Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Mar 11
-
(ACC Blog) Germany’s Experts Listen to the Science and Endorse EFSA’s Recent Conclusion on BPA Safety
Mar 10, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
“No health risk for consumers from Bisphenol A exposure,” reads the headline on a recent announcement. That headline says it all as German scientific experts listened to the science and endorsed the recent conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Legislation Protects Public Health, State Rights, Commerce, Senators Say
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced bipartisan legislation March 10 that they said would fix a broken Toxic Substances Control Act and protect public health while providing chemical manufacturers a clear, consistent path to market. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) would... -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall, Vitter Unveil Chemical Safety Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter took the wraps off their chemical safety bill on Tuesday and laid out their plan to try to break the logjam and update the 40-year-old rules governing EPA’s oversight. The bill that would update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has already drawn seven Democratic and seven Republican cosponsors, a strong start... -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall, Vitter Introduce Bipartisan TSCA Bill as Boxer Vows Her Own Proposal
Mar 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill this afternoon to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 with the support of key Republicans and some Democrats -- in what could provide a significant chance to revise the dated chemicals law this year. The bill by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) would change how U.S. EPA... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Settles Lawsuit Over Requirements For Submission of Antimicrobial Data
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency and the previous hitAmerican Chemistry Councilnext hit have reached a settlement agreement in their nearly two-year-old lawsuit over data submission requirements for the makers of antimicrobial pesticides (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 13-01207, settlement agreement 3/10/15). -
(ACC Mentioned) Research in Hand, Chemistry Council Presses BPA Safety Message
Mar 10, 2015 | Associations Now
By Ernie Smith
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has an uphill battle on its hands, and it’s pulling out the ammo. The chemical-and-plastics-industry group has begun a public education campaign to ease consumer fears about a controversial chemical used in many plastics: bisphenol A, or BPA. The chemical’s use in baby bottles—which is banned in the U.S... -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall Catches Flak Over Rewrite of Chemical Legislation
Mar 11, 2015 | Albuquerque News
By Michael Coleman
Sens. Tom Udall, a liberal Democrat and environmental champion, and David Vitter, a conservative Republican and hero of big business, would seem to be unlikely political allies. But on Tuesday, the senators from New Mexico and Louisiana teamed up to introduce major new legislation that would overhaul 40-year-old federal regulations ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Exposure Could Cost Billions In Health Care Expenses
Mar 10, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
Newly released analysis estimated that economic impact caused by exposure to common household chemicals total $209 billion per year in Europe. The study focuses on hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are present in products including plastics, electronics, pesticides, flame retardants and cosmetics. -
(ACC Mentioned) Putnam Legislature Backs Wide PCB Removal, Bans Polystyrene in County Facilities
Mar 10, 2015 | Philipstown.info
By Liz Schevtchuk Armstrong
The Putnam County Legislature sounded a decidedly “green” tone last week, unanimously backing a wide-ranging cleanup of hazardous PCBs in the Hudson River and banning polystyrene (synthetic foam) dinnerware from county government premises and programs. In other action at its formal monthly meeting Wednesday night... -
(ACC Mentioned) Children Ask Lawmakers to Ban Styrofoam in Schools
Mar 10, 2015 | Statesman Journal
By Tracy Loew
More than 100 municipalities across the country, from Portland to New York City, have banned the use of polystyrene takeout containers, citing health and environmental concerns. Now a group of Portland schoolchildren is asking the Oregon Legislature to prohibit their use in school meals. -
US Senate Sees New TSCA Reform Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The stage has been set for US Senate action this year on reforming the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with the introduction of a new bill on 10 March. The bill's sponsors say it “builds on and strengthens” the 2013 Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) (CW 22 May 2013). -
Senators' Bid To End TSCA Reform Stalemate Could Create New Hurdles
Mar 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo & Maria Hegstad
Senate Democrats and Republicans are floating a revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill that they say addresses a host of controversial issues that have led to a stalemate on moving reform legislation, but the bill could create new hurdles by raising questions about its fee structure, safety standard, and other provisions. -
Bi-Partisan Chemical Safety Bill Introduced to Strengthen Protections Against Health Risks
Mar 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund issued the following press release in response to today's introduction of The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act [UPDATE: The bill number is S. 697]. We have also prepared an accompanying factsheet and detailed bill analysis. -
Groups Hail Toxic Chemical Reform Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
While some environmentalists are calling legislation introduced Tuesday to reform the nation’s chemical laws flawed, others are hailing it as a fix for a badly broken regulatory. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act that Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) unveiled Tuesday reforms the Toxic Substances... -
Industry Chemical Bill Worse Than Current Law
Mar 10, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Consumers rightly expect that the chemicals used in everyday products are safe. But an industry-supported bill released today (March 10) by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (D-La.) falls far short of what’s needed to evaluate and regulate potentially dangerous chemicals. -
Chemicals Spilled in West Virginia's Elk River To Be Studied for Potential Toxicity by NTP
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The National Toxicology Program will conduct quick toxicity studies of nine chemicals involved in West Virginia's 2014 Elk River spill that triggered a “do not use” order for 300,000 people living near Charleston. The NTP released on March 10 the names of the chemicals and toxicity tests it plans to conduct to respond to... -
CSB Points To California's Oil Refinery Safety Proposal As Model For EPA
Mar 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is pointing to a California plan for strict process safety measures for oil refineries, saying the state's proposed requirements for analysis and use of safer technologies could serve as a model for EPA to improve facility safety, though CSB has yet to meet with EPA on the topic. -
Diluted Bitumen Seen as ‘Time Bomb’ In Pipeline Spills, Coast Guard Says
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
First responders need information regarding how long the diluted bitumen will float—like a “ticking time bomb”—when it spills from a transmission pipeline onto waterways, a U.S. Coast Guard official told a nationally contracted committee. The additional details, such as whether and how long the oil would float, would improve ... -
U.S. Production of Shale Oil Expected To Post Slowest Growth in Four Years
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dan Murtaugh
The biggest slowdown in oil drilling on record is showing signs of reining in the U.S. shale boom. U.S. shale-oil output is expected to post the slowest growth in more than four years in April, the Energy Information Administration said March 9. That follows a 41 percent plunge since December in the number of drilling rigs seeking oil. -
Oil Industry Challenges Oregon Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Rules in State Appellate Court
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The petroleum industry's petition for judicial review of Oregon's low-carbon fuel standard rules reflects a long-standing strategy contending that an inadequate supply of alternative fuels to supply the West Coast makes such rules infeasible (Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. Or. Envtl. Quality Comm'n, Or. Ct. App., No. A158944... -
California Regulators Say They're Protecting Drinking Water from Oil Waste Disposal Wells
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California regulators are making progress in ensuring drinking water supplies are protected from waste disposal wells used in the recovery of oil and gas, Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird told state lawmakers March 10. Speaking at a joint State Senate committee hearing, Laird and other state officials outlined efforts underway in... -
Lawmakers Grill State Oil Regulators on Oversight Failures
Mar 10, 2015 | LA Times
By Julie Cart
On Tuesday, state lawmakers took their turn lambasting California's beleaguered oil and gas agency at a hearing in which senators called the agency's historic practices corrupt, inept and woefully mismanaged. For two hours, legislators grilled the leaders of California's Department of Conservation, the Division of Oil, Gas and... -
Texas LNG Asks FERC to Begin NEPA Process for Brownsville Terminal Project
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Texas LNG Brownsville LLC has filed a request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to initiate the National Environmental Policy Act's pre-filing review of its proposed liquefied natural gas project in Brownsville, Texas. Texas LNG, a subsidiary of Texas LNG LLC, proposes to build, own and operate the 4 million metric tons per... -
Carnegie Endowment's Gordon Discusses New Oil-Climate Index, Says Industry Lacking Transparency
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
As the range of oils and extraction methods continues to evolve, how do various oils compare with one another on their climate impacts? During today's OnPoint, Deborah Gordon, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace... -
EIA: 2015 Electricity Capacity Additions Expected to Be Mostly Wind, Natural Gas
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
In 2015, electric generating companies are expected to add more than 20 gigawatts of generation capacity, mostly wind and natural gas, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released March 10. About 9.8 GW of expected new capacity is wind generation, 6.3 GW is natural gas and 2.2 GW of new capacity is solar... -
States Say Clean Power Plan Targets Achievable Despite Critiques of Proposal
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
States said they have the tools to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan targets even as they quibble over how the final rule should be structured. Representatives from Colorado, Minnesota, New York and Washington said the EPA's proposed rule, which would set unique carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets... -
Barrasso Joins Push Calling on States to 'Just Say No' to Power Rule
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Republican Policy Chairman John Barrasso last night became the latest GOP senator to call on states to boycott implementation of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, arguing in an email memo that doing so would undermine the controversial rule. The Wyoming Republican echoed the theme of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's... -
Portman, Shaheen Set to Reintroduce Long-Stalled Energy Efficiency Measure
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), authors of long-stalled energy efficiency legislation, plan to reintroduce their bill this week, the senators told Bloomberg BNA. Similar to previous years' versions, the bill would repeal a provision in the 2007 energy law that requires the government to phase out use of fossil fuels in federal... -
Portman, Shaheen Keep Hope Alive on Energy-Efficiency Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | National Journal
By Ben Geman
Ohio Republican Rob Portman and New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen are either gluttons for punishment or close to picking the political lock that often keeps even widely supported legislation out in the cold. The coming months could bring the answer. On Wednesday the duo is reintroducing major energy legislation... -
Cost Projections for EPA Ozone Proposal May Be Underestimated, Senate Republicans Say
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of its proposal to revise the national air standards for ozone includes several “questionable assumptions” that may underestimate the true cost of compliance with more stringent standards, according to Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. -
Hoeven, Manchin Join House Members Working on New Coal Ash Legislation
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are preparing to introduce legislation on the disposal and management of coal ash that they believe the Environmental Protection Agency and Senate Democrats could support, Hoeven told Bloomberg BNA March 10. -
Energy Department Appoints Duke Executive To Position for Coal, Carbon Management
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
David Mohler, a senior executive at Duke Energy, has been appointed the Energy Department's deputy assistant secretary for clean coal and carbon management. Mohler, who most recently served as Duke's senior vice president and chief technology officer, replace's Julio Friedmann, who will assume the position of principal deputy assistant... -
Florida Gov. Denies He Banned Employees From Using ‘Climate Change’
Mar 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) denied a report that his environmental agency prohibited employees from using terms like “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications. The report from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting quoted multiple former employees, consultants... -
Railroads Lobbying White House to Not Include Brake Requirement in Train Rules
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes shouldn't be included in the Transportation Department's forthcoming safety standards for crude-by-rail trains, the railroad industry told White House officials, according to online meeting records released March 10. -
Railroad Lobbied White House on Oil Train Safety After Spill
Mar 10, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Just one day after a 105-car oil train derailment spilled as much as 150,000 gallons of crude in Illinois, the railroad involved in the accident urged the White House not to require they use sophisticated new brakes under a much-anticipated final fuel-by-rail safety rule. -
Spate of Derailments Deepens Fear of Oil Train Disaster
Mar 10, 2015 | AP (in the Washington Post)
By Joan Lowy
Four trains hauling crude oil have derailed in the U.S. and Canada since mid-February, rupturing tank cars, spilling their contents, polluting waterways and igniting spectacular fires that burned for days. The derailments have deepened safety concerns that if an oil-train accident were to occur in a populated area...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Mar 10, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
“No health risk for consumers from Bisphenol A exposure,” reads the headline on a recent announcement. That headline says it all as German scientific experts listened to the science and endorsed the recent conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which made the recent announcement, identifies its guiding principle as “Identify Risks – Protect Health.” As further explained by BfR in a set of Q&As that accompanied the announcement:
The BfR is responsible for assessing bisphenol A in food contact materials such as tableware and internal coatings of cans. For the BfR, the key point is the statement of the EFSA that the risk for human health is low because consumer exposure to bisphenol A is below the temporary TDI value (t-TDI).
Based on a comprehensive re-evaluation of BPA exposure and toxicity, EFSA’s scientific experts concluded that ‘BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.’ Along with EFSA, the German BfR is not the only agency that has listened to the science.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently reached a very similar conclusion on the safety of BPA after evaluating the science. In response to the question “Is BPA safe?”, FDA answers with a single unambiguous word – “Yes.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Legislation Protects Public Health, State Rights, Commerce, Senators Say
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced bipartisan legislation March 10 that they said would fix a broken Toxic Substances Control Act and protect public health while providing chemical manufacturers a clear, consistent path to market.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) would:
• grandfather state chemical regulations enacted prior to Jan. 1, 2015;
• narrow federal preemption of state chemical laws when compared with some previous TSCA-reform proposals;
• authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to collect up to $18 million annually in service fees from chemical manufacturers;
CHART CHART CHART
• revise the agency's new chemicals program to require the EPA to determine that a significant use of a new chemical is likely to meet the law's safety standard before it can be manufactured or processed; and
• provide a presumption of confidentiality for certain information, such as customer lists.
Chemical manufacturers would have to substantiate up front all other confidential business information claims, and such claims would have to be re-substantiated after 10 years under the bill.
During a March 10 press briefing, Udall and Vitter aides confirmed details of the legislation that sources had shared with Bloomberg BNA prior to the bill's introduction (46 DEN A-10, 3/10/15).
The Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a March 18 hearing on the Udall-Vitter bill, with witnesses to be announced by March 16 or 17.
Vitter: Bill Involves Fundamental Compromise
The bill would protect public health and the environment and preserve states' right to retain existing standards and issue new laws and regulations, Vitter told reporters.
The bill would, however, balance that state right with federal authority to provide manufacturers a clear regulatory path to get chemicals and the downstream products chemistry enables to market, he said.
Vitter described what he called the fundamental nature of the compromise contained in the bill.
“Republicans agree to give EPA a whole lot of new additional authority, which we're not in the habit of being excited about,” Vitter said.
“In exchange, that leads—once the EPA takes final action—to a common rulebook,” Vitter said. After states weigh in regarding their positions on a particular chemical and after they are given the opportunity to address that chemical through waivers and other means, when the EPA makes a final decision about regulating a chemical, that becomes the country's governing law for that particular chemical, he said.
Udall said he and Vitter have sought the opinions of states, the EPA, industries, public health and safety groups, environmental organizations and other interested parties to craft a good, solid, bipartisan bill.
“Nobody got everything they wanted,” Udall said.
Core Provisions Unchanged Since 1976
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act would, however, fix a flawed, outdated, broken law that is failing to protect the public, including vulnerable populations such as women and children, he said.
Most environmental statutes have been updated within about 15 years of their passage, Udall said.
TSCA's core provisions, however, have not changed since the statute was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the same year laser printers were first introduced to the marketplace by IBM.
Udall's and Vitter's staff prepared two charts comparing the procedures of their bill with that of existing law (see charts).
Seven Republicans, including Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and seven Democrats, including Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a member of the EPW committee, cosponsored the bill.
Carper, however, wrote Udall and Vitter a letter March 10 to say more work remains to be done on the bill. Issues he said must be addressed to ensure his continued support include amending the legislation to ensure the EPA addresses the most hazardous chemicals first and to add protections against chemical spills and accidents such as the Elk River, W.Va., spill that affected the water supply for 300,000 people (8 DEN A-13, 1/13/14).
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued a statement calling the bill worse than current law. Boxer is ranking minority member of the EPW committee. While she was chairman of the committee during the 113th Congress, Boxer opposed the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009) from which the Udall-Vitter bill evolved.
Chemical Manufacturers, EDF Offer Praise
Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council, which represents major U.S. chemical manufacturers, said, “This legislation will offer the kind of predictability, consistency and certainty that manufacturers and the national marketplace need, while also strengthening oversight and providing consumers with more confidence in the safety of chemicals.”
“Stakeholders from industry, environment, public health, civil justice and labor organizations have provided input over more than two years of negotiations, and this bill is the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation,” said Dooley in a statement distributed by the ACC.
“Senators Vitter and Udall are to be commended for their undaunted commitment to reaching an agreement to finally update TSCA,” Dooley said.
The Environmental Defense Fund's President Fred Krupp also issued a statement. “This is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans.
“We look forward to working with Senator Udall, the environmental community and other stakeholders to get the strongest bill possible enacted into law.
“Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to seize the moment and act,” Krupp said. “Americans shouldn't have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families,” he added.
EDF issued a side-by-side chart listing 14 major improvements in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act as compared with TSCA and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, as introduced in 2013.
The American Cleaning Institute, Consumer Specialty Products Association, National Association of Chemical Distributors and Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates were among the trade associations issuing statements supporting the bill.
Opponents voiced their concerns as well.
Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney in the Health Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in his statement, “The bill has improved notably since the original version introduced two years ago. But the proposal still contains rollbacks and loopholes that make it worse than current law.”
The bill would block state action even when EPA has done nothing to protect the public, Rosenberg said.
Under the Udall-Vitter bill, there could be a five- to seven-year period between the time the EPA designates a chemical to be a high priority and the time it issues a regulation or takes some other action to control the chemical's risks.
During those five to seven years, state regulations of the chemical would generally be preempted unless the state obtains a waiver allowing it to control a chemical posing particular risks to its residents or environment.
Other organizations voicing objections included the Center for Environmental Health; Environmental Working Group; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of more than 450 nonprofit groups; and the American Sustainable Business Council, which is a member of the Safer Chemicals coalition, but also issued its own objections.
“This bill as introduced falls short in delivering meaningful reform that benefits downstream businesses and innovative entrepreneurs. We look forward to working with the Senate to make improvements to the bill that encourage safer alternatives and promote transparency,” said David Levine, chief executive officer of the business council.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Udall, Vitter Unveil Chemical Safety Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter took the wraps off their chemical safety bill on Tuesday and laid out their plan to try to break the logjam and update the 40-year-old rules governing EPA’s oversight.
The bill that would update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act has already drawn seven Democratic and seven Republican cosponsors, a strong start for the measure that’s been mired in controversy.
The list of original cosponsors is “a very strong statement in terms of our ability to move forward and pass this legislation,” Vitter told reporters, adding that he is “very confident” the bill could get more than 60 Senate votes and majority support in the House.
Udall called it a “good solid bipartisan bill” that was written with input from EPA, trial lawyers, chemical companies and public health and environmental groups that all say an update of the law is long overdue.
“Not everybody got what they wanted,” he said.
Udall’s comments appeared to be designed to counter the criticism from opponents of the bill, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who said in a Friday New York Times article that “it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing” the legislation.
The bill would mandate that EPA base decisions on chemicals only on the risk to public health and the environment and not on costs to companies. It also defines special protection for pregnant women, children, elderly and chemical workers that are particularly vulnerable to chemicals, and includes at least 15 deadlines for EPA to review and act on chemicals.
Additionally, it would impose user fees on manufacturers and processors of chemicals that would specifically finance EPA safety reviews and other chemical oversight.
Among the cosponsors are Environment and Public Works Chairman Sen. Jim Inhofe, panel Democrat Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, and one member of Senate Democratic leadership, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow.
“Bipartisanship is hard to come by in the Senate these days, especially on issues that affect the environment,” Carper said. “But in this case, Democrats and Republicans are coming together to improve a failed law that doesn’t work for consumers and doesn’t work for businesses.”
The other Democratic cosponsors are Sens. Chris Coons (Del.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.). The Republican cosponsors are Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), John Hoeven (N.D.) and Bill Cassidy (La.).
The bill will be discussed at a TSCA hearing at Inhofe’s panel on March 18. A markup hasn’t been scheduled, and the timing of the effort may become a factor given Vitter’s gubernatorial candidacy this year.
Vitter, who has been one of EPA’s sharpest critics on Capitol Hill, said the bill was a compromise that expanded the agency’s reach as it created regulatory certainty for companies.
“Republicans agree to give EPA a whole lot new additional authority, which we’re not in the habit of being excited about, to state the obvious,” Vitter said. “In exchange, that leads to … a common rulebook.”
That includes preempting toxics’ oversight in California and other states, a major concern of Boxer, the ranking member of the EPW committee.
“Legal experts who have examined the Udall-Vitter-Inhofe toxics bill at my request tell me this bill is worse than current law,” she said in a statement. “This means there will be fewer protections from the most dangerous chemicals for communities and families.”
The bill also “devastates the role of states in protecting their people, and the sponsors declined to ensure asbestos and children’s cancer clusters are addressed,” she said.
The California attorney general’s office echoed those concerns last weeks, citing its “significant objection” to the Udall and Vitter deal in a letter to Boxer last week.
Vitter and Udall said their bill has “the right balance” on preemption. It would grandfather in state action until this year and exempt action on low-priority chemicals from federal authority.
But critics say it would actually preempt state action quicker than current law and significantly restrict state enforcement.
“Firefighters, nurses, parents of kids with learning disabilities and cancer survivors all still oppose this legislation,” said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “In its current form it would not make a big dent in the problem of toxic chemical exposure and would even do some harm by restraining state governments.”
Some of the same environmentalists and their congressional champions who are fighting to preserve EPA domain over carbon emissions and expanding the Clean Water Act say the TSCA bill needs to be strengthened to make sure EPA is carefully scrutinizing chemicals.
A “lax” EPA “could use the bill to give the green light to deregulate hundreds of controversial chemicals with minimal review,” said Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney at NRDC, and the Udall-Vitter plan would also “block state action even when EPA had done nothing to protect the public.”
Still, Rosenberg said the bill “has improved notably” since the original version offered by Vitter and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg in 2013, and the current version’s “failings would be easy to remedy and we continue to work to get this bill to a point where it would be acceptable.”
Among the bill’s defenders are the Environmental Defense Fund and the American Chemistry Council, which see it as a breakthrough toward getting a TSCA deal through Congress.
“With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans,” EDF President Fred Krupp said. “Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp.”
ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley echoed the bill “is the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation.”
And the position of the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers and is considered a particularly important constituency to get Democrats on board with the bill, has shifted from opposition to neutrality on the latest bill.
An AAJ spokeswoman last week said that while the group “does not oppose the current draft as it is written, we do not believe this goes far enough to fully protect American families from the dangerous chemicals in our drinking water, children’s toys and consumer products.”
It may be the most far-reaching environmental law that few understand, and it touches on nearly every product in the household.
“This is one of the most complicated, complex laws you’re ever to run into,” Udall said.
And the political maneuvering behind the scenes has added intrigue.
TSCA reform became a legacy cause for Lautenberg, who Udall and Vitter named their bill after. Tuesday’s bill is a significantly updated version of an original deal Lautenberg and Vitter introduced in May 2013, only two weeks before the New Jersey Democrat died. Udall — who is the top Democrat on the Interior and EPA spending subcommittee this Congress — took over as the lead Democratic partner to Vitter.
Lautenberg’s widow Bonnie, who will testify at the March 18 hearing, said in a statement that the Udall and Vitter plan “builds important improvements upon the solid foundation Frank laid with Sen. Vitter in 2013,” and that senators should “step up and help finish the job of ensuring our families are protected from toxic chemicals.”
But Boxer remains a major obstacle for the measure, and she previewed The New York Times article last week before it was published. That article also questioned whether Udall was too cozy with the industry, which had donated to his campaign and aired a TV ad praising Udall during his recent campaign.
Udall pushed back Tuesday, saying he doesn’t have any control of such TV ads and that “never has a political contribution made an impact on what I do on public policy, and that’s just plain and clear and that’s the way it is.”
He again emphasized the scope of the interests and groups that he and Vitter reached out to, saying “the proof is in the product.”
Udall and Vitter also said they have visited with senior House Energy and Commerce panelists in both parties, including Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and full committee ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
“There’s a great deal of interest” in collaborating on “something bipartisan,” Udall said.
He and Vitter said the fundamentals of their bill are sound but the details can change. Carper sent a letter Tuesday to Udall, Vitter and Inhofe saying he’d like the bill to better “give states an appropriate role” and “ensure states are not prevented from action on risky chemicals until EPA sets a national standard.”
Boxer and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are working on their own version.
There is little expectation that the California Democrat will ever sign on to a Udall and Vitter bill.
“Look, Sen. Boxer quite frankly has always been an outlier on this bill and this issue,” Vitter said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Udall, Vitter Introduce Bipartisan TSCA Bill as Boxer Vows Her Own Proposal
Mar 10, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill this afternoon to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 with the support of key Republicans and some Democrats -- in what could provide a significant chance to revise the dated chemicals law this year.
The bill by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) would change how U.S. EPA manages chemicals suspected of causing harm, by reducing barriers that have made it difficult for the agency to remove chemicals from the market under current law. However, the bill would override future state chemical regulations in some instances, which has provoked fierce opposition from several Democrats, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, and most environmental groups. Boxer said today she planned to introduce her own chemicals bill similar to the previous Democratic-backed "Safe Chemicals Act" within 48 hours.
"Americans are exposed to a toxic soup of more than 80,000 different chemicals, but we have no idea what the impact of those chemicals is on our bodies -- or those of our children," Udall said in a statement. "Current law has failed to protect Americans from dangerous carcinogens like asbestos, and Congress can't afford to stand on the sidelines any longer."
The bill, called the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," named after the late New Jersey senator who championed TSCA reform, is expected to be reviewed at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing March 18. Udall and Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie Lautenberg, are among the witnesses who are expected to appear (E&E Daily, March 10).
The bill is "the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said in a statement.
Joining Udall and Vitter as co-sponsors were eight Republicans -- Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Rob Portman of Ohio and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana -- and seven Democrats -- Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
If all other Republicans support the bill, that would give the legislation at least 62 votes in the Senate, enough to break a filibuster of the bill, if necessary.
"TSCA reform is too important for consumers and job-creating businesses to not follow through, especially when you consider the fact that chemicals are used to produce 96 percent of all manufactured goods consumers rely on every day," Vitter said in a statement. "Our legislation is a solid, balanced, bipartisan compromise that will provide the necessary reforms to our nation's most important chemical safety law."
Though the Udall-Vitter TSCA proposal has enjoyed the strong support of the chemical industry and some environmental groups, uncertainty remained over how many Democratic co-sponsors the bill would attract.
Boxer said she wasn't surprised that the senators had attracted moderate Democrats.
"Given the amount of lobbying on this bill, I think it's a victory," Boxer said.
In a statement, Boxer said attorneys had told her the bill was "worse than current law."
"This means there will be fewer protections from the most dangerous chemicals for communities and families," Boxer said. "In addition, the bill in its current form devastates the role of states in protecting their people, and the sponsors declined to ensure asbestos and children's cancer clusters are addressed."
Boxer, the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has strongly opposed the bill in recent weeks, as have most environmental groups and the California attorney general's office.
"Firefighters, nurses, parents of kids with learning disabilities and cancer survivors all still oppose this legislation. In its current form it would not make a big dent in the problem of toxic chemical exposure and would even do some harm by restraining state governments," said Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, in a statement.
Carper said he believed lawmakers needed to find a middle ground. He said the fact that EPA has been able to ban only five chemicals since TSCA became law in 1976 showed that the regulatory system was broken.
"Albert Einstein used to say, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome," Carper said. "We've been doing the same thing for 38 years with this law. It doesn't work. It needs an overhaul to make sure it's protecting our health and our environment."
Carper said he had worked with Vitter and Udall to secure additional protective measures in the bill, and most of those had been adopted by the lawmakers in the new version. Carper said he had sent a letter today to Udall and Vitter listing three more issues he'd like to see addressed: clarification on states' role, disclosure of chemical information and clarification on how EPA may designate a low-priority chemical.
"They deserve to be addressed, and I'm confident that they will be," Carper said, noting the bill could be amended during a future markup or possible floor debate.
The Udall-Vitter bill "moves in the right direction," Manchin said. "Now, there's always more that can be done, I'm sure, and there's always people thinking you didn't do enough, but we haven't done anything for 30-something years. This is the right beginning and the right way to go about this, really."
The chemical industry has strongly supported the Udall-Vitter proposal and counts it as one of its top legislative priorities this Congress. American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley called on lawmakers today to move quickly to approve the proposal.
"This bill is the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation," Dooley said in a statement. "Importantly, this legislation will offer the kind of predictability, consistency and certainty that manufacturers and the national marketplace need, while also strengthening oversight and providing consumers with more confidence in the safety of chemicals."
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Settles Lawsuit Over Requirements For Submission of Antimicrobial Data
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Environmental Protection Agency and the American Chemistry Council have reached a settlement agreement in their nearly two-year-old lawsuit over data submission requirements for the makers of antimicrobial pesticides (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 13-01207, settlement agreement 3/10/15).
The lawsuit centered on a rule the EPA finalized on May 8, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 26,935).
The rule (RIN 2070-AD30) was meant to make clear exactly what types of data companies would need to supply to the EPA when applying for a registration for a pesticide with antimicrobial properties.
However, the ACC challenged the rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the council felt that the guidelines the EPA laid out weren't clear enough.
“EPA felt it was clear,” a senior ACC official told Bloomberg BNA. “It was not.”
Settlement Details
The proposed settlement agreement, announced by the EPA March 10, contains three main action items to be completed after the court approves it:
• within four months, the EPA will propose a guidance document further defining the terms “direct food use,” “indirect food use” and “nonfood use” as they relate to antimicrobial pesticides;
• within two and a half years, the EPA will propose a correction to the rule stating that the rule's benchmark of 200 parts per billion refers to the average person's estimated daily intake of an antimicrobial pesticide, not to the amount of the pesticide on a single food product; and
• within 60 days, the EPA will issue an interim guidance document explaining how it will interpret the 200 ppb benchmark during the time before it issues its formal correction.
‘Was Written Awkwardly.'
The benchmark is important because, according to the new rule, there are extra data requirements on companies that anticipate their antimicrobial products will be found on food in excess of 200 ppb.
Jennifer McClain, the acting director of the antimicrobial division within the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, said the measures her office will take as part of the settlement will help to eliminate any confusion about the benchmark.
That part “was written awkwardly,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “The intent was always for it to [refer to] daily intake.”
As a result, McClain said, the EPA doesn't see this as a substantive change to the rule.
The lead attorneys in the lawsuit are the Department of Justice's Stephanie Talbert representing the EPA and Seth Goldberg of the firm Steptoe and Johnson representing the ACC.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Research in Hand, Chemistry Council Presses BPA Safety Message
Mar 10, 2015 | Associations Now
By Ernie Smith
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has an uphill battle on its hands, and it’s pulling out the ammo.
The chemical-and-plastics-industry group has begun a public education campaign to ease consumer fears about a controversial chemical used in many plastics: bisphenol A, or BPA. The chemical’s use in baby bottles—which is banned in the U.S., Canada, and the European Union—has been of particular concern to the public.
But backed by a recent study by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and official comments by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ACC last month ran ads in two major U.S. newspapers (USA Today and The Wall Street Journal), as well as on health and news websites, emphasizing that BPA is safe and that consumers shouldn’t be afraid to use plastics containing the chemical.
Here’s what the regulatory bodies say:
The EFSA study, released in January, found that “BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants, and adolescents) at current exposure levels.” The study’s analysis of BPA in food containers was based on more data than in a 2006 study that hinted at more serious risks from exposure to the chemical in certain products. “As a result, we now know that dietary exposure is four to 15 times lower than previously estimated by EFSA, depending on the age group,” panel member Dr. Trine Husøy said in a statement.
The FDA website, in an FAQ section about BPA, says this in response to the question about whether the chemical is safe: “Yes. Based on FDA’s ongoing safety review of scientific evidence, the available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging. People are exposed to low levels of BPA because, like many packaging components, very small amounts of BPA may migrate from the food packaging into foods or beverages.”
The EFSA study and FDA statement buck smaller health analyses from the academic world that have linked BPA to autism and other health issues. A Newsweek piece from last week put the safety issue bluntly: “BPA Is Fine, If You Ignore Most Studies About It.”
ACC noted that the scope of the EFSA research goes far beyond that of any of the individual studies.
“While news outlets continue to cover small studies claiming various health effects of BPA, this expert panel review is comprehensive and inclusive, covering more than 450 studies reviewed by scientific experts for relevance and rigor,” said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of ACC’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.
ACC promotes its safety message through a site called Facts About BPA, which highlights research and “high performance benefits” of the chemical in industrial and consumer products.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Udall Catches Flak Over Rewrite of Chemical Legislation
Mar 11, 2015 | Albuquerque News
By Michael Coleman
Sens. Tom Udall, a liberal Democrat and environmental champion, and David Vitter, a conservative Republican and hero of big business, would seem to be unlikely political allies.
But on Tuesday, the senators from New Mexico and Louisiana teamed up to introduce major new legislation that would overhaul 40-year-old federal regulations on the U.S. chemical industry.
Udall says the new legislation is tougher than existing law and is needed to “regulate and protect the public.”
But he has come under intense criticism from some environmentalists after The New York Times published a story last week in which Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, described the Udall-Vitter bill as a gift to the chemical industry.
“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,” Boxer told the Times. “To me it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.”
Udall on Tuesday rejected criticism of his sweeping legislation, which was more than two years in the making. The bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to make its assessments about chemical safety solely on measures of risk to public health and the environment. The bill – a rewrite of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act of 1976 – would scrap the current law’s “least burdensome” requirement for regulating a chemical, which has long prevented a ban on asbestos.
It would also would increase fines on chemical companies that break the law from $25,000 to $37,5000 per violation, and mandate EPA safety reviews of new and existing chemicals.
“The law is broken,” Udall told a Capitol Hill news conference. “The (EPA) is not able to regulate and protect the public. This is a law that’s outdated, and the administrator needs the full authority under law to protect the public and protect vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women.”
Unswayed, Boxer reiterated her opposition to the bill after it was introduced Tuesday.
“Legal experts who have examined the … bill at my request tell me this bill is worse than current law,” she said in a statement. “This means there will be fewer protections from the most dangerous chemicals for communities and families.”
Campaign contributions
The American Chemistry Council, the national trade group for chemical companies such as Dow and DuPont, was among Udall’s top 20 industry donors in the 2014 election cycle, according to opensecrets.org, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group funded by the Center for Responsive Politics. The group also ran a television ad in New Mexico in the senator’s behalf last year during his successful re-election campaign. That was a first from the group.
At Tuesday’s press conference, the Journal asked Udall about criticism that he had gotten too cozy with an industry that has long been at odds with the environmental movement.
“The ads I don’t have anything to do with,” Udall said. “I can’t coordinate, and that is something that is just out there. Never has a political contribution had an impact on what I do on public policy.”
Udall’s work on the chemical regulation bill originated from his friendship with the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who died in 2013. Lautenberg, who hailed from one of the nation’s leading chemical producing states, had worked with Udall on anti-drunken driving legislation, and the New Mexico senator took the baton from him on chemical regulation when he retired.
Udall said his legislation with Vitter – named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – represents a compromise that would strengthen the nation’s outdated chemical regulations.
“Nobody got everything they wanted,” Udall said.
He also defended his role in bringing chemical companies to the negotiating table.
“Look at the major environmental statutes that have been revamped … the Safe Water Drinking Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,” Udall said. “The process was laborious; it required bringing all the stakeholders to the table. If you go back to the Clean Air Act, there were stakeholders who were brought in who said, ‘Why are you listening to the coal industry? Why are you listening to the public utilities and all of these groups?’
“The fact is you don’t get the job done unless you listen to everybody, and that is what we’ve done in this case,” he said. “The proof is in the product, and I think if people look at the product they’ll see a good, solid, bipartisan effort.”
The American Chemical Council endorsed the bill Tuesday, as did the national Environment Defense Fund, which aims to strike a balance between environmental protection and economic growth.
Richard Denison, the lead scientist for the Environment Defense Fund, told the Journal in a telephone interview that the legislation would allow the EPA to “start the process in a systematic way to look at chemicals and determine if they were safe.” He also said the bill sets a federal standard instead of deferring to individual states.
The bill has eight Democratic co-sponsors – including Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico – and eight Republican co-sponsors, an unusually high number in the narrowly divided Senate.
“I am very optimistic about it getting over 60 votes in the Senate and the majority in the House,” Vitter said.
But not everyone was cheering the legislative proposal. Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney in the Health Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the bill “contains rollbacks and loopholes that make it worse than current law.”
“For example, a lax Environmental Protection Agency could use the bill to give a green light to deregulate hundreds of controversial chemicals with minimal review,” he said. “The bill also would block state action even when EPA has done nothing to protect the public. The bill’s failings would be easy to remedy, and we continue to work to get this bill to a point where it would be acceptable.”
A group called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families described the legislation as flawed.
“In its current form, it would not make a big dent in the problem of toxic chemical exposure and would even do some harm by restraining state governments,” said Andy Igrejas, the group’s director.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Exposure Could Cost Billions In Health Care Expenses
Mar 10, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
Newly released analysis estimated that economic impact caused by exposure to common household chemicals total $209 billion per year in Europe.
The study focuses on hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are present in products including plastics, electronics, pesticides, flame retardants and cosmetics. The chemicals are believed to play a role in neurological development in kids, obesity and diabetes, and contribute to male-reproductive disorders.
The findings, which were presented at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Brussels last week, come as policymakers in the EU debate whether to enact the world’s first regulations against endocrine-disrupting chemicals. New regulations targeting endocrine disrupters — which are found in thousands of products — are likely to have sweeping impacts across the chemicals industry.
"Although this analysis was limited to the European Union, the disease and cost burden of exposure is likely to be on the same order of magnitude in the United States and elsewhere in the world," said Leonardo Trasande, one of the 18 researchers involved in the studies.
Chemicals Under Fire
Broken up into separate parts, each report analyzed different types of diseases and the chemicals associated with them.
One part examined the link between obesity and diabetes with BPA, phthalates, and DDE, whose parent chemical is the banned insecticide DDT.
When analyzing male reproductive disorders, the researchers examined polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, which are commonly used as flame retardants and in other products including plastics and textiles.
To determine the impact caused by neurological disorders, including autism and ADHD, the panel again looked at PBDEs as well as organophosphate pesticides. The researchers estimated that this category cost the public the most — an estimated $146 billion per year — in health care fees and treatments including special education for children with behavioral disorders or lower IQs.
Because of the substantial economic consequences, the researchers recommend that exposure to the chemicals be more strictly limited.
But that advice is likely to heed criticism.
Industry Response
Just a few months ago, another report out of Europe declared that BPA currently poses no health risks to anyone at any age at our current exposure levels. The American Chemistry Council also just launched a new campaign to spread the word about BPA’s safety.
Meanwhile, CropLife America, a pesticide industry trade group, criticized the reports, and issued a statement saying that “to ascribe these disorders to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the environment is misleading and potentially harmful.”
But the researchers were confident in the link between these chemicals and medical costs, saying that the likelihood that the chemicals are contributing to these diseases is more than 99 percent.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Putnam Legislature Backs Wide PCB Removal, Bans Polystyrene in County Facilities
Mar 10, 2015 | Philipstown.info
By Liz Schevtchuk Armstrong
The Putnam County Legislature sounded a decidedly “green” tone last week, unanimously backing a wide-ranging cleanup of hazardous PCBs in the Hudson River and banning polystyrene (synthetic foam) dinnerware from county government premises and programs.
In other action at its formal monthly meeting Wednesday night (March 4) in Carmel, the legislature approved Putnam Arts Council grants to several Philipstown organizations.
PCB removal
The PCB measure referred to an ongoing concern, the repercussions of General Electric’s dumping of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, into the river from 1947–77. PCBs, which can taint drinking water and accumulate in fish, birds and other creatures, have been linked to cancer and liver and kidney disorders, as well as to neurological problems and cognitive mind-related disabilities.
The resolution crafted by the legislators, all Republicans, refers to PCBs as a threat both environmentally and economically, since, it declares, they not only are found in nearly 200 miles of river, soils and floodplains, but have devastated Hudson commercial fishing, wrecked use of the Champlain Canal for shipping, and endangered Hudson Valley tourism.
After protracted controversy, in 2009 GE began dredging to remove the PCBs, expecting to finish this year and focusing in particular on a stretch of river deemed the most critical. Federal agencies and the State of New York have warned, and the county resolution states, that “failure to apply the more stringent criteria” to two other stretches of river would leave “a series of Superfund-caliber sites” and that insufficient scouring brings the high “likelihood of remediated areas becoming re-contaminated.”
“We’re just asking GE to further extend this cleanup to include other areas,” explained Legislator Barbara Scuccimarra, who represents Philipstown and chairs the committee that prepared the resolution.
The resolution asserts that “the current scope” of cleanup “will not restore the Hudson River to its former ecological health and the continued presence of highly contaminated sediments in the Upper Hudson will prevent the revival of long-dormant economic opportunities for both the Upper and Lower Hudson communities.”
The measure therefore calls on GE to “dredge all areas of PCB-contaminated sediments” in the remaining two sections of river; “conduct any additional necessary removal of soils and sediments in PCB-contaminated ‘hot spots’ in and around the Upper Hudson, including cleanup of the Champlain Canal,” and “complete a … robust cleanup” of floodplains “to restore the river to its full health and value as a natural and economic resource.”
The legislature plans to send the resolution to GE’s chairman and CEO; members of the U.S. Congress from Hudson River districts; three federal agencies; and state officials.
Before the vote, Legislature Chairman Carl Albano said that “the removal of PCBs was questionable in the beginning” but that efforts had proven themselves and “it was done very effectively in large areas. So I would very much be in favor of going to the next step.” His colleagues agreed.
Polystyrene ban
Capping a year of discussion, the legislature banned polystyrene dinnerware from departments and functions, including the Office for Senior Resources, which runs a lunch program for elderly residents of Philipstown and other municipalities, and the Putnam County Golf Course. The ban takes effect June 1. It applies to such common items as disposable cups and plates made of polystyrene — often mislabeled “Styrofoam,” a name that refers to a trademarked Dow Chemical product.
The resolution states that polystyrene manufacturing “is among the largest creators of hazardous waste in the United States”; that the foam and is “a common environmental pollutant … non-biodegradable”; that alternate, biodegradable and “compostable” materials exist; and that use of such alternatives “will reduce the waste stream and reduce waste costs.”
Scuccimarra advocated the ban and, according to Legislator Kevin Wright, “certainly has done all the heavy lifting on this.” The American Chemistry Council, a national trade association that represents polystyrene manufacturers, sent a lobbyist to a recent legislative committee meeting to oppose the ban.
The polystyrene prohibition only covers county government facilities, not residents or private entities. “But we hope they will follow suit,” Legislator Ginny Nacerino observed.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Children Ask Lawmakers to Ban Styrofoam in Schools
Mar 10, 2015 | Statesman Journal
By Tracy Loew
More than 100 municipalities across the country, from Portland to New York City, have banned the use of polystyrene takeout containers, citing health and environmental concerns.
Now a group of Portland schoolchildren is asking the Oregon Legislature to prohibit their use in school meals.
"According to a Harvard fact sheet, polystyrene is really bad for our health," Dante Acevedo, a student at Sunnyside Environmental School, told the House Committee on Energy and Environment Tuesday.
Rep. Rob Nosse, D-Portland, introduced the bill on behalf of the children.
It would require school districts that use polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam, to phase it out by July 1, 2021. Districts that could show a financial hardship could get an extension. And a proposed amendment would make an exception for districts that recycle the products.
"With all that we know about the harmful effects that polystyrene poses to our environment and public health, it was surprising to hear that children in our schools are still being exposed," Senate Majority Leader Diane Rosenbaum, D-Portland, said in written testimony supporting the legislation.
The American Chemistry Council says polystyrene is safe in food service packaging.Buy Photo
Rep. Jessica Vega Pederson and Rep. Mark Johnson listen to testimony from elementary school students during a public hearing for House Bill 2762 at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on Tuesday, March 10, 2015. The bill would require school districts to eliminate use of polystyrene trays in food service. (Photo: ANNA REED / Statesman Journal)
"Polystyrene is an FDA-approved and sanitary choice for food service packaging made by schools, hospitals, restaurants, food carts and stadiums," Mike Levy, senior director for ACC's plastics food service packaging group, said in a press release last week.
Studies have shown, however that styrene, a possible human carcinogen, can leach out of polystyrene food and drink containers.
Opponents also point out that the material takes centuries to decompose, and can end up in waterways.
"According to the EPA, polystyrene is the fifth-highest source of hazardous waste in the world," Multnomah County Commissioner Jules Bailey, a former legislator, said.
Oregon Green Schools Association supports the bill, board member Mark Nystrom said.
"Students that attend schools where single-use polystyrene trays are used are unintentionally being sent the message that waste is an unavoidable part of growing up," Nystrom said. "This may lead them to draw the conclusion that it is acceptable to waste resources by leaving the lights on when they leave an empty room, taking long showers or drinking bottled water instead of from the tap."
The Oregon School Employees Association is neutral on the bill, Tricia Smith, a lobbyist for the union, said.
It's uncertain how many Oregon school districts are using polystyrene.
"School districts are all over the map on this," Nosse said.
Some smaller school districts, including Gervais, Lebanon and Sweet Home, objected to the cost associated with compostable plates or washing reusable dishes.
The Salem-Keizer School District's food service contractor does not use polystyrene, spokesman Jay Remy said.
tloew@statesmanjournal.com, (503) 399-6779 or follow at Twitter.com/SJWatchdog
About the bill
House Bill 2762 would require school districts to phase out the use of polystyrene plates, trays and other food containers by July 1, 2021.
-
US Senate Sees New TSCA Reform Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The stage has been set for US Senate action this year on reforming the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with the introduction of a new bill on 10 March. The bill's sponsors say it “builds on and strengthens” the 2013 Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) (CW 22 May 2013).
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was coauthored by Senators Tom Udall (Democrat-New Mexico) and David Vitter (Republican-Louisiana). Mr Vitter was the co-sponsor of CSIA along with the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, after whom the new measure is named. The CSIA stalled in the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee in the face of strong opposition from then-committee chairman Barbara Boxer (Democrat-California). She was especially concerned about state preemption. Since then Republicans have gained control of the Senate and the committee leadership.
The new bill currently has 18 co-sponsors, half of them Democrats. The bipartisan support is a “very strong statement in terms of our ability to move forward” with the legislation, says Mr Vitter.
The bill has major differences with CSIA in language relating to state preemption, safety standards, deadlines for action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), funding for the agency, and specifying protection for vulnerable populations including infants, children, pregnant woman and the elderly.
On the contentious issue of state preemption, the measure would: let all state regulations on chemicals stand if they were enacted before 1 January 2015;let states act to restrict a chemical until and unless the US EPA takes up the same substance for assessment after designating it as a priority chemical. State action relating to information collection and monitoring of chemicals are not prohibited;allow states to seek a waiver from preemption for “compelling local reasons". They can also seek judicial review of EPA decisions on waivers; and
apply a uniform federal standard across the country once the EPA takes action on a chemical.The legislation mandates that the EPA bases chemical safety decisions solely on considerations of risk to public health and the environment. Costs and benefits cannot be a factor in chemical safety evaluations. It also eliminates wording in TSCA that requires the agency to implement the “least burdensome” route for regulating a chemical.
Unlike CSIA, the legislation sets deadlines for EPA action on chemicals, including completion of safety assessments of priority chemicals within three years of designation. If the agency finds that a chemical does not meet the safety standard, risk management measures must be imposed within two years.
It allows the EPA to levy user fees to fund a portion of expenses to implement the legislation. It estimates that the agency can raise about $18m/year that would cover about 25% of the costs related to implementing the legislation. It preserves existing private rights of action, meaning citizens can sue and seek damages from industry when they believe that harm has been done.
The measure requires upfront substantiation for confidential business information (CBI) claims and sets a ten-year deadline for renewing such claims.
Mr Vitter says he and Mr Udall have involved “every stakeholder” over the last two years to make improvements to CSIA. While giving the EPA additional authority to protect health and safety, he adds that the measure also helps create a “single rulebook” that provides regulatory certainty for industry.
Asked if he is open to further changes to the preemption language to attract the support of Ms Boxer and others, he says he is “open to any good ideas to improve the bill's important balance between states and the EPA.” But he does not see any basic changes being made to the preemption language “because we got it right fundamentally".
Mr Vitter, who is running for Governor in Louisiana this year and would step down from the Senate if he won, says he is “very optimistic” that the bill would get the support of more than 60 senators, enough to insulate it against a filibuster.
“This bill represents the best opportunity to strengthen safeguards against dangerous chemicals and dramatically improve existing law, while allowing innovation in the industry,” says Mr Udall. “I’ve worked closely with experts, environmental leaders and community groups to craft this bipartisan proposal, and am proud that we’ve come to a consensus on a bill that will break the logjam and protect our families.”
In a statement, Ms Boxer, who is now the ranking member of the EPW committee, says legal experts who examined the measure “tell me this bill is worse than current law. This means there will be fewer protections from the most dangerous chemicals for communities and families.” The bill in its current form also “devastates the role of states in protecting their people,” she adds. “I will continue to work to improve this bill.”
The Environmental Defense Fund, which has worked hard in recent years to find an acceptable compromise on TSCA reform, welcomed the bill and has published a factsheet and detailed bill analysis.
“After nearly four decades under a failed law, this legislation would finally provide EPA with the tools it needs to better protect American families,” said EDF lead senior scientist Richard Denison. “Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families. It’s essential Congress act now.”
-
Senators' Bid To End TSCA Reform Stalemate Could Create New Hurdles
Mar 10, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo & Maria Hegstad
Senate Democrats and Republicans are floating a revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill that they say addresses a host of controversial issues that have led to a stalemate on moving reform legislation, but the bill could create new hurdles by raising questions about its fee structure, safety standard, and other provisions.
The legislation released March 10 is a revised version of a prior failed bill to overhaul the 1976 TSCA, and seeks to give EPA authority to address the thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace. Among the revisions are new limits on the bill's preemption of state programs to restrictions on chemicals that EPA has designated as high priority and commenced a safety assessment -- which appears narrower than the earlier drafts of the legislation.
The bill also makes changes to the previous legislation's safety standard under which EPA would assess chemical safety, and establishes new plans for a fee system that would provide funding for implementation.
But some say the bill raises new questions over whether it would fix major flaws in TSCA that many attribute to EPA's 1991 failure to ban the chemical asbestos -- such as whether the bill's revised language requiring a cost-benefit analysis of agency action to ban or restrict a chemical would create similar problems to those in the asbestos case.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who introduced the bill in Washington, D.C., with Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), said that the legislation addresses various concerns that a group of senators raised about an earlier version of TSCA reform Vitter worked on last year. “Every one of those specific areas was address in a substantive way,” he said. “I couldn't be more pleased,” though he declined to provide specific examples of how the concerns were addressed.
Udall also touted the compromise legislation and its bipartisan support, as well as various stakeholder groups. “I'm very proud of what we've done. We pulled together attorneys who were interested in access to the courthouse for their clients, states, EPA, industry, public health and safety and environmental groups. . . . Nobody got everything they wanted. . . . We pulled people together and developed a product that I think is very, very solid.”
Nevertheless, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a March 10 statement said that, “Legal experts who have examined the . . . toxics bill at my request tell me this bill is worse than current law. This means there will be fewer protections from the most dangerous chemicals for communities and families. In addition, the bill in its current form devastates the role of states in protecting their people, and the sponsors declined to ensure asbestos and children's cancer clusters are addressed.”
And one environmentalist says “the real test is asbestos,” noting that while the bill would eliminate TSCA's current mandate that EPA examine the “least burdensome” alternative to banning a chemical, it would still require the agency to consider costs and benefits associated with regulating a chemical under section 6 of the law. Critics fear that this could create hurdles for attempts to use the toxics law to regulate substances of concern.
The early push-back from Boxer and some environmentalists suggests that the revisions to the legislation might have created further questions and hurdles in the attempt to resolve existing doubts.
TSCA Reform
The bill, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act after the late Democratic senator from New Jersey who advocated for TSCA reform, is the latest effort by Vitter, Udall, Senate EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and others to advance efforts to overhaul the decades-old law.
Efforts to move TSCA reform in the Senate in the 113th Congress stalled in EPW under then-Chairman Boxer, who objected to what she said were extensive state preemption provisions in earlier bills.
The bill was introduced with the support of Sens. Inhofe, Joe Manchin (D-WV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Boozman (R-AR), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), John Hoeven (R-ND), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) for a total of 14 co-sponsors -- 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats in addition to Udall and Vitter.
The version of the bill introduced in the 113th Congress, S. 1009, ended with 23 co-sponsors including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who has not signed on as an original co-sponsor of the new bill.
Vitter described the latest version of the TSCA reform legislation as a grand compromise. “Republicans agree to give EPA a whole lot of new, additional authority, which we're not in the habit of getting excited about, to state the obvious. In exchange that leads to, once the EPA takes action, a common rulebook” on how chemicals will be regulated. “That leads to the fundamental nature of a compromise, and I think that's what has brought Democrats and Republicans on board and I expect support to grow on both sides” since the bill's introduction, he said.
“If this piece of legislation can be adopted and put in a position that the EPA can look at the whole field of chemicals, and start dealing with them, then EPA can start dealing with things like asbestos. . . . There are many chemicals that are out that have issues and we need an agency to be able to deal with them and that's what this bill does. I think it reaches the right balance on preemption,” added Udall. But he said that both he and Vitter would be willing to consider “ideas” for improving the legislation as the Senate begins its consideration of it.
And Vitter said that “In terms of alternatives, I'd ask those asking questions about asbestos and other things, what is the alternative to acting in that regard? This is the only realistic model in sight.”
The Environmental Defense Fund is offering support for the bill, touting revisions to its safety standard under which EPA would review the safety of chemicals and designate them for further action under Sections 4, 5, and 6 as “replacing TSCA’s burdensome cost-benefit safety standard -- which prevented EPA from banning asbestos -- with a pure, health-based safety standard,” according to a March 10 press release from the group.
The bill defines the safety standard as that which “ensures, without taking into consideration cost or other nonrisk factors, that no unreasonable risk of harm to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use.”
The new safety standard would also ensure that substances pose no unreasonable risk of harm to the general population or any “potentially exposed or susceptible population that the Administrator has identified” which addresses an early criticism of S. 1009 that it did not adequately protect vulnerable populations.
But the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition writes in a letter to lawmakers -- floated March 10 by Boxer -- that the new safety standard language would make it more difficult for EPA to regulate a substance in a specific consumer product. The coalition calls for the senators to strip the relevant language, saying it would require EPA to “jump through additional regulatory hoops” to address a substance even after determining a chemical is unsafe.
Preemption Provisions
Preemption looks likely to be another major area of contention for the revised legislation, despite Vitter's and Udall's comments. Boxer in her statement said that the revised legislation “devastates the role of states in protecting their people,” and fails to ensure children's cancer clusters and asbestos would be addressed.
The new bill seeks to address preemption concerns, including grandfathering against preemption any state programs that restrict chemicals that were taken before Jan. 1, 2015 -- which appears to reflect fears from Boxer and California officials over California's Proposition 65 program -- or any state law in effect on Aug. 31, 2003.
The revised bill would also narrow preemption for new state actions to those chemicals for which EPA designates as high priority and develops a scope for conducting a safety assessment, while existing programs would be preempted only after a safety determination is completed under section 6, and appears to provide more details on conditions under which states may receive a waiver from the preemption provisions.
But opponents of the bill say the revised preemption provision would still leave a regulatory “void” under which state programs would be barred but EPA action would not yet be final, which the environmentalist says “robs the only cop on the beat of any authority” for a time period that could be at least seven years.
In a March 5 letter to Boxer, California state AG General Counsel Brian Nelson already flagged concerns over the bill, saying it would create “excessive displacement of states from the promulgation and enforcement of chemicals health and safety regulations,” including “the preemption of state authority to enact new protections with respect to high priority chemicals years before federal regulations take effect.”
Carper, a co-sponsor of the bill, in a March 10 statement also hinted that the preemption dispute has not been fully resolved. “Important progress has been made on this legislation, and must be recognized, but our work is not yet finished. For instance, I believe we should further examine the ways in which states and the public can review EPA’s chemical safety decisions, and the role states will play in implementing the new law. I remain confident we can make progress and find a reasonable compromise as we move this bill through committee and to the Senate floor.” The revised bill includes a host of deadlines for specific EPA actions, such as requiring the agency to have designated at least 20 high priority and 20 low priority chemicals within three years of the statute being enacted, and reaching a total number of 25 high priority and 25 low priority substances designated within five years
-
Bi-Partisan Chemical Safety Bill Introduced to Strengthen Protections Against Health Risks
Mar 10, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund issued the following press release in response to today's introduction of The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act [UPDATE: The bill number is S. 697]. We have also prepared an accompanying factsheet and detailed bill analysis.
Bi-Partisan Chemical Safety Bill
Creates Strong New Protections Against Hidden Health ThreatsThe Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act Would Overhaul Weak Federal Law, Provide New Powers to Require Safety of All Chemicals
(Washington DC, March 10, 2015)—Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), together with seven Democratic and eight Republican cosponsors introduced legislation today to fix a badly broken system that is currently failing to protect Americans against thousands of untested or hazardous chemicals used in all kinds of everyday products, from cleaning products, to clothing, to couches.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act would overhaul the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s primary federal chemical safety law, establishing strong new protections to ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday products. Certain common chemicals are linked to cancer, infertility, diabetes, Parkinson's and other illnesses. Pregnant woman, infants, and children are especially vulnerable. Under the current law, Americans are exposed to thousands of chemicals every day, only a small fraction of which have ever been adequately reviewed for safety. TSCA is so badly broken that EPA is virtually powerless to restrict even known deadly carcinogens such as asbestos.
Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund, said:
“Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families. With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans. We look forward to working with Senator Udall, the environmental community and other stakeholders to get the strongest bill possible enacted into law. Congress cannot afford to let this historic opportunity slip from its grasp. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to seize the moment and act."
The new legislation would update the current law and give EPA the tools it needs to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for American families. Notably, the bill:Mandates safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerceRequires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the marketReplaces TSCA’s burdensome cost-benefit safety standard—which prevented EPA from banning asbestos—with a pure, health-based safety standardExplicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations like children and pregnant womenGives EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicalsSets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisionsMakes more information about chemicals available by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobsProvides for the payment of fees by companies to ensure EPA has the resources to carry out its responsibilitiesRamps up the number of chemicals undergoing safety assessments from an initial 10 to at least 25 chemicals, after all procedures and fees are in place to support the increased level of work
The new legislation is nearly two years in the making and is built on a bill introduced by the late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter in 2013. Negotiations have yielded hundreds of improvements to the original bill.
The new bill significantly reduces the earlier proposal’s preemption of state laws: All state actions taken before 2015 remain intact regardless of subsequent EPA actions. Even after enactment, states can act to restrict a chemical until and unless EPA takes up that same chemical and addresses the same uses. State actions that do not restrict a chemical’s production, distribution or use, or are taken to address a different problem are not affected. No preemption attaches to low-priority designations of a chemical by EPA.
“After nearly four decades under a failed law, this legislation would finally provide EPA with the tools it needs to better protect American families,” said Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. “Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families. It’s essential Congress act now.”
In addition to Sens. Udall and Vitter, original cosponsors include (seven Democrats and eight Republicans): Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV); Jim Inhofe (R-OK); Tom Carper (D-DE); Roy Blunt (R-MO); Chris Coons (D-DE); John Boozman (R-AR); Joe Donnelly (D-IN); Mike Crapo (R-ID); Martin Heinrich (D-NM); Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV); Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND); John Hoeven (R-ND); Rob Portman (R-OH), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).Additional resources can be found on EDF’s website, including a factsheet and a detailed bill analysis
-
Groups Hail Toxic Chemical Reform Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
While some environmentalists are calling legislation introduced Tuesday to reform the nation’s chemical laws flawed, others are hailing it as a fix for a badly broken regulatory system.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act that Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) unveiled Tuesday reforms the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 and forces the Environmental Protection Agency to base chemical safety decisions solely on considerations of risk to public health and the environment, and eliminates the TSCA's "least burdensome" requirement for regulating a chemical, which prevented the EPA from banning asbestos.ADVERTISEMENT“Americans shouldn’t have to worry whether chemicals in their homes pose a threat to their families,” Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, said in a news release.
“With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans.”
Under the TSCA, the EPA has been unable to regulate chemicals such as asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Industry groups called the new bill a path to passing more effective law.
“A stronger federal chemical law should reflect progress in science and technology and advance further innovations,” Ernie Rosenberg, president and CEO of the American Cleaning Institute, said in a statement.
“A well designed, updated law can further enable our industry’s ongoing work to develop and innovate more sustainable cleaning products.”
The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, however, said the legislation fails to even make a dent in the problem of toxic chemical exposure and restricts state governments from passing their own protections.
“While Senators Vitter and Udall have made some positive changes, the bill is not up to the important task of protecting public health,” Andy Igrejas, the group’s director, said in a statement.
The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee is expected to hold a hearing on the TSCA reform bill on March 18.
-
Industry Chemical Bill Worse Than Current Law
Mar 10, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Consumers rightly expect that the chemicals used in everyday products are safe.
But an industry-supported bill released today (March 10) by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (D-La.) falls far short of what’s needed to evaluate and regulate potentially dangerous chemicals. In fact, the new bill is actually worse than the existing Toxic Substances Control Act – a law so broken that EPA has been powerless even to ban asbestos.
Simply put, this new industry-supported bill would fail to ensure that chemicals are safe, fail to set meaningful deadlines for safety reviews, fail to provide EPA with adequate resources and deny states the ability to protect public health and the environment.
Here are the top 10 problems with the new industry-supported bill:
Chemicals Still Not Safe – Toxic industrial chemicals that end up in people’s bodies, and even contaminate babies before they are born, should be at least as safe as pesticides. However, the chemical industry bill would retain the far weaker “no unreasonable risk of harm” health standard, rather than the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard applied to pesticides on produce and food additives.
Chemical Company Costs Will Still Trump Health – The bill is, at best, ambiguous about whether the EPA must consider costs and benefits when determining if a chemical poses no unreasonable risk of harm. While one section seems to exclude consideration of costs and benefits, the section that defines how the safety of chemicals will be assessed requires consideration of costs (Sec. 6(d)(4)). What’s more, the bill explicitly requires a cost-benefit analysis upon industry request for any chemical ban or phase-out (Sec. 6(d)(5)(D)).
Chemical Spills, Fence-line Communities Are Not Addressed – The industry bill requires consideration of “reasonably foreseeable” chemical exposures, but there is no requirement for safety assessments of the exposures and risks that might result from spills. About 10,000 tons of chemicals are spilled every year in the U.S. The bill also lacks explicit environmental justice protections for fence-line communities that bear the brunt of the harm from routine toxic emissions from chemical plants and accidents such as last year’s West Virginia spill.
Deadlines – The EPA estimates that roughly 1,000 chemicals need immediate health and safety review. Under the industry bill, that process would take hundreds of years. It would require only that EPA start reviews of 25 chemicals within five years and would allow the agency up to seven years to review each substance. There is no deadline for implementing restrictions, phase-outs or bans of even the most toxic chemicals, which in many cases have contaminated Americans’ blood for decades.
Pay to Play for Safety Reviews – The industry bill would allow manufacturers to receive expedited review of their favored chemicals if they are willing to pay a fee, but it would not require expedited review for asbestos or extremely dangerous chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in people.
Regulates The Chemical, Not the Couch – If the EPA determines that a toxic flame retardant in furniture or other chemical is unsafe, the agency would have limited authority to regulate products containing the chemical and would have to clear the additional hurdle of showing that the public has “significant exposure” to the product. This would significantly impair EPA’s ability to act to protect public health.
Judicial Review – The bill would retain the “substantial evidence” standard for judicial review – which confers an enormous advantage to industry in regulatory and judicial proceedings – rather than the “arbitrary and capricious” standard that strengthens EPA’s authority in nearly all other agency actions.
Blocks State Action – Under the industry bill, states would be preempted from taking new actions to regulate any “high priority” chemical for which EPA has initiated a safety review. However, this safety review and regulation process could take seven years or more. What’s more, states would be blocked from adopting and co-enforcing EPA restrictions on chemicals. More importantly, states could be blocked from using their own clean air and water laws to control chemicals if their actions are deemed “inconsistent” with EPA’s. The industry proposal would make it effectively impossible for states to be granted a waiver to set more protective standards than EPA. Indeed, even where there is no preemption, states would have to notify the EPA of proposed chemical restrictions.
Imported Chemicals Get Looser Regulation – The industry bill would weaken the EPA’s ability to intercept imported chemicals containing unsafe chemicals.
Minimal Fees On Industry, Continued Taxpayer Subsidies – Under the bill, industry would pay only minimal fees for new chemical reviews and chemical inventory reporting. Industry would be required to generate only $18 million in revenue or 25 percent of total program costs. In combination with the absence of meaningful deadlines, EPA could take a century to review the 1,000 chemicals that need immediate attention.
-
Chemicals Spilled in West Virginia's Elk River To Be Studied for Potential Toxicity by NTP
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The National Toxicology Program will conduct quick toxicity studies of nine chemicals involved in West Virginia's 2014 Elk River spill that triggered a “do not use” order for 300,000 people living near Charleston.
The NTP released on March 10 the names of the chemicals and toxicity tests it plans to conduct to respond to a request by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
The chemicals are:
• 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol, also known as MCHM, CAS No. 34885-03-5;
• 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, CHDM, CAS No. 105-08-8;
• dimethyl 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylate, DMCHDC, CAS No. 94-60-0;
• dipropylene glycol phenyl ether, DiPPH, CAS No. 51730-94-0;
• 4-(methoxymethyl)cyclohexanemethanol, MMCHM, CAS No. 98955-27-2;
• crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol, crude MCHM, Chemical Abstracts Service number not applicable;
• 2-methylcyclohexanemethanol, 2MCHM, CAS No. 2105-40-0;
• methyl 4-methylcyclohexanecarboxylate, MMCHC, CAS No. 51181-40-9; and
• propylene glycol phenyl ether, PPH, CAS No. 770-35-4.
The quick tests the NTP will conduct are designed to use efficient, medium and high throughput testing methods to obtain information to predict the potential effects of the chemicals spilled in the Elk River, the program said.
-
CSB Points To California's Oil Refinery Safety Proposal As Model For EPA
Mar 10, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is pointing to a California plan for strict process safety measures for oil refineries, saying the state's proposed requirements for analysis and use of safer technologies could serve as a model for EPA to improve facility safety, though CSB has yet to meet with EPA on the topic.
Since last year, CSB, in accident investigation reports and comments to EPA, has repeatedly urged the agency to strengthen requirements for facility safety, including by requiring use of controversial safety measures, though CSB officials say their recommendations, so far, have received greater reception at the state level than with EPA.
In a recent interview with Inside EPA, CSB Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso said EPA should follow California's lead and propose similar process safety requirements for all facilities covered under EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) accident prevention program.
"Where we're having the most impact on this issue is at the state level, in California," Moure-Eraso said, noting the California Department of Industrial Relations last fall proposed new requirements to prevent accidents and has also increased resources for inspections.
"If the state law gets more sophisticated and more preventative, I think that is something that we look forward to that could be done nationwide," Moure-Eraso said. While acknowledging additional inspectors would be needed to check for violations of new rules, he said, "I believe if California can do it, and California sees this as a priority, I don't know why EPA couldn't do the same at the national level."
Moure-Eraso and other CSB officials during the interview said board staff are seeking meetings with EPA on the CSB's call in recent comments for EPA to use authority under the Clean Air Act to require facilities to use inherently safer technologies (IST), usually less-toxic chemicals or process changes that may reduce the likelihood or consequences of an accident or attack, though CSB has not yet been granted that meeting.
Meanwhile, environmental, labor and other advocates who are also urging EPA to require facilities to use IST, met Feb. 12 with officials with EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and raised the possibility of EPA following the California proposal, according to a source familiar with the meeting. EPA officials did not say whether the agency would follow California's approach, the source says.
"It's a major step forward in the direction that we're looking for the EPA to take," the source says of California's proposal, adding that while the state's proposal is limited to refineries, EPA should consider similar measures for all facilities that store large quantities of hazardous chemicals.
Facility Safety
The advocates' and CSB's call for EPA to follow California in tightening standards for industrial facility safety comes as EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are weighing how to strengthen regulations in response to President Obama's Executive Order 13650 on improving the safety and security of industrial plants.
Obama issued the order in August 2013, in the wake of an ammonium nitrate explosion, in April of that year, at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people and wounded 200 others. The president's order seeks to improve the safety and security of industrial plants through improved communication and information sharing, as well as modernized policies, rules and standards.
But environmental and labor groups, who in 2012 petitioned EPA to require IST, as well as some Democratic lawmakers, have said EPA is not moving fast enough to strengthen facility safety. Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), then chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noted EPA has not addressed her call for the agency to act on the CSB's 2002 recommendation to add ammonium nitrate to the RMP program, nor answered advocates' calls to require IST.
In a report issued in June, EPA outlined a multi-year process for encouraging use of IST, by issuing an alert and guidance on safer processes, and then considering whether to require analysis or use of IST, though the agency has said it would not select the specific processes companies would use.
EPA took comment through October on a request for information (RFI) on strengthening the RMP, which currently requires facilities to report holdings of threshold levels of certain chemicals and to reduce the risk of their accidental release.
In the RFI, EPA suggests potentially sweeping changes to the RMP rule, ranging from covering new chemicals and requiring new process safety analysis and review of past near-accidents, to scrapping the RMP program in favor of a different approach.
CSB officials tell Inside EPA they are backing California's proposed revisions to its Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Process Safety Management Standard, announced in September, that would require oil refineries to assess the hazards of their processes and implement safer processes where feasible.
As part of the process hazard analysis, California refineries would have to consider past accidents within the industry as well as inherently safer processes, and inspect for damaged equipment, according to an Oct. 31 red-lined version of the state proposal.
Refineries would have to promptly change to safer technologies or processes where feasible and document any deferred implementation of those changes, giving a time frame for when the change will be implemented.
The proposal also would require companies to include employees in process hazard evaluations, notify employees of hazards, and develop worker safety mechanisms that allow for anonymous reporting of hazards and authority to stop work or shut down processes based on safety or health concerns.
While the proposal is to improve a process safety management standard for refineries, CSB officials said EPA could implement similar rules for facilities covered under the agency's RMP program. A significant difference between the California proposal and current federal regulation, CSB officials said during the interview, is a requirement that refineries meet a risk-based standard "to reduce the risks associated with a process to the greatest extent feasible."
Process Improvements
CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz said numerous CSB investigations have found that process safety improvements, which companies were familiar with but did not employ, would have prevented serious accidents that caused injuries, deaths and millions of dollars in damages.
"There needs to be some sort of driver for industry to take a look at those things and make the safest choices where they're available and that driver doesn't exist right now" in federal regulations, Horowitz said.
Industry and some Republican legislators have opposed calls for a federal IST requirement, saying that companies already consider safer processes where feasible, and that EPA should formally consult with the U.S. Small Business Administration to ensure potential changes to the RMP program do not unnecessarily burden small companies.
In requesting comments on the July RFI for strengthening RMP, EPA asked that comments consider the costs of any recommended changes, as well as the benefits in risk reduction.
Moure-Eraso and Horowitz said many changes that reduce risk of accidents are not expensive, and that increased inspections, which would be needed if safety requirements are strengthened are worth the cost.
"There are so many cost-effective design changes that the companies could have used to prevent these accidents," Horowitz said, adding that different piping material could have prevented a 2012 fire at Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, CA, and sprinkler systems might have prevented or mitigated the fire and explosion at the West fertilizer facility. "These accidents cost a fortune, not just money but in lives and preventing them often costs a pittance," Horowitz said.
CSB first called for EPA to require IST in a May 2014 report on the fatal April 2010 explosion and fire at the Tesoro oil refinery in Anacortes, WA, that killed seven workers. CSB reiterated the call in Oct. 29 comments on EPA's RFI for strengthening the RMP, and also sought a dialogue with EPA on that issue as well as on a recommendation to improve transparency of facility safety information to improve local emergency planning and response. CSB officials told Inside EPA they have yet to meet with EPA on their October comments on the RMP RFI, and emphasized that states are moving forward with changes such as stricter safety requirements at some facilities or stronger inspections, based on CSB recommendations that have also been made at the federal level.
-
Diluted Bitumen Seen as ‘Time Bomb’ In Pipeline Spills, Coast Guard Says
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
First responders need information regarding how long the diluted bitumen will float—like a “ticking time bomb”—when it spills from a transmission pipeline onto waterways, a U.S. Coast Guard official told a nationally contracted committee.
The additional details, such as whether and how long the oil would float, would improve the effectiveness of response activities, responders and federal regulators said. Meanwhile, scientists want the committee to consider factors such as stickiness when determining whether diluted bitumen (known as dilbit) is different enough from conventional crude oils to warrant unique transmission pipeline rules.
“How long's [dilbit] going to float in certain conditions,” Cmdr. Joseph Loring, in the Office of Marine Environmental Response Chief for of the U.S. Coast Guard's Policy Development Division, said, tapping this as the most important piece of information he would want to know in a dilbit spill.
“I know that's probably very weather dependent. It's probably very diluent dependent. But that would be a huge piece of information,” Loring said. “I want to know how long I have,” he added.
Diluted bitumen consists of bitumen—a solid or semisolid—that is mixed with gas condensates to form a liquid product that resembles crude oil. The “tar sands” currently being developed in Western Canada are a type of bitumen.
The comments were made at a March 9-10 information gathering session for the “Effects of Diluted Bitumen on the Environment: A Comparative Study” committee. The study was requested by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (233 DEN A-19, 12/4/14).
Study to Assess Differences From Crude Oil
The study will assess whether the properties are different enough from crude oils transported by domestic transmission pipelines that warrant modifications of the rules that govern spill response plans, spill preparedness or cleanup, the National Research Council committee's “Statement of Task” said.
Diane McKnight, the chairman of the committee, said there have been no findings, conclusions or recommendations offered by the committee as of yet.
There will be two more committee meetings held, McKnight said.
Douglas Friedman, the study director, guided panelists to address one of the tasks the committee must complete.
Namely, the committee must “identify the relevant properties and characteristics that influence the transport, fate and effects of commonly transported crude oils, including diluted bitumen, in the environment,” according to its “Statement of Task.”
Characteristics to Be Identified
Toxicologists, chemists and other researchers, including senior biologist Gary Shigenaka for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pointed to factors ranging from water solubility to viscosity and stickiness as properties to identify and quantify or characterize.
Additionally, the toxicological make-up of individual condensates, crude oils and mixes, biodegradation properties and photoreactivity are useful characteristics to compare, they said.
Regulators and first responders from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard and PHMSA told the committee they needed more information—and more accurate information—from pipeline operators to be available.
Preparedness, Response Plans
Regulations under laws such as the Oil Pollution Act govern spill preparedness and response plans. Those plans are useful in identifying sites to protect, such as habitat for certain species, or infrastructure to inform, such as nearby power plants, certain officials said.
However, those plans don't necessarily contain complete or specific information regarding what type of oil is carried in the pipeline or how that oil will evaporate or deal with weatherization or certain temperatures, several officials said.
Knowing how long the oil has to float or the composition of the diluent could help emergency responders act appropriately, federal officials said.
For example, in a high-profile pipeline spill several years ago, the nearby community was voluntarily evacuated due to air monitors showing benzene in the air, which was both a worker and public health hazard, Dan Capone, a senior project manager for the Mannik & Smith Group, said.
Exposure to benzene at very high levels can cause death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Capone worked on-site at the Enbridge oil spill from July 2010 through October 2014 and has worked with the EPA for more than 20 years under the Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team Contract.
Safety Data Sheets Could Help Responders
Having certain information from completed and specific safety data sheets is another way to help responders, Greg Powell, an environmental scientist for the EPA, said.
Presenters also offered more general recommendations related to the committee's upcoming study.
Chris Reddy, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, said the petroleum industry is “laden with jargon” regarding dilbit—jargon the committee could clarify.
“We're using these terms used by petroleum engineers, and we're now trying to have first responders understand what these words mean,” Reddy said. “We live in a world where information needs to be conveyed clearly and quickly.”
There is additional research that could relate to the committee's task. For example, there is more work being done regarding the speed and stability of aggregates formation from diluted bitumen in water, Bruce Hollebone, an Environment Canada emergency response team member, said.
Other Efforts Under Way
For example, Environment Canada is participating in a Canadian effort known as the World-Class Tanker Safety program, which is examining several areas pertinent to the committee's research.
The American Petroleum Institute also will be releasing its own study completed by a contractor “soon” assessing the differences between conventional and oil sands derived crude oils, Peter Lidiak, director of the institute's pipeline segment, said.
-
U.S. Production of Shale Oil Expected To Post Slowest Growth in Four Years
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dan Murtaugh
The biggest slowdown in oil drilling on record is showing signs of reining in the U.S. shale boom.
U.S. shale-oil output is expected to post the slowest growth in more than four years in April, the Energy Information Administration said March 9. That follows a 41 percent plunge since December in the number of drilling rigs seeking oil.
A slowdown in U.S. output would come at the same time that refineries are expected to return from seasonal maintenance and bring relief to an oil market that has seen prices decline more than 50 percent since June. Companies had 444.4 million barrels of oil in storage in the U.S. as of Feb. 27, the most in weekly records dating back to 1982.
“You have refineries coming back out of maintenance, and production getting cut back,” said Carl Larry, head of oil and gas for Frost & Sullivan LP in Houston. “Everything could come together where, all of a sudden, everyone thought there was plenty of supply and there's not.”
Oil production from six major U.S. shale plays will be 5.6 million barrels a day in April, an increase of 298 over March, according to the EIA's estimate. It's the smallest projected increase since February 2011.
West Texas Intermediate crude for April delivery fell 37 cents to $49.63 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 10:24 a.m. London time.
Permian Rising
Output from the Eagle Ford in Texas, the second-largest oil field in the U.S., is expected to drop by 10,000 barrels a day. Production in the Bakken region in North Dakota is expected to decline by 8,000. It's the first month both regions are forecast to have shrinking production since January 2009.
Production in the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico, the largest U.S. oil field, will rise by 21,000 barrels a day to 1.98 million.
Refineries processed 15.1 million barrels of crude a day the week of Feb. 27. Last year, crude demand rose from 15 million barrels a day in the middle of March to 16.6 million in July. Refineries typically shut units for planned maintenance in the late winter and early spring to be able to run at full capacity during the summer driving season.
The EIA's oil-production estimates are based on the number of drilling rigs in different plays and calculations of how productive each piece of equipment is. The number of rigs drilling for oil fell to 922 on March 6, according to oilfield service company Baker Hughes Inc. Oil rigs in the U.S. peaked in October at 1,609.
-
Oil Industry Challenges Oregon Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Rules in State Appellate Court
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The petroleum industry's petition for judicial review of Oregon's low-carbon fuel standard rules reflects a long-standing strategy contending that an inadequate supply of alternative fuels to supply the West Coast makes such rules infeasible (Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. Or. Envtl. Quality Comm'n, Or. Ct. App., No. A158944, 3/6/15).
Oregon lawmakers passed a bill March 4 that keeps the state on track to reduce by 10 percent the lifecycle carbon intensity of vehicle fuels by 2025 by removing a Dec. 31 sunset clause that would have killed the program before its rules could be implemented (44 DEN A-11, 3/6/15).
The Western States Petroleum Association then filed a petition for judicial review of the rules.
While the petition contains no substantive argument at this early stage, the association asserted in a March 6 press release: “As written the LCFS rules force producers to meet carbon-intensity targets, and/or purchase credits, at a time when alternatives are not available. Many studies have been produced suggesting alternatives will not be scalable for some time.”
Under the appellate court's typical procedures, the earliest opening briefs would be due is June.
Low Carbon Fuel Supply Questioned
“We've been involved with the Oregon proposal for a number of years, and our position all along has been that there are insufficient quantities of low-carbon fuels to comply with this program in the time frame proposed,” Frank Holmes, director of the association's Northwest and marine regions, told Bloomberg BNA March 10.
“It is basically the California LCFS program picked up and adopted in Oregon,” Holmes said. “And California's program has basically the same problem as Oregon in terms of insufficient quantities of alternative fuel.”
Cory-Ann Wind, an air quality planner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, declined to comment on the case. But she pointed to a document created for lawmakers considering passage of the rules that cite two studies and concludes: “There is enough lower-carbon fuel to meet the Oregon standards in 2025.”
Importers Said to Have Flexibility
In response to what happens if there isn't enough low-carbon fuel, the document said: “Not every assumption must be met for the program to work, as importers have flexibility for compliance. Importers can choose between alternatives based on what works best for them and what's least expensive. But if multiple assumptions are not met and supplies of lower-carbon fuels are lower than what is needed to comply, then the current rule authorizes the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to suspend or modify the program requirements until the supply of lower-carbon fuels is restored.”
Association Vice President Tupper Hall told Bloomberg BNA March 10 the group has “argued consistently since the initial adoption of the LCFS in California back in 2007 that it requires fuel providers to meet a standard that cannot be met with current alternative fuels and alternative technologies available now. The programs are based entirely on hope and expectations that something will emerge in the market that doesn't currently exist to allow fuel providers to meet the ambitious standards that these regulations require.”
“Not only is this infeasible in California, but our analysis shows that it becomes even more problematic as other states adopt similar regulations because it puts greater demand on inadequate supplies of low-carbon, alternative fuels,” Hull said.
California is in the process of readopting its low-carbon fuel standard in the wake of a 2013 court order finding that the initial rulemaking violated state environmental and administrative procedure statutes (33 DEN A-9, 2/19/15).
-
California Regulators Say They're Protecting Drinking Water from Oil Waste Disposal Wells
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California regulators are making progress in ensuring drinking water supplies are protected from waste disposal wells used in the recovery of oil and gas, Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird told state lawmakers March 10.
Speaking at a joint State Senate committee hearing, Laird and other state officials outlined efforts underway in evaluating potential threats to groundwater due to long-standing deficiencies in the state's Class II underground injection well control program. Those efforts include recent orders for the closure of 12 injection wells (42 DEN A-13, 3/4/15).
Last year, the state hired new staff and formed an interagency team to address problems with the program, Laird said at the oversight hearing convened by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Natural Resources and Water Committee.
The oversight hearing was in response to the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) recent acknowledgment that over several years it had allowed the drilling of some of the disposal wells into aquifers with water suitable for drinking or irrigation, which federal law prohibits.
23 Wells Shut Down
At the hearing, officials from DOGGR and the State Water Resources Control Board said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March 9 approved the plan they submitted last month to bring the injection well program into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act by Feb. 15, 2017 (27 DEN A-10, 2/10/15).
The state's oil and gas supervisor, Steve Bohlen, said that since July 2014, the state has shut down 23 of the wells. Bohlen said DOGGR is working with the state water board to evaluate potential threats from nearly 140 additional injection wells used for disposal of production fluids.
Members of the Senate committees questioned the regulators about oversight of the program and why has it taken the current administration so long to address a problem it has known about for four years.
Department of Conservation Director Mark Nechodom said much of DOGGR's efforts over the last few years has been focused on drafting new regulations for hydraulic fracturing and other types of well stimulation. The agency also had to overcome staffing and resources shortages, he said. Even after the legislature increased DOGGR's budget, it took nearly two years to add staff, Nechodom said.
Program Overhaul
Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson (D) said that in preparing the hearing, she read documents indicating the state had people granting permits who had a financial interest in the outcome.
“How do we prevent this kind of thing from happening again,” she said.
Laird said the program is being thoroughly overhauled to prevent future problems.
California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matt Rodriquez said that a review of the program found much confusion between the EPA and DOGGR involving which aquifers were off-limits for the wells. Also, the development of new oil and gas production technologies caused confusion as to where injection wells could be drilled.
Representatives from environmental groups also spoke at the hearing, urging the immediate closure of all the injection wells drilled in aquifers that are not officially exempted by the EPA.
-
Lawmakers Grill State Oil Regulators on Oversight Failures
Mar 10, 2015 | LA Times
By Julie Cart
On Tuesday, state lawmakers took their turn lambasting California's beleaguered oil and gas agency at a hearing in which senators called the agency's historic practices corrupt, inept and woefully mismanaged.
For two hours, legislators grilled the leaders of California's Department of Conservation, the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board, seeking assurances that the state's dwindling water supplies are protected from toxic oilfield waste.
The hearing comes as officials from DOGGR deal with the aftermath of the admission that they for years inadvertently allowed oil companies to inject wastewater — from fracking and other production operations — with high levels of benzene, a carcinogen, into hundreds of wells in protected aquifers, a violation of federal law.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has called the state's errors "shocking" and said that California's oil field waste water injection program does not comply with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Agency officials have attributed the errors to chaotic record-keeping and antiquated data collection. And local water officials said that initial tests on nine drinking water wells found no benzene or other contaminants.
Senators on Tuesday unfurled a litany of the agency's failings and asked how officials there can be trusted to address the problems.
State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) called DOGGR's failings "endemic."
"There has been a serious imbalance between the role of regulating the oil and gas industry and the role of protecting the public," Jackson said.
Agency officials promised to do better and presented detailed plans to review the underground injection program.
-
Texas LNG Asks FERC to Begin NEPA Process for Brownsville Terminal Project
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Texas LNG Brownsville LLC has filed a request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to initiate the National Environmental Policy Act's pre-filing review of its proposed liquefied natural gas project in Brownsville, Texas.
Texas LNG, a subsidiary of Texas LNG LLC, proposes to build, own and operate the 4 million metric tons per annum (MTA) LNG facility on a 625-acre site in the Port of Brownsville, close to the Mexico border.
The facility would receive natural gas through the intrastate natural gas pipeline to be constructed from the Agua Dulce natural gas hub about 150 miles north of Brownsville.
The project would liquefy the natural gas and store and deliver the LNG to LNG carriers for export overseas, the March 9 filing said.
The project involves two facilities, for liquefaction and purification, that would be installed in two phases, the filing said. Phase one would be constructed upon receipt of all required authorizations, and phase two would be constructed based on market demand.
The company plans to begin construction of phase one of the project in 2017 and begin production in 2020.
The phase one LNG would be stored in one single containment storage tank of 210,000 cubic meters (7.4 million cubic feet) and phase two would include a second single LNG storage tank, the filing said.
The new natural gas lateral pipeline would have sufficient capacity to transport the gas necessary to produce four MTA of LNG.
A single LNG tanker loading berth with a dredged slip connected to the Brownsville shipping channel would be constructed to accommodate LNG vessels.
Consultants to Supervise Engineering Work
The company also has hired a team of consultants to supervise the engineering work to be performed by Samsung Engineering, the engineering contractor for the project as well as an equity holder in Texas LNG, the filing said.
The consultants also will assist Texas LNG in obtaining FERC approval and all necessary permits.
Texas LNG is negotiating several pipeline companies developing pipeline projects to supply the Brownsville and Mexican markets, the filing said.
The objective of the negotiations is a long-term, firm pipeline transportation agreement for 600 million standard cubic feet per day, the full quantity of natural gas required to supply the proposed four MTA liquefaction facility, which is expected to be in service on or before the date that Texas LNG requires natural gas for the commissioning of the proposed project.
Work Done, Project Timeline
The company outlined a number of steps it has already completed, such as the concept study and preliminary safety analysis, the filing said.
Texas LNG has secured development capital from Third Point LLC to fund engineering and FERC application preparation costs. Other examples of completed tasks include an environmental permitting due diligence evaluation and completed wetland surveys.
In its request, Texas LNG also submitted a timetable for the project. The March pre-filing request and a FERC notice of pre-filing commencement are the first items on the timetable.
Texas LNG plans to conduct its first open house in Brownsville and Port Isabel, Texas, in April and will file a Natural Gas Act Section 3 application in November.
The company would like FERC to issue a final environmental impact statement in early 2017 and a final order granting authorization in mid-2017. The company hopes to begin producing LNG by 2020, the filing said.
Texas LNG concluded its filing by requesting FERC to issue a notice commencing the pre-filing process no later than March 20.
-
Carnegie Endowment's Gordon Discusses New Oil-Climate Index, Says Industry Lacking Transparency
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
As the range of oils and extraction methods continues to evolve, how do various oils compare with one another on their climate impacts? During today's OnPoint, Deborah Gordon, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discusses a new Oil-Climate Index that highlights the changing dynamics of the oil industry and the impacts on climate change. She explains how she believes policymakers should use the index and talks about the need for greater transparency from the oil industry. Today's OnPoint will air on E&ETV at 10 a.m. EST.
-
EIA: 2015 Electricity Capacity Additions Expected to Be Mostly Wind, Natural Gas
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
In 2015, electric generating companies are expected to add more than 20 gigawatts of generation capacity, mostly wind and natural gas, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released March 10.
About 9.8 GW of expected new capacity is wind generation, 6.3 GW is natural gas and 2.2 GW of new capacity is solar power. This combination will make up 91 percent of total additions, the EIA said. These values reflect reported additions and retirements, not model projections.
Wind additions are largely found in the Plains states, with nearly 8.4 GW, or 85 percent of total wind additions, found between North Dakota and Minnesota in the North and to Texas and New Mexico in the South, the EIA said.
Natural gas additions are spread throughout the country, but Texas is adding more than double any other state with 1.7 GW, or 27 percent, of total natural gas additions. There are also many additions in the Mid-Atlantic region, with more than 1.6 GW, or 26 percent of total natural gas additions, expected in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, the EIA said.
California, North Carolina Adding Solar Capacity
Utility-scale solar additions with at least one megawatt of capacity are dominated by two states: California with 1.2 GW of expected new capacity and North Carolina with 0.4 GW, the EIA said.
Both states have renewable portfolio standard policies in place, with North Carolina's policy including a solar-specific target. These figures don't include small-scale installations such as residential rooftop solar photovoltaic systems.
These capacity measures don't show how much generation will actually be added because different types of generation have different utilization rates. For example, nuclear plants and natural-gas combined-cycle generators have utilization factors three times to five times those of wind and solar generators, the EIA said.
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 2 nuclear facility in southeastern Tennessee, with a summer nameplate capacity of 1.1 GW, is listed as coming online in December. When it comes online, it will be the first new nuclear reactor brought online in the U.S. in nearly 20 years, the EIA said.
Retirements Seen Mostly Among Coal-Fired Units
Nearly 16 GW of generating capacity is expected to retire in 2015. About 12.9 GW, or 85 percent of the retirements, are coal-fired generation.
Most of the retiring coal capacity is found in the Appalachian region, the EIA said. Slightly more than eight GW combined are expected to retire in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Indiana.
The coal-fired units planned for retirement are smaller and operate at a lower capacity factor than average coal-fired units in the U.S. The to-be-retired units have an average summer nameplate capacity of 158 MW, considerably smaller than the 261 MW average for other coal-fired units, the EIA said.
The large number of coal-fired generator retirements is primarily because of the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards this year, the EIA said. MATS requires large coal- and oil-fired electric generators to meet stricter emissions standards by incorporating emissions control technologies in existing generating facilities.
Some power plant operators have decided that retrofitting units to meet the new standards will be cost-prohibitive and are choosing to retire units instead.
-
States Say Clean Power Plan Targets Achievable Despite Critiques of Proposal
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
States said they have the tools to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan targets even as they quibble over how the final rule should be structured.
Representatives from Colorado, Minnesota, New York and Washington said the EPA's proposed rule, which would set unique carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets for the power sector in each state, is sufficiently flexible and achievable during a March 10 Senate briefing organized by the Georgetown Climate Center.
“We don't want EPA to weaken it overall as they consider changes to it because we want it to be as aggressive as possible, and we think we can achieve it with some of the improvements EPA can make,” David Thornton, assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said.
The briefing comes in advance of a March 11 Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on state perspectives on the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) featuring representatives from California, Indiana, New York, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Under the proposed rule, states would develop their own plans to comply with the required emissions rate reductions.
“States are already achieving significant reductions in carbon pollution,” Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center, said. “They're achieving these reductions cost effectively with benefits to their economies while reducing energy costs, driving clean energy innovation and improving public health.”
Targets Feasible Despite Critiques
Though many states, including supporters of the proposal, have raised concerns with how the EPA determined their emissions reductions targets and the stringency of the proposed interim deadlines, Martha Rudolph, director of environmental programs at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the agency has been very responsive to state concerns.
“This is a very complicated rule and with its outreach, we're convinced the EPA is taking all of the comments seriously,” she said.
Sam Rickets, director of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's Washington, D.C., office, called the EPA's Clean Power Plan “essential” to addressing climate change. Rickets said the state of Washington is already seeing the effects of climate change on wildfires and shellfish.
One concern states have raised is with the 2012 baseline the EPA used in its rule. That means states such as Minnesota and Washington, which have already taken steps to reduce their emissions, may not get credit for those early efforts, representatives said.
Rule Doesn't Account for Hydro
While Washington supports the Clean Power Plan, Rickets said the rule doesn't account for hydroelectric generation, which provides 75 percent of the state's electricity. That means Washington needs to achieve even greater reductions from a handful of fossil fuel-fired units.
Thornton said the EPA could address those emissions rate targets in its final rule to provide more equity between states.
“Some states that haven't done so much aren't being asked to do so much,” he said.
The proposal includes interim emissions rate targets to be met between 2020 and 2029 and a final goal for each state that applies beginning in 2030. The EPA as part of the proposal identified “building blocks” that states can use to meet the required emissions reductions, including heat rate improvements at coal-fired power plants, expanding use of natural gas-fired generating capacity, and investing in new renewable energy generation or through energy efficiency programs.
RGGI Has Demonstrated Possibilities
Jared Snyder, assistant commissioner for air resources, climate change and energy at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have already shown that using a broad array of programs can produce cost-effective emissions reductions.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a collection of nine Northeast and mid-Atlantic states that have pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 as part of a regional emissions trading program.
The New York economy has continued to grow despite the state's pledge to curb its carbon dioxide emissions, Snyder said. In fact, he said the EPA could pursue even greater emissions reductions as part of its Clean Power Plan.
“Our experience shows the building block approach of the best system of emission reductions makes a lot of sense,” Snyder said.
Minnesota ‘Excited' About Compliance Options
Thornton said Minnesota is “very excited” about the opportunities to pursue renewable energy and energy efficiency programs to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
“We do well in those two areas,” he said.
Minnesota requires that 25 percent of its electricity must come from renewable sources by 2025, but the state is already on track to exceed that target, and the Legislature is considering boosting the goal to 40 percent, Thornton said.
-
Barrasso Joins Push Calling on States to 'Just Say No' to Power Rule
Mar 11, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
Senate Republican Policy Chairman John Barrasso last night became the latest GOP senator to call on states to boycott implementation of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, arguing in an email memo that doing so would undermine the controversial rule.
The Wyoming Republican echoed the theme of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) column last week in the Lexington Herald-Leader that refusal by the state to submit implementation plans for the existing power plant rule might lead to a lessening of its restrictions (Greenwire, March 4).
"Forcing the EPA to impose a federal plan may undermine the agency's ability to implement all of the rule's provisions," the Barrasso memo stated.
EPA has pledged to propose a federal implementation plan for the rule this summer when it releases the final Clean Power Plan. The model plan would act as a backstop if states fail to submit approvable state plans by deadlines beginning next year.
But McConnell and Barrasso both assert that EPA needs state consent to force the rule's full measure of emissions reductions on utilities. The rule uses four emissions-reduction categories -- or "building blocks" -- to set state targets. Without state plans, the Republicans argue, EPA would be limited to Building Block 1 -- or inside-the-fence-line reductions from minor heat-rate improvements on-site at power plants. And the agency must reduce its targets accordingly, they argue.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
There would also be a messaging advantage from refusing to comply, the Senate Republican Policy Committee memo said.
"If a state submits an implementation plan, it will be taking part in EPA's scheme and will be responsible for the consequences," the memo states. "It will be blamed for higher energy prices and reduced electricity reliability. Families and businesses in the state will feel the real costs, while the EPA will happily point its finger at the state's 'poor' energy choices."
Barrasso's missive came ahead of today's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing in which state officials will sound off about the benefits and downsides of the rule (E&E Daily, March 9). Barrasso, a senior panel member, will introduce Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, who will discuss his state's opposition to the draft and the adverse effect it would have on coal. State officials lay out their concerns
No state has yet said it will subscribe to the "just say no" strategy, though some have hinted they're considering it. The EPW panel points to 32 states in which a high-level state official signed a letter expressing significant concerns about the proposal, or in which legislation is moving to disapprove or limit its implementation.
Texas Public Utility Commissioner Kenneth Anderson said in an interview with E&E Daily yesterday that he would like to see his state submit a plan, but only if EPA finalizes a rule the state deems to be workable.
To do that, EPA would have to overhaul its draft to get rid of interim state targets that phase in after 2020. That timeline would not allow Texas to plan, site and construct transmission and pipeline infrastructure to support expansions in low-carbon energy, Anderson said.
He also said the federal agency should correct problems Texas sees with the way EPA uses its four building blocks to calculate state responsibilities -- a method he said is riddled with internal contradictions that have resulted in Texas' being assigned a tougher-than-average emissions target. The proposed rule would require the Lone Star State to slash utility-sector emissions 40 percent by 2030, compared with a national average of 30 percent.
"Until we know what the final rule looks like, there's no way to know whether it's even possible to do a state implementation plan," Anderson said.
If Texas chooses to implement, its PUC would contribute to a plan-writing process that would likely be led by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. But the state Legislature must also act to give the state agencies authority to write the rule, Anderson said, which was also a complicating factor in Texas' response to EPA's greenhouse gas permitting program. Texas' Legislature only meets every other year. EPA had to take over permitting for a time before Austin passed laws that allowed it to comply.
Anderson also expressed concern that state plans would be federally enforceable, a fact he said could grant EPA more leverage over states than they currently have.
"The problem is that, at least under the Clean Power Plan, most of what EPA would have the states use in order to implement it -- the dispatch of gas, the expansion of renewables, increased energy efficiency -- those are items that EPA has no authority over now," he said. "This commissioner is extremely disinclined to give either the EPA or third-party plaintiffs the ability to get involved in the structure and operation of our energy markets, where they have no authority now and couldn't get authority under a federal plan."
State lawmakers in a variety of states have also moved legislation aimed at limiting their agencies' response to the rule.
One of the most recent of these is a bill sponsored by South Carolina state Rep. Joshua Putnam (R) that would prevent the state from submitting its plan until judicial review has concluded on the rule.
In an interview, Putnam said he wanted to make sure the state would not waste resources implementing a rule that would ultimately be overturned.
"The federal government continues to push more regulation on the state," he said. "At some point, the states are going to have to say, 'D.C., you're going to have to figure this out yourself and stop burdening the taxpayers.'"
Putnam said he expects that EPA wouldn't step in with an FIP, because his bill would allow the state environmental agency to prepare a rule that would go into effect when litigation concluded.
But EPA's proposal requires states to submit implementation plans by deadlines ranging between 2016 and 2018, depending on if they apply for extensions or participate in regional schemes.
And some experts warn that it is not clear that EPA lacks the authority to write an FIP that delivers the same reduction requirements included in its proposal -- though those demands might fall directly on power plants rather than on state governments (Greenwire, March 10).
And EPA has argued that if states do not submit plans, they will forgo the flexibility written in its draft, which would allow the state to safeguard its own interests.
But Barrasso's memo dismissed that notion.
"Flexibility in this context means little more than an invitation for states to choose the method by which their economic wounding will be performed," it says.
-
Portman, Shaheen Set to Reintroduce Long-Stalled Energy Efficiency Measure
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), authors of long-stalled energy efficiency legislation, plan to reintroduce their bill this week, the senators told Bloomberg BNA.
Similar to previous years' versions, the bill would repeal a provision in the 2007 energy law that requires the government to phase out use of fossil fuels in federal buildings, according to Portman. No major changes were made to the new version of the bill, according to a summary and draft of the legislation obtained by Bloomberg BNA.
That bill (S. 2262), which was backed by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and the investor-owned utility National Grid, would have authorized funding for measures to increase energy conservation in the federal data centers, established voluntary national model building codes, boosted energy efficiency in the manufacturing and commercial sectors and included a measure that would loosen energy efficiency standards for grid-enabled water heaters.
The bill would have cut energy costs by about $16.2 billion a year, created 192,000 jobs and avoided 95 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, according to an analysis of the legislation conducted by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which supports the legislation.
The provision of the bill addressing the federal fossil fuel phaseout, backed by Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), stems from a long-delayed Energy Department rule required by Section 433 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2007.
That provision, which was supposed to be implemented starting in 2010, would require new and renovated federal buildings to phase out the use of fossil fuels by 2030.
Opponents of the rule, which include a trade group representing utility companies such as Exelon Corp. and Sempra Energy, say the requirement is technologically unfeasible and impossible to implement.
Greater Reduction in Energy Use Considered
In exchange for repealing Section 433, the Shaheen-Portman bill would have extended current efficiency targets for federal buildings from a 30 percent reduction in energy use by 2015 to a 45 percent reduction by 2020.
The compromise has split the environmental community, with groups such as the Sierra Club, the U.S. Green Building Council and the American Institute of Architects previously saying they would pull support for the Shaheen-Portman efficiency bill if it was included.
Other provisions in the bill include measures that would require the development of new Tenant Star and Supply Star energy efficiency recognition programs and facilitate a third-party certification process within the existing Energy Star program.
The legislation was reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a 19-3 vote but failed to advance on the Senate floor amid a fight over what amendments would be allowed to be offered to the bill (92 DEN A-3, 5/13/14).
Shaheen, the bill's Democratic cosponsor, said negotiations are under way to ensure the new version of the legislation gets floor time. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill was unlikely to be brought to the floor during the current congressional work period.
-
Portman, Shaheen Keep Hope Alive on Energy-Efficiency Bill
Mar 10, 2015 | National Journal
By Ben Geman
Ohio Republican Rob Portman and New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen are either gluttons for punishment or close to picking the political lock that often keeps even widely supported legislation out in the cold.
The coming months could bring the answer. On Wednesday the duo is reintroducing major energy legislation to cut energy use in commercial buildings, manufacturing plants, and homes, a measure the senators have floated in one form or another since 2011.
The bill, despite buy-in from well-connected business and environmental groups, has spent years waylaid by Beltway dysfunction and ensnared in fights over more volatile topics like the Keystone XL pipeline and Obamacare. It has reached the Senate floor twice in the last two years, only to stall out.
"We have gotten bogged down in the dysfunction of Washington in the past," Portman told National Journal. "We're hopeful that we can now gain traction in this Congress."
Portman and Shaheen, who will float the bill with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, are hopeful they can convince colleagues to avoid letting it become a magnet for controversial amendments.
The Senate has gotten weeks of debates and votes on Keystone out of the way for the moment, culminating this month in a failed attempt to override President Obama's veto of legislation to authorize the project.
There are many other dangers lurking, such as the push by many Republicans to derail Environmental Protection Agency carbon-emissions rules, which would make the bill a nonstarter for the White House even if it somehow cleared the Senate.
"I hope that we can do it in a way that continues the focus on what we agree about efficiency, because I think there is overwhelmingly bipartisan support for the major provisions of this legislation, and so it would be a shame to let another energy issue to derail our ability to go forward on efficiency again," Shaheen said in an interview.
Avoiding controversial amendments, however, would still not ensure the bill is opposition-free. Heritage Action, an influential conservative group, has opposed previous versions that came to the floor, taking aim at funding authorizations for the bill's programs and also arguing that the bill duplicates existing federal and state efforts.
The wide-ranging bill's various provisions include: new and enhanced Energy Department work with manufacturers to develop and commercialize efficient technologies and industrial processes; stronger "model" building codes and assistance to help states and local governments adopt them; an initiative to train people for careers in efficient building design and operation; provisions to boost energy efficiency in federal buildings; language directing energy savings to be incorporated into federally backed mortgages to encourage greater efficiency, and more.
The two senators say the case for the bill is obvious. According to a summary from their offices, the measure would, by 2030, create more than 190,000 jobs, save consumers $16 billion a year, and cut carbon-dioxide emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 22 million cars off the road.
Supporters include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance to Save Energy, the Business Roundtable, the Environmental Defense Fund, and a broad suite of other groups and individual companies, including corporate giants like Westinghouse and General Electric.
-
Cost Projections for EPA Ozone Proposal May Be Underestimated, Senate Republicans Say
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of its proposal to revise the national air standards for ozone includes several “questionable assumptions” that may underestimate the true cost of compliance with more stringent standards, according to Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The 11 Republicans, along with Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), sent a letter March 10 to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy outlining their concerns with the agency's draft regulatory impact analysis that accompanied the November 2014 proposal to revise the national ambient air quality standards for ozone to somewhere in the range of 65 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.
The draft regulatory impact analysis estimated that a 65 ppb standard would cost about $16.6 billion per year and a less-stringent 70 ppb standard would cost about $4.7 billion per year. The senators acknowledged the EPA's estimates already represent “high” compliance costs but cited several factors that led them to question the agency's estimates, including its basis for assessing the cost of both known and unknown pollution controls that would be used to meet a more-stringent ozone standard.
“The American public should be skeptical of EPA's cost estimates,” the senators said.
The EPA is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to finalize its decision (RIN 2060-AP38) on whether to revise or retain the current ozone standard of 75 ppb. Congressional Republicans have targeted the EPA's proposal as an example of regulatory overreach, and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) reintroduced a bill (S. 640) that would block the EPA from revising the standards until February 2018 (43 DEN A-23, 3/5/15).
EPA: Cost Consideration Not Allowed
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA in a March 10 e-mail that the agency will review the letter. It said that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can't consider costs in determining at what level health-based air quality standards should be set.
The Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that federal law prohibits the EPA from considering compliance costs when setting national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (U.S. 2001); 40 DEN AA-1, 2/28/01).
The agency said it conducted a cost-benefit analysis on its ozone proposal to “inform the public,” and the ultimate cost of a revised standard will be determined by the strategies states take to implement the standards.
“Our estimates are illustrative and history shows that they are likely to be lower than we have projected,” the agency said.
Agency Methodology Questioned
The issues raised in the letter include criticism of the EPA's methodology for calculating the cost of controlling pollution that contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone.
The senators accused the EPA of arbitrarily setting a cap on the cost of known controls, a move that lowers the overall cost estimates that accompanied the agency's proposal. The agency's analysis ignored “expensive and politically unpalatable” methods that could be needed to meet a more-stringent ozone standard, including the early retirement of coal-fired power plants.
The letter also questioned the EPA's assumption that unknown pollution controls would cost $15,000 per ton of emissions reduction. The senators said this method, which they classified as the “most uncertain value” in the EPA's analysis, assumes that new pollution control options will appear in the near future and won't be any more expensive than some of the more expensive pollution controls currently available.
NAM Report Projects Higher Costs
A February report commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers predicted much higher compliance costs, almost entirely due to a different methodology for calculating the cost of unknown controls.
Representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Policy Integrity both criticized that study for basing the cost of unknown controls on the cost of the Car Allowance Rebate System, a 2009 economic stimulus program commonly known as “Cash for Clunkers,” a move that they said resulted in an unrealistically high estimate that unknown controls would cost $500,000 per ton of emissions reduction (39 DEN A-14, 2/27/15).
Baseline Assumptions Targeted
The senators also criticized the agency for only providing a snapshot of costs in the year 2025, when many areas would be required to implement expensive pollution reduction strategies years before that, and for comparing costs to an “inflated” baseline that takes into account pollution reductions from the proposed Clean Power Plan, Tier 3 vehicle standards and other pollution control programs.
The EPA previously said its regulatory impact analysis for the ozone standards includes the proposed Clean Power Plan in its baseline to ensure that the agency doesn't “double count” costs and benefits associated with reducing emissions.
The agency said in its March 10 statement that “much, if not all” of the emissions reductions needed to meet a revised ozone standard will be accomplished by existing and proposed federal programs, including the Tier 3 standards. The EPA also cited the billions of dollars in estimated health benefits associated with a more stringent ozone standard, which the agency said industry claims typically ignore.
“We know that some will oppose EPA's efforts every step of the way to protect the environment and public health, but we remain committed to our mission,” the agency said.
Letter Signatories
The letter was signed by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Thune.
-
Hoeven, Manchin Join House Members Working on New Coal Ash Legislation
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are preparing to introduce legislation on the disposal and management of coal ash that they believe the Environmental Protection Agency and Senate Democrats could support, Hoeven told Bloomberg BNA March 10.
The bill, which the senators are coordinating with the House, would ensure coal ash could never be regulated as a hazardous waste by the Environmental Protection Agency and give a clear framework for managing coal ash impoundments that states could directly enforce, Hoeven said.
Hoeven said he has met with Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) to coordinate timing on moving the legislation, though he noted the House was “ahead of us in terms of probably advancing it.”
“The same bill that they move in the House is the bill we'll try to move in the Senate,” Hoeven said.
Manchin's office separately confirmed he was working on a bill and hoped for its introduction “in the next few months.” Coal ash is a residue from coal-fired power generation.
EPA Rule Released in December
The EPA announced the first-ever national standards for coal ash management in December, opting to regulate the material under the nonhazardous waste provisions of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The EPA said in a March 4 webinar that formal publication of the final rule wouldn't occur until late March or early April (43 DEN A-5, 3/5/15).
That regulation (RIN 2050-AE81) required the closure of surface impoundments and landfills that fail to meet engineering and structural standards, requires immediate cleanup and closure of unlined impoundments that are polluting groundwater, mandates regular inspections of surface impoundments and limits where new structures can be built, but it failed to provide a federal enforcement mechanism sought by environmental advocates.
“What we do is in our bill is we actually give states the direct authority to enforce the program in a way that I think works and in a way that I think EPA would accept,” Hoeven said. “It not only gives certainty to the industry so they know they can recycle coal ash and not have that designation change to a hazardous designation down the line, but it also gives a clear framework to manage impoundments.”
Measure Seen as Preferable to Litigation
Hoeven said the bill offers a “better way to manage [coal ash] than having EPA trying to do that federal one-size-fits all approach enforced through litigation.”
McKinley's office said Feb. 6 the West Virginia Republican was reworking his legislation to address deficiencies in the EPA final rule and said it was a “huge priority” (26 DEN A-6, 2/9/15).
-
Energy Department Appoints Duke Executive To Position for Coal, Carbon Management
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
David Mohler, a senior executive at Duke Energy, has been appointed the Energy Department's deputy assistant secretary for clean coal and carbon management.
Mohler, who most recently served as Duke's senior vice president and chief technology officer, replace's Julio Friedmann, who will assume the position of principal deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy, the department said.
“David brings a depth of knowledge to the Department,” Christopher Smith, assistant secretary for fossil energy, said in a March 9 statement. “From managing power plants to leading technology development as a senior executive, his experience and expertise is impressive. We're fortunate to have him on our Fossil Energy team.”
The Energy Department's clean coal research and development program focuses on the development and demonstration of advanced power generation and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies for existing facilities and new fossil-fueled power plants.
Mohler's experience includes roles on the advisory boards of the Carnegie Mellon Electric Utility Industry Center and the Electric Power Research Institute's Research Advisory Committee. He also served on the board of directors of the Asia Clean Energy Innovation Initiative, the Energy Department said.
Mohler earned a Bachelor of Arts from Indiana University, a Bachelor of Science from the University of the State of New York at Albany, a Master of Arts from Xavier University of Cincinnati, and a Master of Science from the University of Pennsylvania, according to the department.
-
Florida Gov. Denies He Banned Employees From Using ‘Climate Change’
Mar 10, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) denied a report that his environmental agency prohibited employees from using terms like “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications.
The report from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting quoted multiple former employees, consultants and others from the Department of Environmental Protection who confirmed that the terms were banned when Scott took over in 2011.
“It’s not true,” Scott said of the report Monday, according to the Miami Herald.
Scott refused to directly answer whether he believes the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are causing climate change. He instead focused on environmental problems in the low-lying state that his administration has tried to address, like beach erosion and flood mitigation.
“Let’s look at what we’ve accomplished,” he said. “We’ve had significant investments in beach renourishment, in flood mitigation. Look at what we’ve done with the Everglades: We settled a lawsuit over the Everglades … We put money in the Tamiami Trail, to raise that, to push water south. We’ve had — I think we’ve had record investments in our springs.”
He was asked three more times about climate change and declined to directly answer each time.
Asked about climate change last year, Scott said that he was “not a scientist.”
The Florida Democratic Party used the Center for Investigative Reporting story Monday to raise money, telling supporters in an e-mail, “is misleading Floridians about how dangerous this problem is,” and asking potential donors to “help us hold him accountable,” according to the Herald.
-
Railroads Lobbying White House to Not Include Brake Requirement in Train Rules
Mar 11, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes shouldn't be included in the Transportation Department's forthcoming safety standards for crude-by-rail trains, the railroad industry told White House officials, according to online meeting records released March 10.
The brakes, also known as ECP, which the industry estimates would cost as much as $15,000 per car, are “not a mature, robust technology” and provide “no significant safety benefit,” the Association of American Railroads said in a presentation at the March 6 meeting with officials from the Office of Management and Budget.
“ECP has been in very limited service for over 15 years and has yet to meet the reliability standards required in the tough outdoor environment that we operate,” according to the association, which represents Class I railroads.
Other in attendance at the meeting were officials from CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, Canadian Pacific Railway, the Transportation Department, and the Council on Environmental Quality, according to a list of attendees.
The meeting comes as the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration work to finalize a rule meant to address a series of fiery high-profile crude-by-rail derailments as the American energy boom has dramatically increased the amount of oil shipped by train.
ECP One of Several Options Considered
Options being considered by the DOT, which issued a proposed rule in July, include increased thickness for tank cars' steel shells, lower speed limits, and ECPs, which are designed to stop all rolling cars at the same time
Along with its comments about the ECP brakes limited service, the AAR said in its presentation that a Transportation Department analysis requiring ECPs was “flawed and skewed.”
The proposed rule, which could cost shippers and the railroad industry billions of dollar, has led to “a ferocious lobbying effort going on behind the scenes,” Fred Millar, an independent rail safety expert who previously worked for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, said.
“They certainly need better braking systems,” Millar said in an interview. “The evidence is really clear that the current system is dreadfully unsafe and puts millions of people at risk, and sensitive environmental areas could be impacted.”
-
Railroad Lobbied White House on Oil Train Safety After Spill
Mar 10, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Just one day after a 105-car oil train derailment spilled as much as 150,000 gallons of crude in Illinois, the railroad involved in the accident urged the White House not to require they use sophisticated new brakes under a much-anticipated final fuel-by-rail safety rule.
The Friday meeting with BNSF Railway and six other railroads had been scheduled before the fiery derailment in Galena, Ill., and it followed meetings earlier in the week between the Office of Management and Budget and both oil industry representatives and manufacturers of the tank cars used to ship crude from the shale-rich Bakken region of North Dakota.
The trio of budget office meetings suggests OMB was getting some final input before the Department of Transportation finalizes the rules that Congress has sought since 2013.
Documents the railroads brought to the White House meeting showed they have significant concerns about a possible DOT mandate on electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, which can stop tank cars in a unit train more quickly than older air brakes that stop each car individually.
Requiring ECP, which DOT is considering as part of the strongest in its three proposed options for the new oil-train safety rule, would “provide no significant safety benefit” and lead to a sharp rise in shipment delays, according to the railroad industry.
The railroad groups also contended that DOT “underestimated retrofit and new car costs by $4,500 per car,” according to the presentation marked with the Association of American Railroads logo.
“The freight rail industry’s focus is on the matter at hand, doing more to respond to the concerns of the public when it comes to the safe movement of oil by rail,” said AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg. AAR President and CEO Edward Hamburger attended Friday’s meeting.
“As much as railroads have dramatically improved safety, we recognize and share the public’s deep concern when it comes to the movement of crude oil.”
In addition to AAR and BNSF, the operator of the oil train that derailed in Illinois on Thursday, the meeting was attended by Norfolk Southern, Kansas City Southern, CSX, Canadian Pacific and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, according to OMB’s records.
On Wednesday, OMB held meetings with ExxonMobil, Tesoro and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, as well as a delegation of tank car manufacturers from Greenbrier Co. and Amsted Rail Co.
The manufacturers’ presentation included an analysis by consultants at Cambridge Systematics on the probability of a crude oil train spill at various speeds in older DOT-111 tank cars and newer CPC-1232 tank cars, both with and without steel jackets typically added to enhance safety. At 30 miles per hour, a potential speed restriction for crude-by-rail that both oil and rail interests oppose as too costly, the analysis showed a more than 20 percent probability of a spill from the older, unjacketed DOT-111 tank cars.
Environmentalists, who have pressed for DOT to phase out both the DOT-111 and CPC-1232 models, slammed the railroad industry for making the same cost-based pleas to avoid new rules that the auto industry used to resist now-required air bags and seat belts.
“They have an army of lobbyists trying to influence these rules,” said Eddie Scher, spokesman for the green group ForestEthics. “Maybe that explains how they’ve been able to ignore the reality of what’s happening everywhere these trains run, to say safety isn’t as important as the cost of the cars.”
DOT’s proposed final rule for crude-by-rail safety arrived at OMB last month and could be released within weeks.
-
Spate of Derailments Deepens Fear of Oil Train Disaster
Mar 10, 2015 | AP (in the Washington Post)
By Joan Lowy
Four trains hauling crude oil have derailed in the U.S. and Canada since mid-February, rupturing tank cars, spilling their contents, polluting waterways and igniting spectacular fires that burned for days.
The derailments have deepened safety concerns that if an oil-train accident were to occur in a populated area, the results could be disastrous.
“Recent incidents have proven once again that derailments of trains carrying this product are dangerous, and can be catastrophic,” said Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.
The Associated Press asked rail and hazardous materials safety experts about what is causing these accidents and what can be done to stop them.
Where have derailments taken place?
The recent spate of accidents began Feb. 14 when a 100-car Canadian National Railway train hauling crude oil and petroleum distillates derailed in a remote part of Ontario, Canada. Less than 48 hours later, a 109-car CSX oil train derailed and caught fire near Mount Carbon, West Virginia, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and burning a house to its foundation.
On Thursday, 21 cars of a 105-car Burlington Northern-Santa Fe train hauling oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota derailed about 3 miles outside Galena, Illinois, a town of about 3,000 in the state’s northwest corner. On Saturday, a 94-car Canadian National Railway crude oil train derailed about 3 miles outside the Northern Ontario town of Gogama and destroyed a bridge. The accident was only 23 miles from the Feb. 14th derailment.
The worst such accident in recent years involved a runaway train derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, just across the U.S.-Canada border from Maine, on July 6, 2013. The resulting explosions and fire killed 47 people and destroyed the town’s business district.
Why are there so many of these accidents?
The number of accidents is going up because the oil boom in the U.S. and Canada has dramatically increased the amount of oil shipped by rail. Last year, railroads moved 493,126 tank cars of crude oil, compared to 407,761 in 2013. That’s up from just 9,500 cars in 2008 before the hydraulic fracturing boom took off in the Bakken region of North Dakota, Montana and Canada, as well as other areas.
Most of the accidents in the U.S., as well as the Lac-Megantic derailment, involved trains hauling Bakken crude. Government tests show Bakken crude is more volatile than most crude oil. The American Petroleum Institute says Bakken is no more volatile than other light, sweet crudes.
What causes them?
Many factors can cause an accident, from too great a speed to operator fatigue. We won’t know the cause of the most recent ones until investigations are complete, but weather may be a factor. When it is very cold, as it has been across much of North America, steel rails and train car wheels can contract and become brittle. If the steel has a manufacturing flaw, no matter how small, it can spread rapidly in the cold weather.
“You get real cold weather like this and a rail can just snap ... a wheel will shatter like a piece of glass,” said Ed Dobranetski, a former National Transportation Safety Board rail accidents investigator.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said investigators have recovered a section of broken rail containing a rail joint and a broken wheel “that are of interest” in the Feb. 14 derailment.
What is the government doing to prevent them?
U.S. officials are working on new regulations to increase the safety of train operations and of the special tank cars that carry oil. Draft regulations were sent to the White House budget office for review on Feb. 4. Among other things, the proposal includes tank cars that have thicker shells and electronically controlled brakes that stop cars at the same time rather than sequentially.
“There will not be a silver bullet for solving this problem,” Feinberg said. “This situation calls for an all-of-the-above approach — one that addresses the product itself, the tank car it is being carried in, and the way the train is being operated.”
U.S. and Canadian officials are trying to coordinate changes because trains cross back and forth across the border. So far, there is no consensus on a timetable for phasing out older, less-safe tank cars.
What can railroads do to prevent accidents?
Brigham McCown, a former head of the federal agency that regulates rail transport of hazardous materials, said an array of new technologies patented within the last decade can warn of defects and identify trouble spots before accidents happen.
For example, sensors can be put on the lead locomotive to measure rail thickness, detect deformities and alert engineers, he said. Sensors can also be placed under track or next to rail ties to detect movement in track beds, or on cars to detect a broken wheel, he said.
“Given the sheer volume of hazardous materials and crude oil, we simply can’t afford to have these rail cars come off the track,” McCown said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested