Preview Newsletter

ACC AM Mar 6

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

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Trichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride Uses Could Be Limited Under Possible EPA Rules
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Exploring possible rules that could restrict uses of trichloroethylene and methylene chloride and assessing the risks of key chemicals will be top priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency's chemicals office in 2015, the director of the office said March 3. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution ...
(ACC Mentioned) Microbead Ban Bill Wins Support From Top Republican
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson

Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill yesterday to ban the sale and distribution of synthetic plastic microbeads in personal care products, a rare moment of political cooperation on what would be a new chemical regulation. The bill by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the ranking member and chairman, respectively...
(ACC Mentioned) EU, South Korean REACH Data Deadlines Might Swamp Available ‘Only Representatives’
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

There may not be enough qualified “only representatives” to meet the demand for their services caused by deadlines in the European Union's and Korea's REACH chemical regulations, according to the president of an only representative association. The possible shortage of only representatives, also called ORs...
(ACC Mentioned) Widely Used Chemical Eyed at Pitt for Effects on Pregnancy
Mar 5, 2015 | Trib Live News
By Adam Smeltz

Pregnant women could soon have another anxiety: their exposure to man-made chemicals known as phthalates. The widespread chemicals used in many plastics, packaging materials and personal care products appear to be associated with the disruption of a key pregnancy hormone, according to a study based at the University of Pittsburgh ...
Workers Who Might Touch Solvent Must Use Impervious Gloves, EPA Says in Final Rule
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Workers who could touch an industrial solvent and heat transfer fluid are required to wear impervious gloves under a final significant new use rule (SNUR) the Environmental Protection Agency will publish March 6. The SNUR also designates any use of the chemical for a purpose other than specific confidential uses the agency already...
California to Evaluate Effectiveness of Fire Barrier Materials
Mar 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch

California's Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is conducting a two-year study on fire barrier materials, and other technologies, to examine open flame resistant properties and cost effectiveness. Carried out in conjunction with interested stakeholders and other governmental agencies, the study is due to be completed by 31 December 2016.
Chemical Exposure Linked to Billions in Health Care Costs
Mar 5, 2015 | National Geographic
By Elizabeth Grossman

Exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals is likely leading to an increased risk of serious health problems costing at least $175 billion (U.S.) per year in Europe alone, according to a study published Thursday. Chemicals that can mimic or block estrogen or other hormones are commonly found in thousands of products around the world, including...
What You Need to Know About EPA’s New Safer Choices Program
Mar 5, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade

Safer products are going to be easier than ever to identify, thanks to new changes to EPA’s product labeling program. Yesterday EPA announced significant changes to rebrand and improve their Design for the Environment (DFE) product labeling program, by announcing a new name and logo to enable families choose products like cleaners...
EU Study Highlights Toll of Poorly Regulated Toxic Chemicals
Mar 5, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nneka Leiba

A groundbreaking study released today (March 5) concludes that endocrine-disrupting chemicals add at least $173 billion a year to the European Union’s health costs for diseases and disabilities associated with these chemicals. The study, spearheaded by Dr. Leonardo Trasande, associate professor at New York University School of Medicine...
E.U. Faces €150B in Annual Health Costs from Hormone Disruptors -- Study
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson

Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system may cost the European Union more than €150 billion ($165 billion) per year in health costs, according to a series of new studies. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor of pediatrics, environmental medicine and health policy at New York University, said his research attempted to evaluate health...

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

California Town Rejects Ballot Measure To Ban Drilling, High-Production Operations
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

Voters in La Habra Heights, Calif., rejected a ballot measure to prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells, the reactivation of idled wells and high-intensity petroleum operations, including hydraulic fracturing. The proposed ordinance, Measure A, was one of two oil- and gas-related measures voters in Los Angeles County ...
IG Calls for Better Regulation and Tracking of Refuge Drilling Infrastructure
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar

An internal government watchdog raised concerns today about the Fish and Wildlife Service's "inconsistent" management of oil and gas drilling in national wildlife refuges. A lack of clear national guidance and questions about FWS's legal authorities have left "refuges littered with orphaned or abandoned oil and gas infrastructure that could...
Documents Reveal EPA's National Fracking Study Halted by Industry Pressure
Mar 5, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Jesse Coleman

Fracking companies had extensive influence over a critical study of the groundwater impacts of fracking, according to insider documents released by Greenpeace. In 2010, amidst growing worries about the environmental impacts of fracking, Congress compelled the EPA to conduct a study.
GOP Senator: US is 'Woefully Behind' in Arctic Oil Exploration
Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Laura Barron-Lopez

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Thursday warned that the United States is "woefully behind" other countries, when it comes to development in the Arctic. Murkowski and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee raised concerns over the nation's lack of preparation for the changing situation in the Arctic.
Melting Arctic Sea Ice Poses Challenges For Aging Ice Breakers, Climate Efforts
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott

The U.S. must move now to build at least one new heavy ice breaker given that it has only one such vessel in the Arctic region, where rapidly melting sea ice is opening areas to more oil and gas extraction and shipping, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate energy committee said March 5.
Tom Udall’s Unlikely Alliance With the Chemical Industry
Mar 6, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton

Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico has earned a reputation as an environmental champion. He helped lead the fight against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pushed through legislation for a new federal wilderness area in his home state of New Mexico.
Flake Bill Aims to 'Give EPA a Taste of Its Own Medicine'
Mar 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick

Sen. Jeff Flake introduced legislation this week that would require U.S. EPA to compensate other federal agencies for increased electricity rates and other costs associated with the Clean Power Plan. The Arizona Republican's measure aims to make a case that EPA's rules for curbing carbon dioxide from power plants would hurt ratepayers.
EPA Proposes New Waste Minimization Grants Program To Lower GHGs
Mar 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

EPA is proposing a new waste minimization grants program under its fiscal year 2016 budget request as part of its climate mitigation plan and to better position the United States for meeting President Obama's long-term climate goals by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from waste activities.
Why Fee and Dividend is Better Than Cap and Trade at Fighting Climate Change
Mar 5, 2015 | LA Times
By Noelle Sedor

California is leading the nation in taking action on climate change. AB 32, passed in 2006, established carbon pricing in the state with a system called cap and trade. Simply put, this system caps carbon emissions from large polluters by selling a set number of emission allowances at state auctions. The number of allowances sold declines...
Utility Fights EPA Claims Of Air Law Violations In Suit Testing NSR's Scope
Mar 5, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker

A Michigan utility is fighting EPA's claims that it violated Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permit mandates when it modified a power plant, urging a federal appeals court to uphold a district court ruling in the utility's favor -- a decision testing NSR's scope that the Justice Department (DOJ) has warned risks “eviscerating” the permit program.
EPA Must Be More Transparent About Hiring Senior Scientists, Inspector General Says
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna

The Environmental Protection Agency needs to be more transparent about using its Title 42 authority to hire specially qualified consultants and scientists in order to pay them a salary higher than the standard federal pay scale, according to the agency's Office of the Inspector General.

Transportation News

Reducing Volatility of Crude Oil Essential To Rail Safety Upgrade, Schumer Says
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven

The Transportation and Energy departments should set volatility standards for crude oil shipments, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. Reducing the volatility of the oil is an essential step to mitigating the risks of crude oil train derailments, along with establishing new tank car and operational controls requirements, Schumer ...
Senators Push Five-Year Extension For Railroad Safety System Implementation
Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephanie Beasley

A key rail industry group is applauding the reintroduction of Senate legislation that would give railroads an additional five years to install an anti-collision safety system, saying the extension would provide the time needed to test and approve the new technology. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) introduced a bill (S. 650) March 4 that would give railroads ...

Full Text of Stories Below

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

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Trichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride Uses Could Be Limited Under Possible EPA Rules

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Exploring possible rules that could restrict uses of trichloroethylene and methylene chloride and assessing the risks of key chemicals will be top priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency's chemicals office in 2015, the director of the office said March 3.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, briefed attendees at a Baltimore conference about her priorities for the coming year.
“Our priorities are staying the course on some very important efforts,” Cleland-Hamnett said at GlobalChem, the global chemical regulations conference organized annually by the American Chemistry Council and Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA).
OPPT issued final risk assessments for trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane or DCM) in 2014.
Responding to Identified Health Risks
The TCE assessment concluded that consumers and workers using TCE as a degreaser, consumers using it as a protective coating to finish prints or artwork, and dry cleaning workers using it to remove stains could face health risks (123 DEN A-4, 6/26/14).
The health risks include short-term neurological responses such as light-headedness and headaches and longer-term harm to liver and kidney function, as well as fetal development, according to an EPA fact sheet.
Workers using methylene chloride in paint-stripping products, as well as bystanders in the workplace and in residences where DCM paint strippers are used, also could face health risks, according to a final assessment the EPA also released in 2014 on certain uses of that chemical (168 DEN A-8, 8/29/14)
Health concerns included harm to the central nervous system, liver damage, liver cancer and lung cancer, the agency's fact sheet said.
The EPA has begun work on a new use rule for TCE and a separate rule that would restrict or ban uses of the solvent, the agency said in January. That work included exploring the application of Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which the agency has not used for rulemaking in more than 20 years (20 DEN A-6, 1/30/15)
The EPA also will explore a restriction or ban of methlyene chloride using TSCA's Section 6 authority, Cleland-Hamnett said at GlobalChem.
Final NMP Assessment Coming
A final assessment of n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint-stripping products will be released in the next month or so, she said.
A draft risk assessment of n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), which the agency released in 2013, said breathing in high concentrations of the chemical could cause breathing problems .
Draft Assessments, Revised Procedure
A draft risk assessment of short-chain chlorinated paraffins, which have been used as lubricants and coolants in metal cutting and metal forming operations and as secondary plasticizers and flame retardants in plastics, will be released later in the year, Cleland-Hamnett said.
Initial findings of information the agency could use to assess more than a dozen flame retardants also will be released later this year as well, she said.
The chemicals office is revising the procedure it uses to prepare the risk assessments, Cleland-Hamnett said.
Until now, interested parties did not have an opportunity to review the information the agency had on a chemical until OPPT released the draft assessment of the compound.
“We don't want the draft to be the first opportunity,” Cleland-Hamnett said.
The agency will release information that is has earlier on, so parties can provide additional scientific studies they have or may know of, she said.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Microbead Ban Bill Wins Support From Top Republican

Mar 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Sam Pearson

Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill yesterday to ban the sale and distribution of synthetic plastic microbeads in personal care products, a rare moment of political cooperation on what would be a new chemical regulation.
The bill by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the ranking member and chairman, respectively, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would ban the sale and distribution of cosmetics products containing microbeads beginning Jan. 1, 2018.
"We have a responsibility to put a stop to this unnecessary plastic pollution," Pallone said in a statement. "By phasing out the use of plastic microbeads and transitioning to non-synthetic alternatives, we can protect U.S. waters before it's too late."
Upton, who represents a Michigan district near areas of the Great Lakes where scientists have detected microbeads, said in a statement that the bill was a "win-win for consumers."
"As someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and represents a large chunk of Michigan coastline, I understand firsthand how important it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our Great Lakes," Upton said. "I will not stand for any actions that put our beloved Great Lakes in jeopardy."
Lawmakers in Illinois and New Jersey banned microbeads last year, and the restrictions are catching on in other states, as well. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) asked state lawmakers to introduce a ban earlier this year, citing their environmental risk (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
In recent months, lawmakers in Colorado have also taken up the issue (Greenwire, Feb. 20). Maryland legislators have introduced a microbeads bill, as well (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
In California, lawmakers' effort to ban microbeads last year faced opposition from trade groups like the American Chemistry Council, though the trade group supported Illinois' microbeads ban.
Pallone introduced a federal bill to ban microbeads last year, but it failed to attract support from Republicans (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
The bill may be less likely to face industry opposition this year because many of the largest personal care product companies have said they are already working to remove microbeads from their products.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EU, South Korean REACH Data Deadlines Might Swamp Available ‘Only Representatives’

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

There may not be enough qualified “only representatives” to meet the demand for their services caused by deadlines in the European Union's and Korea's REACH chemical regulations, according to the president of an only representative association.
The possible shortage of only representatives, also called ORs, that can register chemicals for chemical manufacturers located outside Europe or South Korea was one of many challenges speakers described March 4 at a Baltimore global chemical regulation conference.
“Asia does not have sufficient ORs,” Dieter Drohmann, president of the Brussels-based Only Representatives Organization, said at GlobalChem. The annual conference is organized by the American Chemistry Council, which represents major U.S. chemical manufacturers, and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), which represents those that make small batches of chemicals.
The need for only representatives resulting from Korea's adoption of a REACH program, combined with the number of chemical manufacturers that will need only representatives to register their chemicals in Europe by 2018, may overwhelm the capacity of OR service providers, Drohmann said.
“The earlier you start [preparing] the better,” said Matti Vainio, head of the European Chemicals Agency's Risk Management Implementation Unit.
Big Workload
Drohmann and Vainio were among many speakers at this year's GlobalChem who focused on the obligations chemical manufacturers face as countries around the world implement new chemical laws and regulations.
The two speakers participated in a session on Europe' registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals, or REACH, regulation ((EC) No. 1907/2006). The regulation applies throughout the European Union as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Under REACH, chemicals that are made in or imported into the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway in volumes between 1 and 100 metric tons (2,204–220,460 pounds) must be registered by May 31, 2018, to remain on the market.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) expects many small and medium-size manufacturers to be among the companies that will register 25,000 or more chemicals by 2018, Vainio said.
70,000 Dossiers Expected
ECHA expects to receive up to 70,000 dossiers as part of the registration packages for those chemicals, he said.
By comparison, Vainio said, the largest number of registrations ECHA has yet received were for the first deadline, 2010, when manufacturers of approximately 3,400 chemicals submitted 20,000 dossiers.
Drohmann also briefly discussed the Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals, known as Korea REACH, which came into force Jan. 1 .
Once South Korea finalizes the first batch of chemicals it will list under Korea Reach, manufacturers will have two years to register them. The Ministry of Environment released a preliminary list of 518 existing chemicals Oct. 31, 2014 (213 DEN A-6, 11/4/14).
Both Europe's and South Korea's REACH allow foreign manufacturers to register their chemicals through only representatives, which become legally responsible for compliant registrations.
The European REACH regulation states that ORs should be qualified, but there are no official criteria to demonstrate qualification, Drohmann said. Members of his organization are required to meet specified criteria, including having insurance and complying with the organization's antitrust rules.
He urged chemical manufacturers to become familiar with the Best Practice Guide his organization has developed and provides access to for free.
Hurdles Anticipated
Paul Ashford, a chemist and consultant who founded Caleb Management Services Ltd. (which the Anthesis Consulting Group acquired in 2014), and Robert Mott, global regulatory manager for Sun Chemical Corp., warned first-time registrants to anticipate unexpected hurdles as they register their chemicals.
For example, defining a chemical's identity has proven far more difficult than many companies anticipated, Ashford said.
Neither the European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS) nor the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) identifiers can be relied upon to define whether one chemical is the same as another, Ashford said.
Companies that make the same chemical are required under the EU's REACH to work together through Substance Information Exchange Forums, or SIEFs.
A chemical that long has been identified under one CAS number may end up being split into two or three different compounds, Ashford said.
Data on Hand
Mott urged manufacturers to review what information they already have about their chemicals.
EU REACH's physical chemical and toxicity data requirements will be less stringent for the 2018 group of chemicals than they have been for previous, larger-volume compounds. Physical chemical data includes information such as the melting point of a chemical, its boiling point, its vapor pressure, water solubility and flash point.
“You'd think we'd all have physical chemical data, but you'd be surprised how often we don't know boiling point, water solubility, or other characteristics,” Mott said.
Manufacturers can purchase letters of access that allow European regulators to use, for registration compliance purposes, information about a chemical that has been submitted by one or more other companies.
Expensive Letters
The amounts Sun Chemical has paid for letters of access range from a few hundred euros to tens of thousands of euros, Mott said.
“Letter of access can get very expensive,” Mott said. The fees for such letters are set by the companies that own the data.
Vainio said ECHA is striving to learn from experience and provide the 2018 registrants as much help as possible.
The agency will be publishing additional information to guide registrants in 2015, he said.
Much of this guidance will focus on the needs of small and medium-sized chemical manufacturers, but it will benefit all companies, Vainio said.
By 2016, ECHA will have updated software for companies to use as they prepare their registration dossiers, he said.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Widely Used Chemical Eyed at Pitt for Effects on Pregnancy

Mar 5, 2015 | Trib Live News

By Adam Smeltz

Pregnant women could soon have another anxiety: their exposure to man-made chemicals known as phthalates.
The widespread chemicals used in many plastics, packaging materials and personal care products appear to be associated with the disruption of a key pregnancy hormone, according to a study based at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and released Thursday.
“Reducing exposure to phthalates and other hormone-disrupting chemicals is something that needs to be addressed at a societal level through consumer advocacy and regulation, and education of health care providers,” lead researcher Jennifer Adibi said in a statement. She is an assistant professor of epidemiology at Pitt.
Using data from about 350 women and their babies, researchers at several schools looked at levels of two molecules that materialize when the body digests phthalates. Early in pregnancy, elevated amounts of those molecules in mothers' urine were “significantly associated” with lower levels of the pregnancy hormone in women carrying baby boys and higher levels in those with girls, according to Pitt.
More specifically, exposure to phthlates might inhibit masculinization of the genitals in baby boys, according to the Pitt researchers.
The findings do not prove any direct health effects from phthalates, but help illustrate why researchers need to keep examining the chemicals and the body's responses to them, Adibi said. She said advanced monitoring for a pregnancy hormone called human chorionic gonadotropin eventually could help doctors intervene earlier in pregnancies with a high risk of abnormalities.
“I feel like it's a first step, a first signal on the horizon that there are more ways to study these kinds of exposures, new ways to think about them,” Adibi said of the research.
While some kinds of phthalates have affected the reproductive systems of laboratory animals, human health effects from low levels of exposure are not yet clear, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
The Washington-based American Chemistry Council said that “the alleged association in this (Pitt) study is only specific to the few phthalates tested, not all phthalates, as claimed by the study's authors.” The trade association pointed to other research indicating that the chemicals break down within minutes of entering the body.
The National Institute of Environmental Sciences supported the Pitt-led study, presented at the Endocrine Society's annual meeting in San Diego.

Return to headline | Return to top
Workers Who Might Touch Solvent Must Use Impervious Gloves, EPA Says in Final Rule

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Workers who could touch an industrial solvent and heat transfer fluid are required to wear impervious gloves under a final significant new use rule (SNUR) the Environmental Protection Agency will publish March 6.
The SNUR also designates any use of the chemical for a purpose other than specific confidential uses the agency already has examined to be a new use.
Companies wanting to use the chemical in a new way will be required under the SNUR to notify the agency 90 days before doing so to allow the EPA to review the planned application and determine whether it would pose an unreasonable risk warranting some form of control.
The SNUR covers a perfluorochemical called 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4- (1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)-pentane, premanufacture notice (PMN) No. P-07-204, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) No. 870778-34-0.
The chemical is used in petroleum refining, according to an alert the law firm Venable LLP issued in February 2013 after the EPA included it in a proposed SNUR (15 DEN A-15, 1/23/13).
The chemical is sold under names that include 3M™ Novec™ Engineered Fluid 7600 and Orthogonal Stripper 700 Solution, according to material safety data sheets located by Bloomberg BNA. Neither MSDS said workers should wear protective gloves.
The EPA issued the SNUR following receipt of data from eight toxicity studies identified in the final rule. The agency said the study review demonstrated the concern cited in the proposed SNUR for neurotoxicity and liver effects as a result of unprotected occupational exposures from skin contact.
The final regulation eliminated a health concern the EPA had about the chemical: cardiac sensitization.
3M told the agency in an Oct. 22, 2012, letter that the EPA had incorrectly described the chemical as raising heart concerns even though the agency's information showed the solvent had not (1 DEN A-6, 1/2/13).

Return to headline | Return to top
California to Evaluate Effectiveness of Fire Barrier Materials

Mar 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch

California's Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is conducting a two-year study on fire barrier materials, and other technologies, to examine open flame resistant properties and cost effectiveness. Carried out in conjunction with interested stakeholders and other governmental agencies, the study is due to be completed by 31 December 2016.
Under SB 1019, signed into California law last September, upholstered furniture manufactured after 1 January 2015 must identify whether chemical flame-retardants were added to components of the product (CW 22 October 2014).

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical Exposure Linked to Billions in Health Care Costs

Mar 5, 2015 | National Geographic

By Elizabeth Grossman

Exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals is likely leading to an increased risk of serious health problems costing at least $175 billion (U.S.) per year in Europe alone, according to a study published Thursday.
Chemicals that can mimic or block estrogen or other hormones are commonly found in thousands of products around the world, including plastics, pesticides, furniture, and cosmetics.
The new research estimated health care costs in Europe, where policymakers are debating whether to enact the world's first regulations targeting endocrine disruptors. The European Union's controversial strategy, if approved, would have a profound effect on industries and consumer products worldwide.
Linda Birnbaum, the leading environmental health official in the U.S. government, called the new findings, which include four published papers, "a wake-up call" for policymakers and health experts.
"If you applied these [health care] numbers to the U.S., they would be applicable, and in some cases higher," says Birnbaum, director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The researchers detailed the costs related to three types of conditions: neurological effects, such as attention deficit disorders; obesity and diabetes; and male reproductive disorders, including infertility. Some hormone-altering chemicals in consumer products have been linked to increased risk of diabetes. Photograph by Mario Anzuoni, Reuters/Corbis
The biggest estimated costs, by far, were associated with chemicals' reported effects on children's developing brains. Numerous studies have linked widely used pesticides and flame retardants to neurological disorders and altered thyroid hormones, which are essential for proper prenatal brain development.
The researchers concluded that there is a greater than 99 percent chance that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are contributing to the diseases, according to the studies published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Tip of the Chemical Iceberg
The estimate was limited to a handful of chemicals commonly found in human bodies: bisphenol-A (BPA), used in hard plastics, food-can linings, and paper receipts; two phthalates used as plasticizers in vinyl products; DDE, the breakdown product of the banned insecticide DDT; organophosphate pesticides, including one called chlorpyrifos used on grain, fruit, and other crops; and brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs that were extensively used in furniture foams until they were banned in Europe and the United States.
BPA, DDE, and the phthalates were examined for their links to obesity and diabetes, phthalates for male reproductive effects, and flame retardants and organophosphate pesticides for neurological effects.
Together, these represent about 5 percent of endocrine disruptors—or "the tip of the proverbial iceberg," says Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine at New York University School of Medicine. He was the main study's lead author.
"The chemicals were chosen based on the quality and amount of available evidence," says Bruce Blumberg, a University of California, Irvine, professor of developmental and cell biology and co-author of the obesity and diabetes paper.
Evidence linking the pesticides and flame retardants to neurological effects was the strongest, showing "near certainty of causation," Trasande wrote in a summary.
The researchers also reported that chemicals contribute "substantially" to obesity, diabetes, and male reproductive disorders. Those findings were based on previous research, largely in the United States and Europe, that tracked the exposures and health of people over extended periods of time.
The estimated health care cost associated with chemicals in plastics is at least $28 billion per year, according to the researchers.
Extent of Harm Debated
Nevertheless, at the heart of the debate about endocrine disruptors is whether the science has adequately established that they actually are contributing to increases in human disorders.
Daniel Dietrich, a toxicologist at University of Konstanz in Germany, questions whether the traces of chemicals that people encounter through products, food, and environment are large enough to cause harm. He also questions whether hormone disruption itself should be considered a health effect, an issue which is central to the European Union's policy debate.
"You can only judge on the available science. Maybe in 30 years we will judge this differently," says Dietrich, who has served on European Union science panels and is a former adviser to a chemical industry-funded group called the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, or ECETOC.
Representatives of pesticide-manufacturing companies criticized the report, saying that "to ascribe these disorders to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the environment is misleading and potentially harmful." Pesticides undergo thorough testing for effects, and "based on the results for estrogenic activity, pesticides are not of concern," according to a statement by the trade group CropLife America. Some pesticides, however, have been linked in some studies to estrogenic and other hormonal effects.
Chemical manufacturers expressed similar concerns, saying without proven health effects, the study could "create potentially unnecessary public health concerns" and misallocation of scarce funds.
Neurological Effects Most Costly
To arrive at their cost estimates, the researchers used data that their expert panels agreed provided "the strongest causal evidence," Trasande says. To calculate the likelihood of a particular chemical causing a specific health effect, they used methods previously developed by the U.S. Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This enabled them to calculate each chemical's contribution to the prevalence of a disorder, then assign a value to the health care costs.
"A major surprise was that the neurological effects were the most costly," totaling at least $146 billion per year, says study co-author Philippe Grandjean, a professor of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and an adjunct professor at Harvard's T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Those estimated costs included treatment as well as providing special education and other services for children and others with lower IQs or learning or behavioral disorders.
On its own, hormone disruption is not a health effect, Grandjean says, but it leads to "very important adverse effects and is something we can test for and therefore prevent."
Birnbaum, who did not participate in the new research, said evidence is mounting that people's health is being jeopardized by an array of commonly used chemicals.
"The point is that there is a wide variety of effects being seen in the general population related to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. We have increasing amount of data raising concerns about their use," Birnbaum says. "We are seeing effects from [chemical] levels that are present in the general population."
To put $175 billion in perspective, it is more than the combined proposed 2016 budgets for the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, National Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency combined.
"The overall estimates in my opinion are very conservative," says study co-author R. Thomas Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts, Amherst biology professor who specializes in chemicals that disrupt thyroid hormones.
Following years of analysis, the European Commission is now reviewing more than 27,000 public comments on its controversial proposal defining endocrine-disrupting chemicals. A lawsuit has been filed against the commission by Denmark, Sweden, and the EU Council of Ministers over failing to meet a December 2013 legal deadline for introducing this definition.
The European Commission expects to complete an "impact assessment" of potential regulation of the chemicals in 2016, an effort begun in 2013.

Return to headline | Return to top
What You Need to Know About EPA’s New Safer Choices Program

Mar 5, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

By Mike Schade

Safer products are going to be easier than ever to identify, thanks to new changes to EPA’s product labeling program.
Yesterday EPA announced significant changes to rebrand and improve their Design for the Environment (DFE) product labeling program, by announcing a new name and logo to enable families choose products like cleaners with safer chemicals, as well as a new labeling program for “fragrance-free” products.
Now identified by a “Safer Choice” label, products that carry this label must meet certain requirements for safer chemical ingredients. According to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy:
“Our scientists employ a stringent set of human health and environmental safety standards when reviewing products for the Safer Choice program, so a product with the label is backed by EPA science. Consumers know it’s a credible stamp they can trust.”
Watch this video from the Administrator describing the changes to the program (featuring her adorable dog Emma!), and you can read about the changes to the program here. The Hill also has a nice piece on the changes.
Today over 2,000 products qualify to carry the EPA’s new Safer Choice Label, which will be appearing on products on store shelves by this summer.
The changes to this voluntary program come not soon after the chemical industry, led by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), have been waging a vicious battle attacking and attempting to weaken and water down the program, while on the other hand big brands and retailers like Walmart are embracing it so that they can satisfy their customers’ demand for safer products free of harmful chemicals. A shiny new logo
According to the EPA, the new name and logo was renamed and redesigned to
“better communicate the program’s human health and environmental protection goals, increase consumer and institutional/industrial purchaser understanding and recognition of products bearing the label, and encourage innovation and the development of safer chemicals and chemical-based products.

The label’s new name “Safer Choice,” with the accompanying wording (or “tagline”) “Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards” (which is part of the label), and design were developed over many months based on input and feedback from a diverse set of stakeholders and the general public.”
The EPA has created three versions of the new label: for consumer products, institutional and industrial products, and another for fragrance-free products. Toxic chemicals stink – look for “fragrance-free” products
I am particularly excited that for the first time, EPA has developed a label for products that the agency classifies as “fragrance-free”, which is important given that fragrance ingredients are usually kept secret by brands (and more often the fragrance houses they work with) and often contain toxic chemicals like phthalates.
The EPA states that,
“To qualify for the program’s fragrance-free label, a product must first meet all requirements in the Safer Choice Standard and safer ingredient criteria. EPA will review the product ingredients to ensure that the product contains no fragrance materials.
The fragrance-free certification will mean that: 1) the product only contains ingredients on or eligible for the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL)—the program’s list of ingredients that meet our safer chemical criteria and are generally acceptable for use in Safer Choice labeled products—and 2) the product does not contain chemicals on the International Fragrances Association (IFRA) Transparency List of fragrance chemicals intended to impart or mask a scent..”
The EPA also states that products that qualify for this logo may still have an odor as some other chemical ingredients, such as surfactants and solvents, may carry an odor. EPA also states that for fragranced products that aren’t seeking this particular label, they are developing a list of fragrance chemicals that are acceptable. Under their interim criteria, listed carcinogens, mutagens, or reproductive/developmental toxicants (CMRs); listed persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic compounds (PBTs); and listed respiratory sensitizers are not allowed. To advance transparency, product manufacturers must disclose dermal sensitizers. Moving the market on fragrance ingredient disclosure
The new “fragrance-free” label will provide incentives for brands and retailers to bring more fragrance-free products to market, and perhaps may also help push the envelope on fragrance ingredient disclosure.
In recent years our partners at Women’s Voices for the Earth have been campaigning to get companies to disclose their fragrance ingredients, and over the past year both SC Johnson and Clorox have announced new disclosure initiatives.
This also comes at a time when even Walmart is asking suppliers to disclose fragrance ingredients, as part of Walmart’s chemicals policy. We are calling on other big retailers like Walgreens to join them in pushing for full ingredient disclosure and “Mind the Store”. Want to have your voice heard on this issue?
With EPA’s announcement, the new label and revisions to the standard will soon be open for public comment.
Stakeholders will have 60 days to submit comments on all of this once it’s officially posted to the federal register website at www.regulations.gov (which it hasn’t yet as of today). In the meantime – you can see the pre-publication notice here.

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Study Highlights Toll of Poorly Regulated Toxic Chemicals

Mar 5, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Nneka Leiba

A groundbreaking study released today (March 5) concludes that endocrine-disrupting chemicals add at least $173 billion a year to the European Union’s health costs for diseases and disabilities associated with these chemicals.
The study, spearheaded by Dr. Leonardo Trasande, associate professor at New York University School of Medicine, is the first to estimate the astounding health costs traced to these troubling chemicals, which interfere with the functioning of the body’s hormone system. They have been linked to cancer, diabetes and infertility.
Although the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, focuses on the costs to Europe, this is not just a European problem. Americans are routinely exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday consumer products. Potent hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, are in the lining of most canned goods and on many cash register receipts. Phthalates are in PVC plastic, food packaging and personal care products. And brominated flame retardants are ubiquitous in most upholstered furniture. All of them are everywhere in American households.
So why are Americans still being exposed to these potentially harmful chemicals?
One of the primary reasons is the Toxic Substances Control Act, the badly broken and antiquated federal chemical safety law known as TSCA, which in 1976 grandfathered 60,000 existing industrial chemicals and today allows thousands of new ones into commerce with little review. Several of the grandfathered chemicals were the subject of today’s new European study,
TSCA gives the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies very little authority to ban hormone-disrupting chemicals such as BPA, phthalates and flame retardants, even when the evidence suggests they may be causing billions of dollars in damages.
Real reform of our nation’s chemical safety law is long overdue. It hasn’t been updated since it was passed in 1976. The law should be strengthened to protect all people, especially children, from toxic chemicals, ensuring they are safe before they hit the market.
Until it does, we will continue to encourage you to use our tools and information particularly, our Dirty Dozen Guide to Endocrine Disruptors, to help you figure out where these chemicals may be lurking and how you can avoid them.

Return to headline | Return to top
E.U. Faces €150B in Annual Health Costs from Hormone Disruptors -- Study

Mar 5, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Sam Pearson

Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system may cost the European Union more than €150 billion ($165 billion) per year in health costs, according to a series of new studies.
Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor of pediatrics, environmental medicine and health policy at New York University, said his research attempted to evaluate health conditions linked to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and then use exposure data from European countries to determine the health costs of the conditions.
The series of five studies was published today in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism and received funding from the Endocrine Society, John Merck Fund, Broad Reach Foundation and Oak Foundation. The paper is meant to aid European regulators, who are working to develop a framework for regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals, Trasande said.
Working with a team of 18 scientists, Trasande adapted an approach used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to weigh epidemiologic and laboratory evidence and identify a probability of causation. Because of this, the scientists wrote, the costs can be estimated without proving that each of the chemicals is the cause of each health problem -- merely that it could be.
"The costs of EDC exposure in the U.S. are likely to be in the same order of magnitude," Trasande said, though further research was needed to know for sure.
Health effects from endocrine-disrupting chemicals include neurological impacts, obesity and diabetes, premature death, and male reproductive disorders, the study said. The study flagged pesticides as responsible for most of the health costs, though phthalates and bisphenol A from plastics and cans as well as flame retardants are also thought to play a role.
Trasande published research last year in which he calculated that 1.8 percent of childhood obesity was likely linked to BPA exposure and that banning BPA would save $1.7 billion in direct health costs in the United States (Greenwire, Jan. 23, 2014).
Despite the findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to restrict the use of BPA and reaffirmed late last year that it doesn't believe research it reviewed demonstrates that BPA is unsafe as currently used in products that come in contact with food. The European Food Safety Agency recently upheld the chemical's safety, as well -- findings that are the subject of a new chemical industry advocacy campaign touting the safety of BPA.
Trasande defended his findings as "extremely conservative" at a meeting of the Endocrine Society in San Diego today, where he presented his research.
"We believe this data presents an opportunity for a more balanced debate on the ongoing use of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and tradeoffs for safer alternatives," Trasande said.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Energy and Environment News

California Town Rejects Ballot Measure To Ban Drilling, High-Production Operations

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

Voters in La Habra Heights, Calif., rejected a ballot measure to prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells, the reactivation of idled wells and high-intensity petroleum operations, including hydraulic fracturing.
The proposed ordinance, Measure A, was one of two oil- and gas-related measures voters in Los Angeles County considered March 3.
In Hermosa Beach, Calif., voters decided against exempting a proposed oil drilling and production project from an existing ban on new drilling.
La Habra Height's Measure A was similar to the proposed bans on hydraulic fracturing and oil well stimulation activities that Santa Barbara County voters rejected but voters in San Benito County approved in the statewide Nov. 4, 2014, election.
Preliminary results show Measure A failed with 922 votes against the ban and 614 votes for it.
The oil industry and others opposing Measure A said the proposed ordinance was overly broad and could result in a lawsuit against the city.
Citadel Exploration Inc. filed a lawsuit March 4 challenging the San Benito County measure (Citadel Exploration Inc. v. Cnty. of San Benito, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. CU-15-00028, 2/27/15).
The Heights Oil Watch, a citizen group, and environmental advocates said Measure A is needed to prevent fracking and other unconventional oil extraction methods from polluting the air and water supplies.
In a March 4 e-mail, Californians for Energy Independence said in areas such as La Habra Heights and Santa Barbara County, where oil production has occurred for decades, the voters are rejecting efforts to ban hydraulic fracturing. Voters in those communities recognize the economic benefits of regulated oil production, know the proposed bans go beyond fracking and realize the potential costs of litigation, the coalition, which supports oil and gas development, said.
Hermosa Beach Measure Fails
Hermosa Beach's Measure O also failed by a large margin, with 3,799 voters rejecting the proposed ordinance and 1,016 in support.
At issue in Measure O was a proposed oil production project the city agreed to take to voters as part of settlement with Macpherson Oil Co. and E&B Natural Resource Management Corp.
Measure O asked voters to exempt the project, involving 34 new wells, from the city's 1995 ban on oil operations (Windward Assocs. v. City of Hermosa Beach, Cal. Sup. Ct., No. B174249, 3/2/12).
The failure of Measure O means the city must now pay E&B Natural Resource Corp., which had acquired Macpherson's oil lease, $17.5 million.

Return to headline | Return to top
IG Calls for Better Regulation and Tracking of Refuge Drilling Infrastructure

Mar 5, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar

An internal government watchdog raised concerns today about the Fish and Wildlife Service's "inconsistent" management of oil and gas drilling in national wildlife refuges.
A lack of clear national guidance and questions about FWS's legal authorities have left "refuges littered with orphaned or abandoned oil and gas infrastructure that could threaten the health and safety of wildlife, the safety of refuge visitors, and damage the environment," the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General warned in a critical report.
The report includes several vivid examples of the harm oil and gas infrastructure can pose to refuges. One well in Texas' Aransas National Wildlife Refuge has leaked salt water and trace amounts of methane for most of its 70-year existence. The Lower Rio Grande Valley refuge, also located in the Lone Star State, has been scarred by a massive 62,500-square-foot well pad and a pickup-sized abandoned storage tank that detached from its pad and floated to another part of the refuge during a 2011 flood.
Oil and gas drilling can occur in refuges where FWS owns the surface rights to land, but not the minerals found under it. This situation, referred to as a "split estate," occurs in over 200 refuges, including several wetland management districts, according to the report.
Those refuges contain an estimated 5,000 oil and gas wells, about two-thirds of which are either inactive or in an unknown state of operation, the OIG found. There are also about 1,275 miles of pipelines that run across split estate refuges. These pipes carry a variety of petroleum derivatives, including crude oil, refined petroleum products and natural gas.
Government watchdogs have been raising concerns for more than a decade about FWS's oversight of oil and gas infrastructure in refuges. For example, the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly criticized the agency for not "collecting and maintaining better data" on how oil and gas activities were impacting refuges (Greenwire, Sept. 24, 2003).
The OIG again recommended that FWS overhaul its oil and gas infrastructure data. It also called on the agency to clarify when special use permits are needed for drilling and urged better enforcement of oil and gas regulations, better tracking of well and lease ownership transfers, and higher bonding requirements for new wells.
FWS told the OIG that it is already working to fix the problems raised by the report. Its National Wildlife Refuge System Energy Team is revising the agency's current training and guidance for enforcement.
A rule in the works since February of last year should also address the permitting, ownership tracking and bonding issues. That rulemaking process, however, has been harshly criticized by some House Republicans (E&E Daily, May 21, 2014).
FWS said it is considering two proposals to fix its oil and gas infrastructure data problem. One would create an in-house database and management team by May 2017 using state oil and gas regulatory data. The other would extend its current subscription to a third-party database, "if it proves to be sufficient." The agency hopes to decide which solution to pursue in the next two months.
The OIG said it was "encouraged by FWS's positive response." All of its recommendations have been marked resolved but not implemented.

Return to headline | Return to top
Documents Reveal EPA's National Fracking Study Halted by Industry Pressure

Mar 5, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog

By Jesse Coleman

Fracking companies had extensive influence over a critical study of the groundwater impacts of fracking, according to insider documents released by Greenpeace.
In 2010, amidst growing worries about the environmental impacts of fracking, Congress compelled the EPA to conduct a study. The study was supposed to be a definitive look at the issue, exploring if and how fracking contaminates groundwater supplies. That study was supposed to be released in 2012 but has been delayed until 2016.
Documents released as part of a Greenpeace investigation have found that the EPA was forced to rely on shale companies like Chesapeake Energy for data, funding, and access to fracking sites. The shale industry in turn constrained the study, limiting what could be studied and when. These constraints led to the eventual cancellation of perhaps the most important part of the study, the "prospective" section.
Industry Actions Lead to the Cancellation of Science
When the EPA's study was first conceptualized, it was supposed to include retrospective and prospective portions. The retrospective pieces would examine data collected by the industry in the past. The prospective section was where new scientific studies would be done. The prospective studies were supposed to take baseline data from groundwater in areas that had not yet been drilled and compare them with samples taken after drilling and fracking had occurred. This type of prospective study, which starts before fracking, has never been done before and represented a major advance in the scientific study of fracking's impacts.
The prospective portions would be the most reliable way to determine whether oil and gas development contaminates surface water and nearby aquifers. One EPA scientist told Inside Climate News, "The single most important thing you could do is prospective studies."
However, the EPA was reliant on two shale companies for access to areas that had not yet been fracked, an arrangement that led to the full cancellation of the entire prospective section of the EPA's study.
Documents obtained by Greenpeace show that Chesapeake Energy, one of the companies that initially agreed to cooperate with the EPA on the prospective portions of the study, actually drilled wells at their prospective study site before the EPA was able to collect baseline data. This effectively torpedoed the entire project, and attempts at replacing the location, originally in Louisiana, with one in Oklahoma also ended in failure.
The correspondence between Chesapeake and the EPA includes a draft press release announcing the cancellation of the prospective study in Louisiana conducted with Chesapeake. The release blames the cancellation on "scheduling conflicts," resulting in Chesapeake drilling the well before baseline data could be collected. The press release was jointly edited by the EPA and Chesapeake but never released to the public. The EPA would never publicly announce the cancellation of the prospective study, and only after increased pressure from Greenpeace did they reference its cancellation deep on the study's website.
The second prospective study, to be conducted with Range Resources, has also been cancelled. The cancellation of the prospective pieces has had a major impact on the usefulness of the study.
From Inside Climate News:
"We won't know anything more in terms of real data than we did five years ago," said Geoffrey Thyne, a geochemist and a member of the EPA's 2011 Science Advisory Board, a group of independent scientists who reviewed the draft plan of the study.
Delay and Obstruct: Study Attacked on All Sides by Industry
The documents reveal a number of instances where the fracking industry delayed and obstructed the EPA's attempts to study fracking. The industry waged an attack from every side -- political, scientific, and procedural.
As Sharon Kelly writes for Desmog, "Watered-down federal research weakens the possibility for future regulations. It also has been used to justify loopholes in federal environmental laws for the oil and gas industry." Kelly points out the three-step process that various industries have employed to impact unwanted studies:
Step one: using a rhetoric of collaboration and "non-adversarial" relationships, the industry effectively establishes inside access to what otherwise should be an independent research process. This allows the industry to meddle with study methodologies, pick and chose its own favored experts, and distort findings.
Step two: through inside access, the industry affords itself the authority to contest, after the fact, any findings that it is not able to water down on the front end.
Step three: this access also allows industry the ability to impose infeasible methodological demands on the agency, slowing the process to a crawl and at times forcing the agency to give up trying to get answers to certain key questions.
Here is a list of findings from the documents:
Chesapeake only allowed for baseline sampling after the fracking wells had initially been drilled, rather than beforehand, as EPA scientists preferred. In the absence of baseline data from before drilling, the industry can claim that contaminates existed there before their drills pierced the aquifer. The industry has claimed this in multiple cases where groundwater impacts from fracking have occurred.
Chesapeake demanded the EPA reduce the depth of their study from 300 to 150 feet and demanded that the EPA focus solely on the fracking stage, not drilling, completion, or other stages where contamination can occur.
API and ANGA tried to have their own consultants shadow the EPA's scientists during the study. This proved to be distracting to the scientists conducting the study.
At the same time, Chesapeake and Range, the two companies that were supposed to be cooperating with the EPA on the prospective study, were attacking other EPA studies of water contamination cases. While initially finding evidence of contamination from Chesapeake Energy wells in Pennsylvania and Range Resources wells in Texas, the EPA never pursued any regulatory action.
Chesapeake was, as one EPA email put it, "part of the team here" when it came to the water study.
The inspector general of the EPA tried to investigate "the EPA's and states' ability to manage potential threats to water resources from hydraulic fracturing." In response, pro-fracking congressional representatives demanded that the investigation "immediately end."
As Neela Banerjee writes in Inside Climate News:
The industry balked at the scope of the study and sowed doubts about the EPA's ability to deliver definitive findings. In addition, concerns about the safety of drinking water conflicted with the Obama administration's need to spur the economy out of recession while expanding domestic energy production.
Does Fracking Contaminate Water Supplies?
Studies conducted since the EPA's study began have found evidence that fracking affects groundwater supplies.
A 2013 Duke University study found that within a kilometer of fracking wells, methane concentration in drinking-water wells was six times higher than in the surrounding area. A University of Texas-Arlington study from 2013 found elevated levels of arsenic and heavy metals in groundwater near fracking sites in Texas' Barnett Shale.

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Senator: US is 'Woefully Behind' in Arctic Oil Exploration

Mar 5, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Laura Barron-Lopez

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Thursday warned that the United States is "woefully behind" other countries, when it comes to development in the Arctic.
Murkowski and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee raised concerns over the nation's lack of preparation for the changing situation in the Arctic.
Murkowski criticized the "lack of capacity" the U.S. has in the region to increase exploration and development.
One major issue, Murkowski and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) raised, is the absence of icebreakers in the region.
"If you can't move, it makes it tough to do much of anything and as a nation we are woefully behind," Murkowski said.
Thursday's hearing comes as the U.S. is preparing to take over the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which rotates every two years.
Testifying before the committee, Adm. Robert Papp, who was appointed by the State Department as special representative to the Arctic, said the U.S. hit the "sweet spot" in crafting its implementation plan between climate change policies and security for the region.
Still, Papp said, much more is needed in the Arctic to advance maritime safety.
"Climate-related changes in the Arctic are already profoundly impacting the United States and the rest of the planet," Papp said. "Reductions in sea ice are positioning the Arctic Ocean to be increasingly accessible in the short and long terms."
"There are plenty of needs up there," he added.
While Papp said icebreakers are one of those needs, he also said the U.S. is "behind the power curve in terms of being prepared" for an oil spill in the Arctic.
Papp said the U.S. and other countries on the council need to begin "identifying shortfalls in terms of response equipment, inventorying what's available amongst the countries that surround the Arctic so that we can get a step ahead of what inevitably will happen."
"There will be a spill of some sort whether it's from drilling or from a marine casualty," he added.
The U.S. will take over the chairmanship in April and released its priorities for taking over the council late last year.
High on the list of priorities is climate change and effective stewardship of the Arctic Ocean.

Return to headline | Return to top
Melting Arctic Sea Ice Poses Challenges For Aging Ice Breakers, Climate Efforts

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Dean Scott

The U.S. must move now to build at least one new heavy ice breaker given that it has only one such vessel in the Arctic region, where rapidly melting sea ice is opening areas to more oil and gas extraction and shipping, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate energy committee said March 5.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing highlighted the tension between the prospect of more economic development in the region, particularly for Alaska, and concerns that thawing Arctic sea ice is amplifying climate impacts such as rising sea level.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the panel, said she is drafting what she called an Arctic infrastructure bill to boost National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funding for more accurate navigation, weather forecasting, and mapping of sea ice in the region.
Murkowski acknowledged the climate and environmental concerns raised by the prospect of more passable shipping lanes and fossil fuel production. But she said other countries such as Canada and Russia are poised to reap those economic payoffs even if the U.S. does not.
“We can debate here in the Congress the pros and cons of offshore development in the Arctic,” Murkowski said, adding that she believes “very strongly” that the U.S. should “access our resources” there.
“But even if you suggest we take that off the table, the reality is these activities in the Arctic will continue with or without the United States' involvement. The maritime activity is only going to see [an] increase.”
Increased U.S. Focus on Region
Murkowski held the hearing a day after she announced that she and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) are launching a new Senate caucus focused on how Arctic issues affect the nation (43 DEN A-19, 3/5/15).
The Obama administration is poised to put new emphasis on climate impacts when the U.S. takes the helm of the Arctic Council, a multinational body coordinating policies among the eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the U.S. (232 DEN A-6, 12/3/14)
Both Murkowski and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the committee, worried that the U.S. is ill-prepared for the challenges of melting sea ice, which some scientists predict will trigger new navigational challenges in the Northern Sea Route including higher wind speeds.
The U.S. currently has just one functional heavy icebreaker in the region year-round, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star, but it was built in 1976 and is well past its planned service life. The Coast Guard has a second medium icebreaker, but it was designed primarily for scientific research.
Russia by contrast has 29 icebreakers and is reportedly building eight more, Cantwell said.
She pointed to a Center for American Progress report issued March 5 that said warming temperatures have thinned the polar ice cap and shrunk the Arctic Ocean's perennial sea ice at the rate of 13 percent per decade since 1978.
An ‘Ironic’ Situation?
Shipping traffic navigating through the Arctic via the Bering Strait has doubled since 1998, according to the report, Icebreakers: Essential Assets for a Changing Arctic.
The report said carbon pollution “has resulted in the warming of the Alaskan Arctic at a rate twice as fast as the rest of the United States.” Protecting ship personnel and the marine environment “will require a greater presence in the polar ocean than the Coast Guard has ever before had to deliver.”
Other committee Democrats, including Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), challenged their Republican colleagues in the Senate to recognize the role climate change has played in melting sea ice in the region. Increasing traffic along the Northern Sea Route and more fossil fuel drilling will only lead to more carbon pollution they said, which will only further accelerate the melting.
“We have a bit of an ironic situation here, do we not?” Franken said at the hearing.
The Obama administration has ratcheted up its focus on strategic and environmental concerns raised by declining Arctic sea ice. In January, President Barack Obama issued an executive order creating a steering committee to advise federal agencies and departments on policies that could affect the region (14 DEN A-13, 1/22/15).
Admiral Robert Papp Jr., named U.S. special representative to the Arctic Council in July, told the Senate committee that he has met with local communities in Alaska and assured the committee that he is sensitive to local communities' economic development needs, which include continued access to oil and natural gas for home heating.

Return to headline | Return to top
Tom Udall’s Unlikely Alliance With the Chemical Industry

Mar 6, 2015 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton

Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico has earned a reputation as an environmental champion. He helped lead the fight against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pushed through legislation for a new federal wilderness area in his home state of New Mexico.
It is part of his family legacy, dating back to the Kennedy administration, when his father, Stewart, served as the secretary of interior, and later played a vital role in enacting the landmark Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
So environmental activists were stunned to learn that Mr. Udall’s political supporters now include the chemical industry, which has donated tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns and sponsored a television ad that praised his leadership.
This unlikely alliance has been forged as Mr. Udall emerged as the chief Senate negotiator for Democrats on legislation that would fundamentally change the way the federal government evaluates the safety of more than 80,000 chemicals.
Some of Mr. Udall’s Democratic Senate colleagues and prominent environmentalists say he has helped the industry write new regulations in a way that protects profits more than public health. Photo Senator Barbara Boxer has been a critic of the negotiations between Mr. Udall and Senator David Vitter on legislation that would fundamentally change how the federal government evaluates the safety of more than 80,000 chemicals. Credit Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who until last year served as chairwoman of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency, has been the harshest critic of the negotiations between Mr. Udall and Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, notably over the language that would prevent states from setting their own, tougher standards.
“I’ve been around the Senate for a long time, but I have never before seen so much heavy-handed, big-spending lobbying on any issue, and what is so worrisome is that the very health and life of our children are at stake,” Ms. Boxer said. “To me it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.”
Mr. Udall emphatically rejects the notion that he is industry’s emissary. “I am fighting for our children and trying to make sure they are not being pumped full of chemicals in the next generation,” he said. “We can’t do something that is pie in the sky; we have to deal with the reality.”
It is a reality that pleases industry officials who have worked to get close to Mr. Udall over the past 20 months, after the death of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who once led Democrats’ negotiation of a deal with Senate Republicans.
“The leadership he is providing is absolutely critical,” said Cal M. Dooley, a former Democratic representative from California, who is now the president and a lobbyist at the American Chemistry Council, which represents DuPont, Dow and other giants in the $800-billion-a-year industry.
The courting of Mr. Udall, even with Republicans in control of Congress, demonstrates how important securing the support of at least a few Democrats in the Senate is to any corporate agenda in Washington where almost nothing can emerge from the chamber without 60 votes.
And this battle has a twist. Unlike most industries that fight new federal regulations, the chemical industry wants Congress to act. The existing federal law, adopted in 1976, is so antiquated that individual state governments have imposed their own chemical safety regulations.Continue reading the main story
The E.P.A. acknowledges there are about 1,000 chemicals used in the United States that might represent health hazards. Asbestos, for example, blamed for as many as 10,000 deaths a year in the United States, is still illegal to manufacture and sell. But because of complications with the existing law, the agency for decades has been unable to ban its use.
Industry executives also realize the public is increasingly losing confidence in the safety of common chemicals once routinely found in toys or baby bottles, a fear the industry hopes can be addressed by adopting more rigorous regulations.
But some environmental activists involved in the negotiations between Mr. Udall and Mr. Vitter are convinced that Mr. Udall has been too open to pressure from the industry.
“Senator Udall’s strong support for the legislation, in spite of its remaining flaws, has emboldened the chemical industry to take a more aggressive approach in Congress and try to disregard the critique of health experts and state governments,” said Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of a nonprofit group called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which represents hundreds of public health, labor and environmental groups.
The criticism is, in part, a negotiating tactic. The environmental groups are still hoping changes can be made to toughen the draft legislation. But the disagreements are real. Photo Cal M. Dooley, president and a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, at his office in Washington. The council represents DuPont, Dow and other giants in the $800-billion-a-year chemical industry. Credit Jabin Botsford/The New York Times
The most intense disputes are over the pace the E.P.A. will attempt to test the backlog of chemicals whose safety has never been comprehensively assessed. The speed depends in part on how much the chemical industry must pay to cover the cost of tests and rule-making.
Mr. Udall’s current draft would require the start of testing just 10 high-risk chemicals in the first year, a figure Mr. Udall conceded he wishes could be higher. It also does not explicitly mandate that the chemicals mostly likely deemed a hazard get immediate attention, Ms. Boxer’s office said.
But Mr. Udall added that the current draft legislation does give the E.P.A. clearer authority to impose limits on chemicals that its tests show cause any “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”
Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund who has been involved in drafting the bill, along with other environmentalists, chemical industry representatives and even an organization that represents trial lawyers, said this new safety standard language is a major improvement.
“It is not the bill I would have written from scratch,” Mr. Denison said. “But it’s a solid compromise that would be much more protective of public health.”
Still, the chemical industry prefers Mr. Udall and Mr. Vitter over Ms. Boxer. “Senator Boxer can no longer unilaterally stop the progress of reform,” said Anne Womack Kolton, a Chemistry Council spokeswoman.
The Chemistry Council, and many of its member companies, are engaged in an aggressive push to get the legislation — which will be named after Mr. Lautenberg as another hat tip to Democrats — passed into law. (Mr. Lautenberg’s widow, Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg, and Mr. Udall are scheduled to testify at a Senate hearing to introduce the bill this month, a kickoff that has been coordinated with the industry.)Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
As part of its push, the Chemistry Council spent more than $4 million during the 2014 election cycle on television and radio spots to help their allies in Congress. The only mention of the chemical industry was in brief credits at the end of the advertisements.
“These days in Washington, it is not easy getting things done,” said the advertisement that ran in New Mexico, featuring images of Mr. Udall. “But New Mexico’s Tom Udall brings both sides together to get results.”
Millions of dollars in campaign contributions were also distributed among the political accounts of the lawmakers involved in the debate, including Mr. Udall. First elected to the House in 1998, Mr. Udall had never before received a contribution from the Chemistry Council. The industry also made donations to Mr. Vitter, who is running for governor in Louisiana, and Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would oversee the debate in the House.
Lobbyists from at least 100 chemical manufacturers, retailers that sell chemicals or trade associations representing them were registered as of last year to lobby Congress on the topic, disclosure records show, compared to a total of about 15 environmental, public health and educational institutions.
A new draft that Mr. Udall and Mr. Vitter circulated on Thursday to try to address concerns raised by environmentalists is still considered flawed by some of them. Those environmentalists argued Thursday evening that if adopted, the law would actually harm public health, instead of improve it.
Mr. Dooley, of the Chemistry Council, said the industry is pleased with the new draft — and confident that it will prevail.
“This is the best moment, without question,” Mr. Dooley said from his office overlooking the Capitol. “I think we will get 70 votes on the Senate floor, or that is what Senator Udall, who spoke with us the other day, predicted.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Flake Bill Aims to 'Give EPA a Taste of Its Own Medicine'

Mar 5, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Jean Chemnick

Sen. Jeff Flake introduced legislation this week that would require U.S. EPA to compensate other federal agencies for increased electricity rates and other costs associated with the Clean Power Plan.
The Arizona Republican's measure aims to make a case that EPA's rules for curbing carbon dioxide from power plants would hurt ratepayers. EPA contends any increase in per-megawatt costs would be offset by efficiency upgrades that would shrink bills overall.

The Flake legislation, S. 640 -- backed by six Republican co-sponsors, including Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe of Oklahoma -- would direct EPA to deduct funds from its own operating budget to make other agencies whole.
The requirement would be waived if Congress approves the EPA rule -- a tough sell given GOP majorities in both chambers.
In a floor statement Tuesday, Flake called EPA's proposals "draconian" and said his bill would "give EPA a taste of its own medicine."
"EPA has a history of implementing costly and stringent standards for negligible and even questionable benefit," he said.
But EPA contends past predictions that new regulations would result in runaway price hikes and job losses failed to come true.
"It is the same rhetoric we've heard for decades," spokeswoman Liz Purchia said. "We heard it about phasing out leaded gasoline, we heard it about acid rain, and we heard it about the ozone layer. Critics cry wolf, and their doomsday predictions don't come true."
EPA, its supporters and its detractors are in a tug-of-war about how the Clean Power Plan's costs should be measured.
The agency and environmentalists say any legitimate cost-benefit analysis should include health-related savings including from reductions in non-CO2 emissions, while Republicans and industry take an expansive view of the rule's economic impact. The result: Predictions about the rule's economic consequences vary widely.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Proposes New Waste Minimization Grants Program To Lower GHGs

Mar 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

EPA is proposing a new waste minimization grants program under its fiscal year 2016 budget request as part of its climate mitigation plan and to better position the United States for meeting President Obama's long-term climate goals by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from waste activities.
EPA's air program “is making progress addressing GHG emissions from power plants, vehicles, oil, and gas operations," EPA's FY16 budget justification document says. "However, further efforts are required to put the country on an emission trajectory consistent with the President's long-term climate goals."
As a result, the agency under the budget proposal is seeking to earmark $1.3 million to support EPA climate mitigation through waste programs designed to cut GHGs.
Obama, as part of a joint U.S.-China agreement, committed in November to a stepped-up goal of lowering GHG emissions in the United States 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, according to the White House's website. "The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025," a White House fact sheet says.
The budget justification says the waste minimization work will leverage climate mitigation work in the waste and water programs to yield significant GHG reductions, while also resulting in co-benefits in waste reduction and water savings.
The $1.3 million will be provided through a grants program and will "focus on: increasing the recycling rates for containers and packaging; enhancing and expanding results-driven programs; working with the public and/or private sector to provide funding such as zero-interest rate loans to assist states and local governments and [non-governmental organizations] focused on infrastructure development and behavior change; and providing technical assistance to recycling programs," the justification says.
Further, the agency says it will work with stakeholders "to ensure consistent recycling guidance, identify gaps and recycling barriers, and transfer best practices."
EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus made note of the new grants program Feb. 13 in a question-and-answer webinar with the Southeast Recycling Development Council that focused on sustainable materials management.
However, prospects for the grants program remain uncertain as it is unclear whether the plan has adequate support for inclusion in EPA's pending FY16 appropriations legislation.
House Republicans have vowed to cut EPA's budget in the spending process, though at least one GOP senator is suggesting at least maintaining the agency at current funding levels.

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Fee and Dividend is Better Than Cap and Trade at Fighting Climate Change

Mar 5, 2015 | LA Times

By Noelle Sedor

California is leading the nation in taking action on climate change. AB 32, passed in 2006, established carbon pricing in the state with a system called cap and trade.
Simply put, this system caps carbon emissions from large polluters by selling a set number of emission allowances at state auctions. The number of allowances sold declines annually until California's emissions goals are achieved. Businesses can trade their surplus allowances to those that find it difficult to reduce emissions. The money the state collects from the auctions goes toward other emission-reducing measures mandated by AB 32, including sustainable energy projects and rebates for electric cars and solar panels. Reducing methane is a wise short-term win
What AB 32 set in motion has begun to reduce California's emissions. But California alone can't solve climate change. The U.S. has the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. Between what we emit at home and what is emitted abroad in the making and shipping of goods we consume, Americans are responsible for close to 30% of global carbon dioxide. Although China and the U.S. have recently set mutual targets, for years the lack of a national commitment to reduce emissions prevented other big polluters from reducing theirs. And unless global emissions decrease, California will suffer catastrophic effects of climate change along with the rest of the world.
All of this points to an urgent need for a national climate policy. California would like that policy to include its cap and trade program as the centerpiece. But despite the program's successes so far, this method of pricing carbon does not provide the best model for federal legislation.
One reason is that cap and trade does not address secondary consumption, the emissions that are generated offshore for goods we consume. If we ignore those emissions, we cut our ability to reduce our totals by half. There is a simple solution that will bring down emissions quickly [that isn't] anathema to Republicans.
Another reason is politics. The effectiveness of California's program is dependent on careful implementation and oversight that entailed the construction of a sizable administrative infrastructure within the California Air Resources Board. On the national stage, Republicans in Congress would never allow the increase in the size of government necessary for an effective federal cap and trade program.
The complexity of cap and trade is also a barrier to scaling up the program without reducing its effectiveness. Getting the details wrong can mean the difference between success and failure. The European Union's program is a case in point: It hasn't adequately reduced emissions partly because the cap was set too high and attempts to remedy the problem haven't worked yet.
There is no time for that sort of trial and error if we are to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. Instead, we need a price on carbon that we know will work and that can be implemented effectively and quickly.
What a waste of time this article is. The author blames the USA for China's pollution in order to justify her carbon taxes. As most of the USA is covered in snow from record cold temperatures, we hear the argument for how global warming is harming the planet.
There is a simple solution that will bring down emissions quickly without increasing the size of government, and without cumbersome regulation, both of which are anathema to Republicans. It's called a carbon “fee and dividend” plan.
It works like this: A fee is placed on carbon-based fuels at the source (well, mine, port of entry). This fee would start at $15 per ton of CO2 emitted and increase steadily and predictably each year by $10. Within a decade, clean energy would be cheaper than fossil fuels, giving entrepreneurs and investors an incentive to back clean energy sources. Learning to love paying 10 cents more per gallon
All the revenue realized from the fees would be evenly distributed to all Americans to help pay for increased costs of goods and services. And while cap and trade puts more of the burden of increased costs on lower-income Americans who spend a greater share of their income on energy, fee and dividend protects the less well-to-do. Because they use less energy on an absolute basis, their equal dividend share will more than cover their added costs.
Fee and dividend would also include a border adjustment, so that importers from countries that do not adopt similar carbon pricing would pay their fees at our border. Economically, this ensures a level playing field for U.S. companies. On the emissions side, it ensures that secondary consumption is accounted for, and encourages all countries to place similar fees on carbon.
Fee and dividend is a policy that climate scientists and economists agree is a good first step to reduce catastrophic effects of climate change. California would benefit because the rapid decrease in emissions would be good for the state's pollution problem and would make costly future AB 32 regulations unnecessary.
And it scales easily. As more nations adopt the system, worldwide demand will bring green technologies to mass market faster, driving down costs and making the transition to a green economy easier for everyone.
But the biggest advantage of enacting carbon fee and dividend is that it's the quickest way to bring down emissions so we can stabilize, then start restoring, our climate for our grandchildren.

Return to headline | Return to top
Utility Fights EPA Claims Of Air Law Violations In Suit Testing NSR's Scope

Mar 5, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Stuart Parker

A Michigan utility is fighting EPA's claims that it violated Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permit mandates when it modified a power plant, urging a federal appeals court to uphold a district court ruling in the utility's favor -- a decision testing NSR's scope that the Justice Department (DOJ) has warned risks “eviscerating” the permit program.
In a recent reply brief in United States v. DTE Energy Corp. and Detroit Edison Company, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, utility DTE is defending against the agency's claims that it failed to properly project the emissions increases expected from the $65 million coal-fired power plant update it completed in 2010. EPA says this failed projection meant the company did not trigger NSR permitting requirements even though it should have done so.
NSR aims to prevent pollution increases from new and modified facilities. The George W. Bush administration pursued several efforts to revise the NSR program that were seen as weakening its requirements, but EPA has long touted its years of NSR enforcement actions as successful, particularly against the utility sector.
Under the program, companies must install strict pollution controls if they trigger NSR permitting requirements. EPA In June 2010 issued DTE a notice of violation (NOV) alleging that the company had avoided NSR permit review for a “major” modification at its Monroe, MI, power plant that the company says was in fact a “routine” boiler component replacement. The agency then began an enforcement action against the company.
DTE successfully argued in the federal district court enforcement case that Bush-era 2002 NSR reforms changed the program's rules to bar consideration of preconstruction emission increase projections, and then said that the emissions increase at the plant was from increased demand, rather than the coal plant project.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Bernard Friedman in a 2011 ruling sided with DTE. That decision prompted warnings from DOJ in a Feb. 17, 2012, brief in the long-running litigation that it could “eviscerate” the NSR program if other courts adopt the same approach by placing a prohibition on counting preconstruction emissions projections in NSR reviews. The ruling could “potentially eviscerate Clean Air Act enforcement in the Sixth Circuit,” DOJ argued.
The 6th Circuit has already heard one appeal in the case, when a three-judge panel of the court in 2013 ordered Friedman to reconsider his 2011 original ruling. The parties to the suit then fought over the intent of that ruling at the district court level, and over what Friedman was required to do when deciding the case.
In a March 2014 ruling, Friedman again ruled for the company, holding that EPA was limited to a “cursory” review of DTE's preconstruction emission projections, prompting the new appeal.
Emissions Increases
DTE says Friedman’s rulings and the 6th Circuit’s prior ruling mean that EPA cannot “second-guess” company projections of emissions increases in order to determine if a project qualifies for NSR permitting.
EPA and environmentalists say the agency has the right to bring an enforcement action over such projections, but Friedman held that EPA must wait until actual emissions are measured following construction to determine if an NSR violation has occurred. But EPA says this is at odds with NSR being a preconstruction program.
DTE in its Feb. 27 reply brief rejects arguments made by EPA in the agency’s Dec. 23 opening brief in the current round of litigation. In particular, DTE rejects EPA’s approach to the NSR permit program’s requirement that regulated entities project all emissions “caused by” their proposed project.
The company argues this means that emissions growth resulting from an increase in energy demand, unrelated to the project specifically, should not count, under a “demand-growth” exclusion.
EPA, however, says DTE underestimated emissions that would be “caused by” its project. But DTE says EPA again “seeks to second-guess DTE’s projection -- specifically DTE’s application of the causation requirement -- to prove that DTE ‘should have expected’ that the 2010 projects . . . would cause significant emissions increases . . . notwithstanding that emissions at Monroe Unit 2 have verifiably decreased after the projects.”
“This Court squarely rejected this approach to enforcement in its 2013 opinion, while allowing for limited actions to ensure ‘at a basic level’ that DTE complied with the ‘specific instructions’ governing preconstruction projections,” the company says, referencing the 6th Circuit's prior ruling in the litigation.
“DTE considered ‘all relevant information,’ as the Government itself concedes, but the Government would place different weight on certain factors than did DTE. That is second-guessing,” DTE says.
EPA Deference
The company further argues against EPA’s request to the court for deference in its interpretation of its own rules on NSR, under what is known as the Auer legal doctrine. “Deference to an agency’s interpretation of its regulations is not appropriate where the rules are unambiguous, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules state unambiguously that a project ‘is not a major modification if it does not cause a significant emissions increase,’” DTE says.
Rulings upholding agency policy interpretations that EPA cites to support its claim for deterrence are either not relevant to the issue at hand or relate to EPA’s pre-2002 policy, although the 2002 policy is still in effect, DTE argues.
Nor did EPA make sufficiently specific allegations in its NOV, which merely alleged that DTE undertook a “major” modification that should have triggered NSR, DTE argues. The NOV should frame the scope of the subsequent enforcement action, DTE says. “Contrary to the Government’s suggestions, the NOV relates solely to the allegation that DTE undertook a ‘major modification,’” and does not raise specific problems with emissions projections that the company might correct, DTE says -- a flaw in the enforcement process that it calls “fatal.” Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled in the case.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Must Be More Transparent About Hiring Senior Scientists, Inspector General Says

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Anthony Adragna

The Environmental Protection Agency needs to be more transparent about using its Title 42 authority to hire specially qualified consultants and scientists in order to pay them a salary higher than the standard federal pay scale, according to the agency's Office of the Inspector General.
Justification for using the special Title 42 hiring the authority is currently “ambiguous” and failure to adequately demonstrate the reason for such hires leaves the EPA Office of Research and Development open to suspicion that it is the misusing or abusing it, according to a March 5 report (No. 15-P-0109).
There are 23 senior scientists at the agency hired under the authority, according to the report, which notes the EPA does have a “rigorous process” in place for job placement through Title 42, including independent panel evaluations, multiple interviews and presentations on subject matter.
Nevertheless, greater justification for the use of Title 42 is warranted. The inspector general recommended issuance of a publicly available memorandum during the hiring process to demonstrate that traditional hiring methods were ineffective and that the scientific position is critical to the agency's mission.
The EPA did not agree with the recommendation and instead proposed documenting use of the authority on a case-by-case basis through request memorandums that are approved by the assistant administrator. The inspector general did not approve of the alternative approach, and both sides will continue work toward a resolution.
Title 42 refers to hiring authority established under 42 U.S.C. Sections 209(f)-(g) and 40 C.F.R. Part 18. Candidates under Title 42 are eligible for salaries as high as $250,000 a year, compared with the usual cap of $201,700.
Called ‘Essential Tool.'
In its response to the inspector general, the EPA called Title 42 authority an “essential tool” that allowed it to adapt its research work toward changing agency priorities.
“EPA's use of the authority has been prudent and conservative, consistent with the budgetary realities and programmatic priorities,” the agency wrote. “EPA needs the Title 42 authority in order to attract, hire, and retain the highest-quality scientists and engineers now and in the future.”
Congress has authorized up to 50 possible hires under the authority, which is limited to a few agencies. The remaining 27 authorized hires for the EPA could be responsible for annual salaries of between $3.5 million and $6.75 million, according to the report.
“Because [EPA's Office of Research and Development] has not articulated its approach for allocating the 50 Title 42 appointments it is authorized, and justified the need to use the hiring authority to fill positions, it is susceptible to concerns about how the EPA is using this authority,” the inspector general wrote. “By articulating its approach, the EPA will be showing how the remaining 27 authorized Title 42 appointments, with a potential annual salary total between $3.5 million and $6.75 million, could be used to fulfill the agency's mission.”
Concerns about the hiring practice have been raised previously. Officials with the Government Accountability Office told Congress in September 2012 the agency did not have adequate requirements in place to ensure Title 42 candidates met applicable ethics requirements (179 DEN A-9, 9/17/12)

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Reducing Volatility of Crude Oil Essential To Rail Safety Upgrade, Schumer Says

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rachel Leven

The Transportation and Energy departments should set volatility standards for crude oil shipments, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
Reducing the volatility of the oil is an essential step to mitigating the risks of crude oil train derailments, along with establishing new tank car and operational controls requirements, Schumer said in a letter to the department heads.
“[U]ntil the stability of the crude being loaded into the tank cars themselves is improved disasters … could continue to occur,” Schumer said in the letter released March 4. “That is why it is critical that your agencies work together to develop a standard to address this issue as quickly as possible.”
Schumer's call for a new stabilization rule comes days after seven California Democratic lawmakers told the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration that a rule on the stabilization issue is necessary. While stabilization has been a part of the crude-by-rail debate, the letters show the approach is beginning to garner support from Capitol Hill as part of a comprehensive safety approach to rail transport.
PHMSA Study Cited
Schumer cited a PHMSA study released last year that found crude oil from the Bakken shale region in North Dakota is more volatile and flammable than other crude oils (142 DEN A-19, 7/24/14).
A national standard is needed to provide for safe transport as even an existing rule—North Dakota's stabilization rule, which takes effect April 1, requires oil to be stabilized at 13.1 pounds per square inch—doesn't go far enough, he said. The oil carried in the high-profile derailment of a crude oil train in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that resulted in 47 deaths would have met that standard, Schumer said.
PHMSA's rule on enhanced tank car standards and operational controls for certain flammable liquids, such as crude oil, is expected to be finalized in May. The proposed version did not address the volatility issue (42 DEN A-5, 3/4/15).
Schumer's letter was addressed to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Push Five-Year Extension For Railroad Safety System Implementation

Mar 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephanie Beasley

A key rail industry group is applauding the reintroduction of Senate legislation that would give railroads an additional five years to install an anti-collision safety system, saying the extension would provide the time needed to test and approve the new technology.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) introduced a bill (S. 650) March 4 that would give railroads until Dec. 31, 2020, to install the system, known as positive train control (PTC). Current law requires PTC implementation by December 2015.
According to the bill's language, funding issues, radio spectrum acquisition, software development, testing and technology availability are among factors that make it “infeasible” for railroads to meet the 2015 deadline.
“We must work to do everything we can to improve train safety and accident prevention without burdening our nation's freight and passenger rail industry,” Blunt said in a statement March 5. “Unmanageable deadlines could result in higher costs and disruptions of service.”
The bill is similar to legislation first introduced by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) in 2013. Thune, now chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, is a co-sponsor of the new bill, along with committee ranking member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
The legislation comes on the heels of the House passing a four-year passenger rail reauthorization bill.
The Senate has yet to introduce a rail reauthorization bill, although Thune has said the Senate will consider legislation that would include both the House's passenger rail priorities and the freight rail issues that have been a focus in the Senate.
AAR Applauds ‘Reasonable' Extension
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) said the proposed PTC extension would provide a reasonable timeline for rail industries to fully and safely implement the system.
“The AAR believes the new deadline set by the legislation is a reasonable and responsible extension and provides the freight and passenger railroad industries the time needed to fully install, test and approve PTC,” Edward Hamberger, AAR president and chief executive officer, said in a statement.
He said that, although the freight industry has so far spent $5.2 billion on PTC, “much remains to be done before PTC can safely operate.”
Rail Tank Concerns
The National Transportation Safety Board said it would like to see quick implementation of positive train control systems. In its January “most wanted list” of advocacy priorities for 2015, NTSB said it is urgent for railroads to implement PTC.
PTC implementation could help mitigate derailments of trains carrying hazardous materials, such as crude oil, the agency said. The NTSB noted that mitigating these derailments would help protect public health, property and the environment from effects such as oil spills, explosions and fires.

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested