the users of those services,” Obama said.
“As you might imagine, tech companies are not going to be willing to do that,” he said.
Obama warned that the rules could hurt the Chinese economy over the long term.
Obama also discussed the U.S.-Israel relationship and the killing on Feb. 27 of Boris Nemtsov, a vocal critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Moscow.
“I have no idea at this point exactly what happened,” Obama said of Nemtsov's murder. “What I do know is more broadly the fact that freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of information, basic civil rights and civil liberties inside of Russia are in much worse shape now than they were four or five, 10 years ago.”
He said the U.S.-Israel relationship won't be permanently damaged by a rift with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
-
Republicans Plot Next Steps for Keystone
Mar 3, 2015 | National Journal
By Clare Foran
The ink has barely dried on President Obama's veto of a bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline, but Republicans are already eyeing their next move.
Even the most ardent supporters of the controversial project acknowledge that a Senate vote to override the White House veto slated for Thursday is likely to fail. So pipeline backers are looking past this week's doomed vote and have begun to mull attaching Keystone to an appropriations bill, the transportation reauthorization bill, or broader energy legislation.
"Those of us who think it should pass ... I think are going to look for other ways to deal with this, either on an appropriations process or some other way legislatively," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters.
Republicans have long called for Obama to approve the $8 billion pipeline, which would ship crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Obama has so far not made a final call on whether Keystone should be built but has vowed to veto attempts by Congress to force a decision before the administration's decision-making process plays out.
That threat has not deterred Keystone backers, however.
"We're not going to wait until Obama makes a final decision. If we did, we could be waiting for who knows how long," Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., the author of the recently vetoed bill, said in an interview. "No concrete decisions have been made yet, but whatever we do, we're going to be talking with Democrats to try to find a vehicle that has the best chance of passing."
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has pledged to push broad energy legislation, said that she would prefer not to see Keystone attached to a comprehensive energy package that will be difficult enough to pass as it is.
"I'd rather see us approve Keystone before we get to that," Murkowski said. "There are going to be other issues that will be worthy of debate in the context of broader energy legislation, and I'd rather that we focus on that."
A GOP aide said that no decisions have been made yet on Keystone's Capitol Hill fate but suggested that tying the pipeline to a bill reauthorizing transportation programs, which expire at the end of May, could be the most viable option.
"We think that will come up in fairly short order, and Keystone is an infrastructure project, and that's a bill that should win broad bipartisan support so it would be much harder for the president to veto," the aide said.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said an infrastructure bill would be the "perfect place" for Keystone to come up next, adding that he prefers the pipeline to oil-by-rail transport for safety reasons.
Eight Democrats have so far committed to voting in favor of a veto override later this week: Sens. Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, Michael Bennet, Mark Warner, Joe Donnelly, and Jon Tester. But Republican leaders are still expected to come up short of the 67 votes needed to overcome the White House rebuke. Don't Miss Today's Top Stories
"Regardless of the vote, the fight's not over," Sen. Steve Daines of Montana said on the Senate floor Tuesday, adding: "We must keep the pressure on this administration."Ben Geman and Jason Plautz contributed to this article.
-
New Rules for Oil, Gas Work on Floodplains In Colorado Adopted in Wake of 2013 Floods
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado has adopted a new rule (100, 600 series) requiring remote “shut-in” of new and existing wells and other measures for oil and gas operations on floodplains.
The state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved the new standards March 2. They were developed after major flooding struck northeastern Colorado in September 2013, knocking over tanks and wells and inundating oil and gas facilities in the surging waters.
The nine-member commission unanimously approved best management practices for producers when operating within a floodplain, including a requirement that all tanks—whether new or existing—be surrounded with hard, steel berms instead of earthen barriers.
Capability Required Before Production
Under the rule changes, new wells must be equipped with remote shut-in capabilities prior to commencing production. Remote shut-in capabilities include, at a minimum, the ability to shut down the well from outside the relevant floodplain. Operators must also provide a current and documented plan describing how wells will be timely shut-in as part of their inventory of wells in a defined floodplain.
The rule changes also require critical equipment to be anchored and for exploration and production waste pits to be removed from floodplains.
In addition, operators will be required to establish an inventory of wells and critical equipment located within a floodplain and to register all such wells and equipment with the COGCC by April 1, 2016. Operators also are required to create a formal plan on how they will respond to a potential flood.
The new requirements are effective June 1, 2015, for new wells and equipment and April 1, 2016, for retrofitting of existing equipment, the commission said.
The requirements implement several of the recommendations of the commission's “Lessons Learned” report released in March 2014 following the historic six days of rain and flooding that occurred in the South Platte River Basin.
Several wells and storage tanks were toppled or damaged during the event, resulting in spills of nearly 50,000 gallons of oil and about 43,000 gallons of drilling wastewater into the river and its tributaries (53 DEN A-15, 3/19/14).
Rules ‘Make Sense.’
“Requiring these practices for oil and gas operations within a floodplain makes sense and will ensure environmental impacts are reduced and equipment is further protected should we see another flood event,” Matt Lepore, director of the commission, said in a statement after the rule was approved.
One of the report's recommendations that wasn't included in a draft rule was a proposal that oil and gas facilities be “located as far from waterways as possible and practical.” Lepore said the language was imprecise.
Also, the commission determined it would proceed with a rulemaking focused on the mitigation measures as opposed to facility siting issues, Todd Hartman, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, told Bloomberg BNA March 3.
The decision not to address siting reflects a lack of resolution between the state and local communities over where drilling activities should take place, environmental groups said after the rulemaking. Several groups had pushed for greater local control over floodplain oil and gas development.
Clear Local Authority Seen
“We think it is clear that local governments have authority to regulate development, including oil and gas development, within the floodplain,” Jon Goldin-Dubois, president of Western Resource Advocates in Boulder, told Bloomberg BNA March 3. “This authority allows local authorities to protect water resources within their communities.”
“Adding the expertise of the COGCC to questions of development within the floodplain could be helpful as local governments seek to prevent potentially damaging development in areas that are prone to flooding,” Goldin-Dubois said.
The state's role is bigger than just providing expertise to local governments, regulators said.
Mike King, director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, made it clear that regulation of oil and gas is delegated to the COGCC by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act.
-
Chevron, Linn, Other Drillers Ordered To Shut California Wells on Water Concerns
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael B. Marois and Lynn Doan
California regulators ordered oil drillers including Chevron Corp. and Linn Energy LLC to halt operations at 12 injection wells in the state because of concerns they may taint groundwater.
The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources said 10 of the well operators shut down voluntarily, while two were issued cease-and-desist orders. All the wells are located in Kern County, northeast of Los Angeles, and are within a mile of the surface and 500 vertical feet underground of a water supply, the agency said.
Oil and gas drillers have been using injection wells for more than 50 years to help push hydrocarbons out of the ground. More than 50,000 oil-field injection wells operate in the state, according to the oil and gas division. An extensive shutdown of the wells would threaten the operations of a $34 billion industry that employs more than 25,000 people in the state, based on agency estimates.
The agency said the orders were part of a “systematic statewide review” of injection wells. The state acknowledged that some well injections were taking place in zones that hadn't been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, triggering the evaluation of all 50,000 injection wells.
The order includes three wells operated by Linn Operating Inc., three by California Resources Corp., two each by E&B Natural Resources Management Corp. and Chevron Corp. and one well each operated by Modus Inc. and Western States International Inc. Modus Inc. and Western States International Inc. will receive cease-and-desist orders while the rest voluntarily relinquished their permits to inject.
Community Opposition
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which water and chemicals are injected into rock formations to free oil and gas, is allowed in at least 32 states. California is working on an environmental review of the process, and local communities across the U.S. are mobilizing to stop it. In November, voters in Athens, Ohio; Denton, Texas; and California's Mendocino and San Benito counties passed measures banning fracking.
The state's order follows a review conducted by federal regulators that found “serious deficiencies” in California's oversight of underground injection wells and required the state to come up with a plan that would bring its program into compliance by February 2017.
The agency granted permits allowing oil companies to drill 170 waste-disposal wells into aquifers suitable for drinking or irrigation, according to a February report in the San Francisco Chronicle. The agency later acknowledged some of those permits should never have been granted.
Joint Letter
California's oil and gas supervisor and the chief deputy of the state's water resources control board sent a joint letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Feb. 6 outlining their plans to improve enforcement.
The state oil and gas division posted a list of more than 2,000 permitted injection wells under review because of EPA's request. Units of drillers Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas LLC and Linn Energy account for more than half of the well permits listed.
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act gave the EPA authority to establish a program that prevents well injections from contaminating groundwater supplies. Under the program, the agency approves exemptions on a case-by-case basis for wells that pump into parts of aquifers that aren't being used for drinking water and won't be in the future.
-
Groups Sue Port of Seattle Over Planned Homeport for Shell's Arctic Drilling Fleet
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Four conservation groups sued the Port of Seattle alleging it signed a lease to provide a homeport for Royal Dutch Shell oil drilling operations in Arctic waters without conducting proper environmental review (Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Port of Seattle, Wash. Super. Ct., No. 15-2-05143-1, complaint filed 3/2/15).
The March 2 suit said the port violated the State Environmental Policy Act when it claimed an exemption from SEPA review of the proposed Shell terminal to be operated by Foss Maritime Co. on the grounds that activities at the site would be substantially the same as when it served as a cargo terminal.
“This terminal has always been a container terminal—it has been a container terminal for over 30 years—and that's different than a homeport for Shell's Arctic fleet,” Earthjustice Managing Attorney Patti Goldman told Bloomberg BNA March 3 in a telephone interview. Earthjustice is representing plaintiffs Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, the Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council and the Seattle Audubon Society.
The suit also alleges that the port violated the state Shoreline Management Act because its permit from the city of Seattle—the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit—is for cargo operations at the terminal, and not for use as a homeport.
“In order to have a different use, they needed to get a revision of their permit from the city; but they didn't ask and they didn't get one,” Goldman said.
Shell ‘Confident.’
Shell has spent several years and billions of dollars in a so-far unsuccessful effort to complete even its first exploration well in the notoriously rough waters of the Chukchi Sea.
The U.S. government estimates there may be 23 billion barrels of recoverable oil off Alaska's northern coast.
Environmental groups, which have been seeking to stop Shell's Arctic plans, point to the dangers of oil extraction in the rough seas. In July 2012, a Shell vessel became unmoored and drifted toward the coast in Alaska's rugged Aleutian Island chain.
The suit makes reference to the 2012 incident and “felony violations of environmental laws by the contractor that runs one of the two drill ships” that would come to the Seattle terminal.
In response to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment, a Port of Seattle spokesman said in an e-mail: “The Port of Seattle believes it has complied with all necessary environmental requirements with regard to Foss Maritime's interim use of Terminal 5. We are committed to fully comply with any/all requirements and regulations. In addition, we have received a shoreline substantial development permit exemption from the City of Seattle for this use.”
Suit Said City Didn't Give Notice on Terminal
The suit contends that while the port did receive an exemption to change out the bollards at the terminal docks, it failed to tell the city about the changes in the terminal use.
Shell U.S. spokesman Curtis Smith told Bloomberg BNA in a March 2 e-mail, “We're confident the Port's lease with Foss Maritime meets all legal and regulatory requirements and will withstand further legal review.“
-
New Wyoming Law Certifies Carbon Dioxide Storage
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) has signed a bill (S.F. 84) providing for the certification of the quantity of carbon dioxide stored incidentally in certain oil and gas production activities. The act establishes a new process authorizing the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to issue orders recognizing and certifying permanent underground storage of captured carbon dioxide during enhanced oil recovery operations—the pumping of pressurized carbon dioxide into the earth surrounding an oil well. Under the bill, enhanced recovery wouldn't be subject to existing state laws regulating sequestration of carbon, said state Sen. Michael Von Flatern (R), sponsor of the measure. The measure could affect companies such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Denbury Resources Inc. Wyoming bill S.F. 84 is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=fwhe-9tvsdq.
-
Common-Sense Solutions to Congressional Gridlock
| The Hill - Congress Blog
By Julia Rotondo
With recent revelations that a prominent climate change denier has deep links to corporate interests, Congress must overcome its obsession with the idea of giving equal time to both climate change deniers and legitimate scientists and act to pass new federal comprehensive energy policy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is ten years old and much has changed in the last decade: crude oil had reached $60 per barrel for the first time, hydraulic fracturing was in its early stages, vast reservoirs of natural gas had yet to be discovered, and clean energy technologies provided very little energy to the grid.
Energy is unlike other commercial goods – without reliable electricity America’s economy cannot survive. America’s long-term economic survival depends on our lawmakers to come together to ensure access to electricity is uninterrupted and energy technologies of the future are supported. While the particulars of any federal legislation is difficult to dictate, below are a few key provisions that would lead to long-term success.
Diversify our energy mix. With both natural gas and coal seeing large price changes in the last months, it is the perfect time to be looking to the future with an eye towards long-term sustainability. With no perfect source of energy - conventional sources of energy are vulnerable to the demands of the global market while clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are vulnerable to the weather and climate events – national energy policy should be created that minimizes price shock and maximizes usage of all of America’s resources.
Improve grid access and reduce bottlenecks. Allowing new sources of energy access to the grid is crucial to updating our national energy mix. Even as coal plants are retired in New England, natural gas delivery to the region is hampered by a lack of pipeline. Similarly, congestion in Iowa’s grid due to record sources of wind power have resulted in questions concerning interconnection agreements. Investments in infrastructure and clarifying policy will help move American energy innovation – be it conventional or clean – into reality. With President Obama’s recent veto of the Keystone XL pipeline, comprehensive energy legislation might prove to be the bipartisan measures needed to be passed into law.
Assist older technologies to meet Clean Power Plan Requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan rule seeks to reduce emissions from power plants on a state by state basis. Offering grants to offset the costs of scrubbers and other emission reduction technologies to the oldest and most polluting power plants would help ensure that environmental goals are both met while keeping reliable sources of power in service to ensure base and peak load demands for electricity can be met.
Use what we have - better. Energy efficiency technologies such as combined heat-and-power and co-generation allows for the capture and re-use of byproducts from traditional sources of energy. Rather than allowing these byproducts, typically steam or heat, go to waste, CHP and cogeneration allow companies to put them to use – be it to provide free heat for buildings, provide emergency power generation when the grid is down, or simply lowering their utility costs.
Improve grid resiliency to severe weather events. A 2013 White House report estimated that blackouts due to weather cost the economy between $18 and $33 billion per year. Investments in updating grid infrastructure, installing weather resistant equipment, or strengthening equipment located in weather-susceptible areas will lead reduce the toll of strong weather events on the American public.
Passing a comprehensive energy bill, one that seeks to ensure the reliability and safety of the grid while looking ahead to encourage innovation should be a key item on the 115th Congress’ agenda prior to the 2016 elections.
-
Olson to Offer Two Bills Shortly to Address EPA Treatment of ‘Exceptional’ Air Events
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) in the next several weeks will offer two bills to address the Environmental Protection Agency's treatment of unusual air events, which can open states and utilities to liability under present law, Olson's office told Bloomberg BNA March 3.
First up will be a version of the Commonsense Legislative Exceptional Events Reform (CLEER) Act, which will be introduced March 5. The bill would address how the EPA treats “exceptional events,” which are unusual or naturally occurring incidents that can affect air quality but are not reasonably controllable or preventable.
States and local authorities currently must prove to the EPA that an “exceptional event” caused air quality standards to be exceeded, but critics say the process lacks clear criteria, timelines and the ability to appeal. Examples of “exceptional events” include wildfires and dust storms.
The Olson bill would require the agency to work with states on clear criteria for an exceptional event, set a 90-day deadline for review of submissions, require significant deference to state findings and allow the appeal of EPA determinations in court.
Companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). The Arizona Republican introduced the bill previously while serving in the House. Earlier versions of the bill have not been considered in Congress.
Section 202(c) Orders
The second bill, a new version of the Resolving Environmental and Grid Reliability Conflicts Act, would shield utilities from liability under environmental statutes if they are ordered to boost electricity production by Department of Energy emergency orders.
Melissa Kelly, an aide to Olson, told Bloomberg BNA the bill would be introduced “in a couple of weeks.” Similar versions of Olson's bill have passed the House twice before by voice vote (103 DEN A-1, 5/29/13).
Under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, the Energy Department may issue emergency orders directing power plants to generate additional electricity. Olson's bill would shield utilities from federal, state and local environmental statutes if they are under a Section 202(c) order. That would insulate them from citizen lawsuits, as well as civil and criminal penalties.
Because the Federal Power Act does not specifically exempt utilities from following environmental statutes while under Section 202(c) emergency orders, bill supporters say power plants have occasionally faced local lawsuits for violating environmental rules while obeying Department of Energy orders.
-
Sulfur Dioxide Consent Decree Approved by Court Over Objections by State Air Agencies
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal district court judge approved a consent decree that will allow the Environmental Protection Agency to take a phased approach to making attainment designations under the 2010 national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, despite objections from several state environmental agencies (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 13-cv-3953, 3/2/15).
The consent decree, approved March 2 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, settles a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council over the EPA's failure to make additional attainment and nonattainment designations for the standards.
The agency in 2013 designated 29 areas in 16 states to be in nonattainment, but it delayed its decision on the rest of the country due to inadequate air monitoring.
Under the agreement, the EPA will promulgate rules making area designations three times between July 2016 and December 2020.
Several state environmental agencies, including North Dakota, Arizona, Kentucky and North Carolina, had alleged the consent decree would violate the Clean Air Act, but the court found the statute doesn't compel the EPA to make unclassifiable designations for the undesignated areas.
Puts ‘Long Overdue' Schedule in Place
Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, said in a March 3 statement that the settlement puts a “long overdue” schedule in place for the EPA to address sulfur dioxide pollution.
An attorney for the states who opposed the consent decree couldn't be reached for comment March 3.
Under the approved consent decree, the EPA will have until July 2016 to make nonattainment designations for areas that have violated the sulfur dioxide standards based on three years of air quality monitoring data and contain stationary sources that meet a certain emissions threshold.
The emissions threshold specified in the consent decree is sources that emitted more than 16,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons of sulfur dioxide and had an average emissions rate above 0.45 pounds per one million British thermal units of heat input in 2012.
2017, 2020 Deadlines Imposed
The agency will have until Dec. 31, 2017, to issue designations for remaining undesignated areas that fail to install an adequate sulfur dioxide monitoring network by Jan. 1, 2017.
The monitoring network specifications are referenced in a May 2014 EPA proposed rule (RIN 2060-AR19) that would require state and tribal air agencies to provide the EPA with data to characterize current air quality in areas with large sources of sulfur dioxide emissions if the areas don't have sufficient air quality monitoring in place.
Finally, the EPA will have until Dec. 31, 2020, to issue area designations for all remaining undesignated areas, which is enough time for areas that install adequate monitoring networks to gather three years' worth of data.
States Opposed Agreement
The court rejected state arguments that the agreement between the EPA and the environmental groups would violate section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, the section that requires the EPA to proceed with area designations no more than three years after a national ambient air quality standard is revised.
The states, in a May court filing, said the phased approach “far exceeds” the Clean Air Act's mandatory deadlines and “reads out” of the law the unclassifiable designation that the EPA is to use when it lacks sufficient information to make a designation of attainment or nonattainment with an air quality standard.
The consent decree also “specifically dictates” the types of sources located in a certain area that the EPA should first consider for designation, which goes beyond merely setting a timetable for EPA action, according to the states.
Binding Schedule Called Appropriate Remedy
The court ruled that in a deadline suit, the appropriate remedy by the court is to set a binding schedule for the EPA to take action, while maintaining the agency's discretion to determine whether an area is in attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable.
The district court also found that the proposed consent decree is procedurally fair, citing both the public comment period opened by the EPA in June 2014 and the settlement negotiations, which the states participated in as intervenors in the litigation.
Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, pointed to comments submitted to the EPA by the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection when asked about the practical effect of the phased approach for area designations.
Five Reasons Outlined
In those comments, filed in response to the proposed consent decree, Nevada outlined five reasons why an unclassifiable designation would be preferable to a delay in the EPA making any designation:
• unclassifiable areas traditionally are treated as being in attainment, meaning that a state wouldn't have to prepare a state implementation plan or require more stringent pollution controls on regulated sources;
• an unclassifiable designation allows states to utilize its resources to deploy monitoring networks near population centers, rather than in rural areas;
• a designation provides certainty for existing and new industries;
• the 2020 deadline for finishing all area designations won't occur until after the EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to reevaluate and possibly revise the national standards for sulfur dioxide; and
• the EPA's proposed data requirements rule for the sulfur dioxide standards seeks to use modeling, which Nevada described as a predictive tool that isn't appropriate for making area designations.
-
Reversing EPA's Spruce Mine Restriction Is Target of McKinley Dredge-and-Fill Bill
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) has introduced a bill that would negate the Environmental Protection Agency's January 2011 “veto” of a dredge-and-fill permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia.
Introduced March 2, the bill (H.R. 1203) would bar the EPA from altering or vetoing a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued the permit. The corps runs the Section 404 permit program, and the EPA has oversight authority.
“This action creates uncertainty for any business that needs a permit for its operations—not just coal but manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and many others,” McKinley said regarding the EPA's authority to alter permits after the corps has issued them. “I will continue to fight this gross abuse of power and return certainty to permitting so businesses can create jobs.”
McKinley's bill is the third introduced this session that would limit the EPA's authority to restrict or alter permits for disposal sites in wetlands, streams and other water for dredged or fill material (31 DEN A-2, 2/17/15).
Previous Vetoes Targeted
The new bill, however, also would apply retroactively to permits that were altered after the corps had issued them, including the Spruce mine in Logan County, W.Va. The EPA issued restrictions in January 2011 for certain Spruce mine disposal sites that the corps had approved in January 2007, when it issued the mine's permit.
The EPA restrictions on the Spruce mine are being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appellant brief is due April 13 (Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., Docket No. 14-5305, 12/9/14; 230 DEN A-1, 12/1/14).
McKinley's bill has been referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, has said he will hold a hearing on his own bill (H.R. 896) that also aims to limit this EPA authority, although it has not been formally announced or scheduled (32 DEN A-1, 2/18/15).
Hearing Unclear
In response to Bloomberg BNA's message asking whether McKinley's bill would also be taken up at that hearing, Gibbs said, “Rep. McKinley and I share the same concerns regarding the EPA and their enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Last Congress, I was a cosponsor of his preemptive veto bill and I introduced a bill focusing on the retroactive veto threat and discussed aspects of his legislation in a hearing in my subcommittee. The enforcement of the Clean Water Act remains a top priority of mine as the Committee considers the subcommittee's hearing schedule and topics.”
-
Coal Industry Urges Supreme Court To Reverse CWA Permit 'Shield' Ruling
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Coal industry groups are urging the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court's decision that limited a Clean Water Act (CWA) “shield” against legal liability under a general permit for stormwater, arguing the ruling conflicts with another appellate decision and sets a precedent that would undermine certainty for dischargers and regulators alike.
In a March 2 petition for a writ of certiorari, the coal firm Aurora Energy Services and the Alaska Railway Company say the high court should reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling in Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), et al. v. Aurora Energy Services, LLC, et al., which held Aurora liable for releases of solid coal from its Seward, AK, loading facility on the grounds that the general permit's list of allowed discharges did not include coal.
“The Ninth Circuit holding ignores the statutory mandate that a permittee in compliance with its permit is not liable under the Clean Water Act, even for discharges not explicitly covered by a permit. Thus, contrary to the other circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit leaves permittees exposed to liability, even when both they and the permitting authority agree that no further permitting is required,” the petition says.
And it continues that the 9th Circuit ruling is in conflict with a later decision by the 6th Circuit, which appeared to adopt a more lenient test for determining when permit holders can be sued or otherwise face enforcement action for discharges not addressed in their permit terms.
Under the CWA, a permit holder is not liable for discharging pollutants within the limits set by a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit -- a provision commonly known as the "permit shield." But environmentalists and EPA have lately pressed courts to narrow the conditions where the shield protects dischargers that release pollutants not specifically addressed in their permits.
In ACAT, a unanimous panel 9th Circuit held that the terms of EPA's multi-sector general permit (MSGP) only protects facilities from liability for discharges of stormwater, with a short list of explicitly enumerated exceptions for non-stormwater releases that does not include coal spillage. Therefore, the court said, Aurora was liable for its discharges of coal.
But industry argues in the March 2 petition that EPA “clearly” was aware of coal spillage at the Seward facility when it granted permit coverage, thanks to inspections performed by state and federal regulators years before, and tacitly acknowledged that those releases were allowed by the permit. Therefore, it says, the decision sets a precedent for ignoring similar facts in other cases.
“Rather than placing responsibility on the permitting authority to specifically call out and restrict those disclosed discharges that require permit limits, the Ninth Circuit approach holds permittees liable for all discharges not affirmatively discussed in the permit, regardless of the agency’s contemplation at the time the permit was issued,” the petition says.
It continues that the 9th Circuit's approach to permit construction “treats the terms of the permit as changeable, and thus deprives permit holders of any certainty regarding their operations,” as well as allowing courts to ignore the permit writers' intent.
Legal Precedent
At issue is the application of the landmark 4th Circuit decision in Piney Run Preservation Association v. County Commissioners of Carroll County, MD. There, the 4th Circuit said a permittee's discharge of a pollutant does not violate the CWA provided that the express terms of the permit are obeyed and the pollutant was "within the reasonable contemplation" of the regulator at the time the permit was granted.
At the time ACAT was decided, there had been no rulings to clarify how the test applies to the general permitting process, where facilities can apply for coverage years after a permit was written. ACAT was seen as an opportunity for a court to give that clarification, but the 9th Circuit instead ruled based on the language of the MSGP rather than a “reasonable contemplation” analysis.
But the cert petition says the appellate court's decision nonetheless conflicts with the 6th Circuit's Jan. 27 ruling in Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, which applied the Piney Run test to a general permit and ruled for industry. That court held that mining company ICG Hazard's compliance with a CWA general permit shields it from citizen suit enforcement, even though the mine's discharges exceeded water quality standards for selenium.
The 6th Circuit ruling said that even though regulators were unaware of circumstances at the specific mine at issue, when they crafted the permit, the state “knew at the time it issued the general permit that the mines in the area could produce selenium," the ruling says.
However, Senior Judge Gilbert S. Merritt Jr. in a dissenting opinion in the 6th Circuit ruling said the decision “turn[s] the Clean Water Act on its head" by giving effect to a permit on the grounds that it "tacitly authorizes toxic discharges of selenium” in excess of state standards.
Industry in the March 2 petition seeks to counter that argument as well by invoking a 2013 decision by the 7th Circuit, Wisconsin Resources Defense Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., which held that the mining firm could still invoke the permit shield even if state regulators erred in issuing the facility's NPDES permit. “Applied to this case, the Seventh Circuit holding would instruct that, regardless of how one parses the language of the Multi-Sector Permit, the permitting agency’s determination that the Facility is covered would be sufficient to shield the permit holder from Clean Water Act liability. Said otherwise, EPA’s authorization of the known discharge of 'non-stormwater' coal would be enough to prevent an attack from a third party” even if that authorization was improper, the petition says.
-
Clean Power Rule on Advisory Council's Agenda
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which advises the Environmental Protection Agency, will discuss a Clean Power Plan rule and other upcoming rulemakings and policies at a March 19 teleconference. The council also will discuss an EPA chemical safety policy, farmworker protection standards, a proposed refinery rule and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, according to a notice to be published in the March 4 Federal Register. The teleconference will occur between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., including a 30-minute public comment period at the end. Individuals must register to attend or to speak at the teleconference by 12 p.m. on March 16. Individuals should register at http://www.eventbrite.com/e/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-nejac-public-teleconference-mtg-tickets-15876483991. The notice is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-04471.pdf.
-
Bishop Talks of Priorities for 2015 Action By House Natural Resources Committee
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski and Rachel Leven
Hearings will get under way in April to begin the work of reauthorizing and potentially reshaping programs on federal land management, according to Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Bishop told Bloomberg BNA March 3 that the committee will be looking at short-term action on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, offshore fisheries management, two programs of federal assistance to counties and schools in rural areas, potential legislation on federal forest management and regulation of natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines that cross federal lands.
The committee also is ready to take action if needed on a pending rulemaking to govern coal mining waste near streams.
The committee work will aim for some essential quick steps but also the possibility of longer-term solutions to chronic problems, Bishop said. He added that the agenda for his committee remains a work in progress, something that may need adjustment after obligatory hearings in March.
The assistance programs important to counties and schools hemmed in by federal lands are the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program and the Secure Rural Schools program, a program that formerly drew much support from timber sales from federal lands.
Energy Legislation May Move
The Natural Resources Committee may play a role in moving a potential package of energy measures that could emerge from the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The measures could address right-of-way permitting and environmental reviews for gas pipelines and electric transmission lines.
Oil and gas companies and some lawmakers have argued that one reason for the recently large amounts of natural gas flaring—the burning off of gas that emerges as a co-product of oil production—is that the federal government is slow to issue permits for pipelines to take gas away from shale oil and gas regions.
“Actually, the rights-of-way issue is something that is personally important to me,” Bishop said.
Another energy issue is the Bureau of Land Management's pending final rule to update regulations governing oil and gas production on federal lands, a rule with a special emphasis on hydraulic fracturing but much broader application as a set of standards to safeguard well integrity.
Bishop said his committee would have to wait to see what emerges in the final rule before deciding whether lawmakers need to intervene.
Creativity Sought on Land-Water Fund
“The Land and Water Conservation Fund has to be reauthorized this year, and I think that's an opportunity to do some exciting things,” Bishop said.
The program, using revenues from offshore oil and natural gas production to fund efforts to protect land and streams, is popular with both parties but routinely underfunded.
The Obama administration, many members of Congress and environmental advocacy groups would like to see the LWCF receive its authorized amount, $900 million a year, rather than the amounts closer to half that total that have been appropriated in recent years (24 DEN A-2, 2/5/15).
Congress can be creative with the program, Bishop said. As an example, he said some of the revenues could be used for PILT, a program that compensates counties where the tax base is starved because so much land is federal and consequently off limits to local taxes and in many areas off limits to commercial activity that might provide local jobs.
Opposes Administration Strategy
The Obama administration is simply interested in using LWCF revenues for purchasing more land to augment federal lands, Bishop said, calling that strategy “small ball.”
For offshore waters, reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act “has to be done very quickly,” he said. An important law to fishing communities and conservationists, it was last reauthorized in 2006 and is supposed to be reauthorized every seven years, but for two years the efforts to revise and reauthorize it have stalled.
Lawmakers representing rural areas in several committees and both houses of Congress have been pushing for action on PILT and Secure Rural Schools.
“We have to come up with a way forward with the PILT program,” Bishop said.
For Secure Rural Schools, “we can look at short-term funding very quickly, but there is still a long-term solution that has to be out there,” he said.
Using Timber Harvest to Fund Rural Schools Program
The possibility of returning to the use of timber harvests to fund at least a large part of Secure Rural Schools was raised elsewhere on Capitol Hill March 3.
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies that there was simply no way that timber harvests large enough to fully support Secure Rural Schools would be sustainable.
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who had asked Tidwell about it, didn't dispute the point and said he wasn't suggesting that logging could entirely fund the program but that it might help with the funding.
Panel Ready for Rule on Mine Waste
Bishop said his committee has “been there, done that” when it comes to the Interior Department's upcoming stream protection rule, which would govern the dumping of coal mining waste near streams.
Bishop said he expects the committee will be able to handle that issue relatively quickly, since the committee has already done the work on the issue.
Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is expected to propose this spring a stream protection rule governing how close mining waste can be dumped to streams. The proposal is highly anticipated by industry and environmental groups, after a 2008 stream buffer zone rule that significantly loosened environmental protections was vacated by a federal court last year.
The stakes are high for the mining industry and environmentalists who are concerned, respectively, about the effect of the rule on mining jobs and the impact of the rule on waterways and wildlife.
Fees Under Consideration
Fees for public use of federal lands also need reauthorization and should be easy to address, Bishop said, but he added that he even expects some push-back on those items.
“I am not going to make any pretension that anything will be a piece of cake,” he said.
Meanwhile, state regulatory authorities hoping for hearings on the reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Lands fee may not see those hearings soon. The program's fee on coal mining is codified under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and expires Sept. 30, 2021.
“It's fair to say that's not a short-term priority, but it's one of those things we'll consider,” Bishop said.
-
White House Threatens Veto of EPA ‘Secret Science’ Bill
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto a pair of Republican bills aimed at changing the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses science to justify regulations.
The first bill would attack the EPA’s use of “secret science.”
In response to common Republican accusations that the EPA is not transparent enough, it would require the agency to publicly release the details of any scientific research that it uses for regulations.
The second bill would reform the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, a panel of independent experts that make recommendations on science, regulations, standards and other subjects to the agency.
The White House argued that both of the bills would prevent the EPA from protecting human health and the environment, and said that President Obama’s advisers would recommend that he veto them.
The first bill, the White House said, would "impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements" that would impede the EPA.
It argued that the EPA sometimes has to withhold scientific information to protect the privacy of test subjects or to hide information that does not belong to the federal government.
The second bill, it said, would keep the administration from getting the best experts to serve on its scientific board.
The House passed both bills last year despite similar veto threats from the White House. The Senate did not take up either piece of legislation.
-
White House Threatens Veto Of House's EPA Science 'Transparency' Bills
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
The White House is threatening to veto two pending House bills that proponents say would bolster “transparency” of EPA's science underpinning its rulemakings and input it receives from its scientific advisers, with the White House warning the bills would undermine advisers' independence and impede the rulemaking process.
Ahead of floor debate on the bills, the White House March 3 issued two Statements of Administration Policy (SAP) saying that if either measure cleared Congress, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bills. Environmentalists including the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) have opposed the legislation, echoing the concerns raised by the administration that it would make it more difficult for EPA to develop rules.
The bills are H.R. 1029, known as the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act, and H.R. 1030, known as the Secret Science Reform Act. Supporters of the measures say it would bolster their long-running push to make EPA's review of data for its major air, water and other rulemakings more transparent to Congress and the public.
Similar measures cleared the House in the 113th Congress but failed to gain traction in the Democratic-led Senate. But the GOP's control of the upper chamber this year could help the new bills' prospects.
H.R. 1029 aims to overhaul the membership of SAB panels, which advise the agency on a host of rules. It would also allow SAB to review EPA risk assessments that underpin regulations, among various other provisions. Backers of the legislation say it would help to ensure the independence of the SAB's members.
But the White House in its SAP on H.R. 1029 says, “H.R. 1029 would negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB. For example, the bill would impose a hiring quota for SAB members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal government as opposed to scientific expertise,” among other concerns about the legislation that prompted the veto threat.
H.R. 1030 would force EPA to use the “best available” science in developing rules and make all data for its rules publicly available. EPA's critics say the legislation would resolve their long-running claims that the agency withholds important data that it uses to justify potentially expensive rules, such as its recent proposal to tighten the agency's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 65-70 ppb.
Veto Threat
The White House's SAP on H.R. 1030 again threatens a veto, saying the bill “could be used to prevent EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating any 'covered action' until legal challenges about the legitimate withholding of certain scientific and technical information are resolved. Provisions of the bill could be interpreted to prevent EPA from taking important, and possibly legally required, actions, where supporting data is not publicly available, and legal challenges could delay important environmental and health protections.”
The SAP adds, “Instead of an overly broad bill that would tie EPA's hands, the Administration urges the Congress to support the Administration's efforts to make scientific and technical information more accessible and regulations more transparent,” citing for example recent EPA efforts to disclose data used in rules.
Ahead of House floor votes on both bills, the LCV sent a March 3 letter to lawmakers urging them to oppose the measures and echoing the criticisms outlined by the administration.
H.R. 1029 “would allow industry participation on the Scientific Advisory Board, while preventing subject experts from being included. Additionally, new burdens imposed on the Board would delay necessary public health and environmental protections,” according to the group's letter. H.R. 1030 “would endanger public health by preventing the EPA from using the best available science. The bill contains favorable exemptions for industry and would severely restrict the health studies that the EPA is able to use by prohibiting the use of peer-reviewed studies with confidential health information. These types of studies are the basis for the best research on pollution’s effects on people,” LCV wrote.
-
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Conor Lynch
This past week, everyone’s favorite bible citing climate change denier from congress, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), proved once and for all (in his mind) that global warming is indeed a hoax cooked up by the liberal media and those elitist climate scientists. In a nice and simple fashion that everyone could understand, he packed up a big snowball from the cold Washington street and brought it in to show the congress how “unseasonable” it was outside, clearly discrediting that whole warming thing.
The media and blogosphere immediately (and rightfully) jumped on this idiotic display of arrogance, but unfortunately, this kind of reasoning is extremely popular around America, not only for climate change, but for science in general.
It is this sort of inability to grasp the reality of time that infects so much of America, particularly fundamentalist Christians. There is a similar kind of misconception when it comes to evolution. Some are convinced that evolution is false because they’ve never seen a monkey give birth to a human, or that monkeys are still around. ‘How could we have evolved from monkeys if they still exist?’ they ask, with either an incredible ignorance or an insidious dishonesty.
This sort of reasoning may arise from the belief that the earth was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, which about four in ten American’s believe. If one is convinced that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, than surely evolution, which takes hundreds of thousands of years, is incompatible with their beliefs.
This inability to grasp the true nature of time causes mass confusion in the area of climate change as well, as Inhofe proved with the snowball stunt. This is one of the most uniformed and popular arguments against global warming; that the local weather hasn’t changed much. According to 2014 polls done by the Public Religion Research Institute, about 26 percent of American’s believe there is no solid evidence for global warming, and the most frequently cited reason for this belief was that they have not “noticed any change in the weather around them.” This is where time comes in. Many people simply do not understand the difference between weather and climate, which is a measure of time.
Climate is the long-term pattern of weather over many years or decades in particular areas. So when one is talking about climate, they are talking about the averages of temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind velocity, etc, over the span of many years. Weather, on the other hand, is the short term changes of the atmosphere, meaning minutes to months. We always know that when winter comes around (on the east coast at least), we are in for a very cold few months, because the history of climate tells us. However, whether we will be getting many feet of snow, like previous years, is unsure.
Weather in the short term can be challenging to predict accurately, as many in New York City experienced a couple months ago, when mayor deBlasio nervously shut down streets for “historic” snowfall only to get a few inches. Climate is all about averages. If the weather changes ten degrees from one day to the next, its no big deal, but when the global climate changes a few degrees, it can have far-reaching consequences.
So when Inhofe rolled up that snowball to prove global warming is a myth, he was simply proving what climate averages tell us about Washington DC. According to US Climate Data, the average low temperature for Washington during February is 28 degrees Fahrenheit, which means that, contrary to what Inhofe said, the freezing weather outside was actually quite seasonable.
As human beings, we instinctively look at the world through our senses, but as reasoning and thinking individuals, we understand that our perception is extremely limited in processing reality. However, fundamentalists like Inhofe embrace their senses as the true determinants of reality, and if they cannot see something like evolution or climate change, well, it must be false. This is not how science works. Obviously no one expects Inhofe to suddenly start reasoning like a scientist, but as the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, one expects him to take the word of scientists seriously and stop deluding the populace with the false notion that weather and climate are one in the same. This petty exhibit of ignorance shows what a national embarrassment Inhofe is, and should give caution to American voters next time they vote for the Republican party.
-
Cantwell to Introduce Crude-by-Rail Bill; First on Tank Car Standards This Session
Mar 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Members of Congress are concerned that the final Transportation Department office's rule governing crude-by-rail transport may not resolve the most important related-safety issues, and at least one lawmaker is prepared to act.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) March 3 said she wants more stringent shell and DOT-111 tank car phase out timelines in the rule and is introducing a bill to make those requirements a reality. Meanwhile, seven representatives want the department to issue a separate rule with stabilization requirements for the transport of crude oil, a type of requirement not addressed in the proposed rule.
All of these lawmakers want the rule from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the office within DOT, to be finalized quickly.
“We're not moving fast enough, and I think the uncertainty in the market place over the last decade has not kept pace with the volume of traffic that we are seeing now,” Cantwell said March 3 at a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing. “So I look forward to seeing your rule, but we are going to come out for tougher standards.”
Capitol Hill in Waiting
There has been increasing talk on and off Capitol Hill calling for faster action by the administration in finalizing the rule proposed by PHMSA. However, lawmakers generally have said they would wait to see the final rule before acting.
Cantwell's bill would be the first this session to take a definitive stance on what constitutes appropriate tank car standards. Tank cars are one portion of the comprehensive strategy proposed within PHMSA's rule to make transportation of certain flammable liquids more safe.
Cantwell's bill would require trains for this type of transport to have a thicker “hull”—also known as a shell—and would require a quicker phaseout of older DOT-111 tank cars than the rule proposed by PHMSA, Cantwell said at the hearing.
Older DOT-111 models have been called inadequate by federal safety officials for this type of transport for years and have been associated with several high-profile crude-by-rail derailments, including one in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that resulted in 47 deaths. CPC-1232 tank cars that are newer have also been associated with derailments, including the recent West Virginia derailment of a train carrying more than 3 million gallons of crude oil (37 DEN A-3, 2/25/15).
Tank Car Shell Thickness Concerns
Notably, Cantwell said the least stringent option proposed in the PHMSA rule that would retrofit CPC-1232 tank cars wasn't stringent enough. Under this option, the shell would be at least 7/16 inches thick, while under the other two options, the shell would be at least 9/16 inches thick.
“I see loopholes in this current policy,” Cantwell said. “If one of the three options is adopted, basically we're going to have the same cars that are relevant to what we have on the tracks today, and that's unacceptable.”
The PHMSA rule is under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (RIN 2137–AE9). It's expected to be finalized in May (26 DEN A-3, 2/9/15).
A spokesman for Cantwell told Bloomberg BNA no introduction date has been announced.
Addressing Volatility
Meanwhile, seven California Democratic representatives urged Sarah Feinberg, the Federal Railroad Administration acting administrator, and Timothy Butters, the PHMSA acting administrator, not to weaken the proposed rule and to address volatility concerns for crude oil transport.
Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.), along with five other lawmakers, said they have heard a revision is under consideration that could delay how long companies will have to comply with safety guidelines such as retrofitting or upgrading tank cars. Weakening the rule “would be ill-advised,” the lawmakers said in a letter released March 3.
The lawmakers Feb. 27 also called on the federal transportation officials to issue a separate rulemaking requiring crude oil to be stabilized before it's transported by rail. Taking out the most volatile parts of Bakken crude oil before it's transported would make it safer to move this crude, the lawmakers said.
Other Democrats from California who signed onto the letter include Reps. Barbara Lee, Mike Thompson, Jared Huffman, Eric Swalwell and Mark Desaulnier.
-
Cantwell Plans Crude-By-Rail Safety Bill
Mar 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said yesterday that she plans to introduce legislation requiring stronger standards for oil-carrying rail tank cars than the Obama administration is currently pursuing.
"We are not moving fast enough," Cantwell told Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx at a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing. "I look forward to seeing your rule, but we are going to come out with tougher standards."
The bill will support thicker car hulls, Cantwell said. A spokesman for the senator later declined to specify when the legislation would be introduced but in an email added that it would set "an aggressive timeline" for phasing out the puncture-prone DOT-111 tank cars, provide funding for training first responders and force railroads to disclose information about oil shipments running through communities.
Yesterday's exchange could also be read as the latest display of congressional impatience with the pace of the Transportation Department's rulemaking in the crude-by-rail arena, particularly after last month's fiery derailment of a CSX Corp. train in West Virginia.
"The need for safer train cars has long been documented and is overdue," wrote Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and a half-dozen other House Democrats in a letter last week to the acting heads of the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The letter, made public Monday, referenced last month's accident, as well as reports that the cars were supposedly "safer and stronger" CPC-1232 models. An average of 19 oil trains per week now move through Washington state, according to Cantwell's office.
Last month, PHMSA sent its proposed crude-by-rail regulations -- which include an update of the existing decades-old design standards -- to the Office of Management and Budget for review (EnergyWire, Feb. 6). At yesterday's hearing, Foxx again declined to predict when the final version will be released but reiterated that "a high level of urgency" surrounds the rulemaking. An OMB spokesman did not reply to an email seeking comment on the timetable.
In a phone interview later, rail safety consultant Fred Millar said he was not familiar with Cantwell's proposal but thought that congressional pressure in general would have some effect on regulators.
Lawmakers, he said, "must surely appreciate that behind the scenes the railroad industry and the oil industry are ferociously lobbying the Obama administration to weaken the regulations."
The hearing, at which Foxx shared the witness table with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, was ostensibly dedicated to the two agencies' budget requests for the coming year. Senators, however, used the occasion to query them on matters ranging from the recently settled labor dispute at West Coast ports to the long-standing ban on exporting oil from the United States.
When questions did turn to the Transportation Department's fiscal 2016 budget request, Foxx again pitched the Obama administration's six-year, $478 billion highway, rail and train spending plan. Currently, however, lawmakers are struggling to come up with a replacement for the stopgap funding extension that expires at the end of May.
"I'm a secretary, not a magician," Foxx said at one point, "so I can't make things happen without the resources to do it."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested