Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Mar 17
-
(ACC Mentioned) The US Government Is Pressuring Europe to Dial Back Its Pesticide Rules
Mar 17, 2015 | Mother Jones
By Elizabeth Grossman
There's an important debate going on in Europe that could dramatically influence how pesticides are used on the United States' 400 million acres of farmland. At the center of the debate are endocrine disruptors, a broad class of chemicals known for their ability to interfere with naturally occurring hormones. -
Durbin Introduces Bill That Would Boost Research Spending
Mar 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Maggie Severns
Sen. Dick Durbin today introduced a bill called the American Innovation Act that would invest an estimated $100 billion over 10 years in basic research programs across the federal government. -
Durbin Offers Bill with $100B Boost for Research
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Katherine Ling
The Senate's second-ranking Democrat wants Congress to supply a predictable $100 billion funding stream for basic science research over the next decade by providing a required annual 5 percent increase to five federal research agencies. -
European Polymer Makers Invest In U.S.
Mar 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
Three European chemical makers are investing a combined $100 million-plus in U.S. production of specialty polymers. Taken together, the projects are a sign that the U.S. is a preferred investment location for more than just ethylene crackers and other basic chemical plants. -
Accelerating Chemical Production With Biology
Mar 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A new report by the National Research Council says the U.S. can accelerate its ability to manufacture chemicals using biological methods by broadening the use of synthetic biology; developing better models and tests of biological processes; and ensuring that regulations, risk assessments, and workforce education is in place for a shift to biobased manufacturing. -
Albemarle Streamlines Mineral Flame Retardant Portfolio
Mar 16, 2015 | Zacks
Chemical maker Albemarle ALB said that it is streamlining its mineral flame retardant product portfolio and refocusing its resources on further development and growth of major product grades. The move will allow it to put more emphasis on technology innovation to better address future customer needs. -
Exide to Close Lead Acid Battery Recycling Facility in California and Pick up $50m Clean-up Bill
Mar 16, 2015 | Waste Management World
By Ben Messenger
Lead acid battery manufacturing and recycling firm, Exide Technologies, is to immediately and permanently close a battery recycling facility in Vernon, California, and to pay $50 million to clean-up the site and surrounding neighbourhoods, which have been affected by environmental toxins for close to a century following an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry's 'Fingerprint' on Draft Bill Causes Buzz
Mar 16, 2015 |
By David McCumber
It's certainly well-known in Washington that when it comes to the making of the sausage, lobbyists frequently have their thumbs in the pork. But usually, they don't actually leave their electronic signatures on bills. -
(ACC Mentioned) Questions Raised on Authorship of Chemicals Bill
Mar 16, 2015 | SF Gate
By David McCumber
It’s certainly well-known in Washington that when it comes to the making of the sausage, lobbyists frequently have their thumbs in the pork. But usually, they don’t actually leave their electronic signatures on bills. -
EPA Chemical Safety Chief to Testify on TSCA Reform
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, will be the lead witness March 18 as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds a hearing on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced the legislation, which would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act, March 10 . -
Safer Chemicals' Igrejas Discusses Competing Senate TSCA Reform Bills
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing this week on a bipartisan measure introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Comments on Proposed Rule on Phthalates In Children's Products Extended to April 15
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has voted to extend the public comment deadline for its proposed rule that would limit some phthalates in children's products. -
Product Safety Board Delays Comment Period for Phthalate Rule
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E PM
By Sam Pearson
The Consumer Product Safety Commission this afternoon agreed to push back the public comment period on a set of controversial new regulations on phthalates in children's products that have been the subject of criticism from the chemical industry. -
Chemical Reform Bill is 'Deeply Problematic,' Law Experts Say
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Lydia Wheeler
Law professors from around the country say they have “serious reservations” about the new chemical reform bill introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) -
Chemical Safety Reform: We're Not There Yet
Mar 16, 2015 | Roll Call
By Ken Kimmell and Andrew A. Rosenberg
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good” is perhaps the most-repeated axiom you hear on Capitol Hill. But when a bill is this crucial to public health and safety, there’s another axiom to heed: “The devil is in the details.” -
Perfluorinated Chemical Comment Deadline Extended
Mar 16, 2015 | Perfluorinated Chemical Comment Deadline Extended
Companies that make or use certain perfluorinated chemicals have until June 26 to comment on a significant new use rule (SNUR) the Environmental Protection Agency published Jan. 21, according to a notice the agency published March 16 (80 Fed. Reg. 13,513). -
$2.57 Million Elementis Penalty Reversed In Decision on Hexavalent Chromium Study
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A $2.57 million fine against Elementis Chromium Inc. has been reversed by a final order by the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (In re Elementis Cromium Inc., EPA EAB, TSCA Appeal No. 13-3, 3/13/15). -
Echa Consults on 16 Testing Proposals
Mar 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa is consulting on 16 testing proposals on 12 chemicals until 30 April. The substances and the hazard endpoints for which vertebrate testing is proposed -
Canada Imposes New Notice on Decenamide
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Environment Canada has imposed a significant activity notice requirement for a form of decenamide as a cosmetic, drug or natural health product on the basis that such new uses could result in its becoming toxic. -
Senators Want Chemical Safety Board Chair To Step Down
Mar 16, 2015 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
Two U.S. senators on Thursday asked President Barack Obama to demand the immediate resignation of the Chemical Safety Board’s chairman for an alleged pattern of hostility toward career staff and whistleblowers. -
Safety Standard in Udall-Vitter Proposal 'Deeply Problematic,' Opponents Warn
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Legislative language defining U.S. EPA's burden of proof to restrict harmful chemicals does not go as far as necessary and could make the agency vulnerable to legal challenges from the industry, a group of professors and legal scholars warned in a letter sent yesterday to Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). -
West Virginia: 2 Plead Guilty in River Pollution
Mar 16, 2015 | AP (In The New York Times)
Two former owners of Freedom Industries pleaded guilty on Monday to environmental violations stemming from last year’s Charleston chemical spill, which prompted a temporary tap water ban for 300,000 residents. -
Federal Authorities Investigating Chemical Leak, Explosion at Menasha Paper Mill
Mar 16, 2015 | Fox
By Bill Miston
Federal authorities say they are investigating a chemical leak and explosion at a Menasha paper mill that forced people out of their homes. -
San Diego, Port Authority Sue Monsanto To Finance Cleanup of PCBs in Bay
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The City of San Diego and its Port Authority are suing Monsanto Co. in federal court, asking a judge to order the company to pay for the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls in San Diego Bay (San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Monsanto Co., S.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-00578, 3/13/15). -
'We're Close' on Cyber Bill, says Intel Chairman
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Cory Bennett
The final text of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s major cybersecurity bill could be released Monday night or Tuesday morning, Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told The Hill. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Reform Measures Face White House Opposition
Mar 17, 2015 | RegBlog
By Divya Chawla
Some Republican politicians have expressed disdain for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Representative Michele Bachmann once pledged to padlock its doors, and House Speaker John Boehner called one of its recent proposals “nuts.” -
Ohio Judge Rules Antifracking Ordinance Preempted by State Law
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
An Ohio “community rights” ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing has been struck down by a local judge who said it conflicts with state law. By overturning the Broadview Heights's ordinance, the court showed that it is “not prepared to uphold our right to protect our health and safety,” Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund organizer ... -
Earlier Disclosure of Chemical Use Required by Michigan Fracking Rules
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Revised Michigan regulations on high-volume hydraulic fracturing require companies to disclose information about the chemicals they plan to use when they apply for permits, rather than after drilling has begun. -
First North Carolina Fracking Regulation To Take Effect as Measure to Block It Expires
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
A North Carolina regulation authorizing and regulating hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas will take effect March 17. -
Mexico Begins Foray Into Fracking Rules With Focus on Guidelines to Protect Water
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
Mexico's Environmental Ministry issued recommendations for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, focusing on drinking water protection as the country inches closer to allowing the drilling method for natural gas that has expanded rapidly in the U.S. -
House Democrats Back Obama Plan to Halt Gulf Revenue Sharing
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Phil Taylor
House Democrats are quietly backing President Obama's bid to divert billions of dollars in future offshore oil and gas revenues from Gulf Coast states, a position that has angered their Gulf colleagues. -
EPA Rejects State Push To Delay ESPS Implementation Pending Lawsuits
Mar 16, 2015 | InsideEpa
A top EPA official is rejecting calls from recalcitrant states to delay finalizing or implementing its rule to curb greenhouse gases (GHGs) from existing power plants, which the agency plans to issue this summer, in the face of opposition from cooperative states whose officials say any delay would undermine their ability to comply. -
EPA to Propose Emissions Standards For Medium-, Heavy-Duty Trucks in June
| BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency anticipates proposing its second phase of greenhouse gas emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks in June, missing a White House deadline. -
Power Plant Startup Rule Lawsuits Held in Abeyance Pending Supreme Court Decision
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appellate court will hold in abeyance lawsuits challenging air toxics standards for power plants during periods of startup pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Industry and environmental groups are challenging in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a November 2014 EPA rulemaking (RIN 2060-AS07) that... -
Grants Can Be Used for Clean Power Plan Implementation, McCabe Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Federal grants to support state and local air quality management programs will be available for implementing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, even if Congress does not provide additional funding that was requested by President Barack Obama, EPA's top air official said today. -
EPA Air Quality Grants Will Be Available To Implement Power Plant Carbon Rule
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Federal grants to support state and local air quality management programs will be available for implementing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, even if Congress does not provide additional funding that was requested by President Barack Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency's top air official said March 16. -
Clean Power Plan Not a Danger to PJM States
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The strategic consulting firm Analysis Group took aim again today at Clean Power Plan critics who charge the U.S. EPA rule will harm grid reliability. -
Portman Ads Attack Likely Opponent Over Support of Obama Coal Policies
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has launched a series of advertisements accusing his likely opponent in the Buckeye State's 2016 Senate contest, former Gov. Ted Strickland (D), of supporting Environmental Protection Agency carbon pollution rules and other policies that have harmed the state's coal industry. -
Hill Fills EPA's Mailbox with Letters on Carbon Rule
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
The art of letter writing isn't dead, at least if you're a member of Congress concerned about the Clean Power Plan. -
Major Environmental Statute Revamp Unlikely In Congress This Session, Senior Aides Say
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Congress probably lacks the political willpower to retool major environmental statutes this session with the possible exception of reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act, senior House and Senate aides told the Environmental Council of the States March 16. -
Obama Guarantees GOP Will Change on Climate
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Ben Kamisar
President Obama said that the Republican Party will be forced to change its views on climate change in a new interview with Vice News. -
Oil Lobby wants Ozone Rule Scrapped
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry says it’s inappropriate for the Obama administration to try restricting ozone standards when the country is still working toward the current requirements. -
GOP governors blast EPA ozone rule
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Eleven Republican governors told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Monday that its proposed rule to reduce ozone is “onerous” and “job-crushing.” -
Battle Over Ozone heats Up Ahead of Hill Hearing, Comment Deadline
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Peterka
The oil industry and a coalition of Republican governors yesterday called on U.S. EPA to pull back from a proposal to tighten the national ozone standard. -
With Help from Erica Martinson and Elana Schor
Mar 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jennifer Shutt
Eleven Republicans from states including Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi wrote to EPA today to express opposition to proposed changes to the agency’s ozone air quality standard, writing that tightening the requirements would interfere with the states’ “free market policies” and bring “onerous, job-crushing” results. Tuesday is the deadline to file comments on the proposed changes. -
Previewing Public Input, Groups Split On EPA's Secondary Ozone NAAQS
Mar 16, 2015 | InsideEpa
By Lea Radick
EPA's decision not to propose a distinct secondary ozone air standard sought by environmentalists is prompting praise from industry groups who say a stand-alone limit would spur regulatory confusion, but uncertainty from states about how to attain the proposal -- a preview of upcoming public comments on the rulemaking. -
Tough Sledding for Efforts to Attach KXL Rider to Transportation Bill
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
The notion of using legislation to fund highway and transit projects as a vehicle for approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline is hitting roadblocks from KXL backers. -
Obama Denounces Climate ‘Shills’ on the Hill
Mar 16, 2015 | Politico Pro Energy
By Andrew Restuccia
Too many lawmakers are “shills” for fossil-fuel companies that oppose acting on climate change, President Barack Obama said in an interview released Monday — though he’s optimistic that young, environmentally conscious voters will eventually prompt the GOP to change its tune. -
OPEC Warns U.S. Oil Boom Could Be Over by Year-End
Mar 16, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Benoit Faucon
OPEC said Monday the U.S. oil boom could be over by the end of this year, offering a pessimistic view of American producers’ ability to withstand a historic collapse in crude prices and predicting that global petroleum supplies would realign with demand. -
Stable Emissions Show Growth, Mitigation Possible, Envoy Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chisaki Watanabe
A report showing that global emissions were unchanged last year shows economic growth is possible amid the fight against climate change, a World Bank official said. Carbon dioxide emissions were stable at 32.3 billion metric tons, even as the global economy advanced 3 percent, the International Energy Agency said in a statement Friday. -
Strong Energy Policy Should Follow the Market
Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By James Hewett
For decades, nearly all energy production in the United States has been dominated by the fossil fuel industry. As oil traditionally drove the rise and fall of America’s GDP, legislators reacted to demand by implementing supportive tax policies for fossil technologies, sending over $7 billion in subsidies their way every year. But the relationship between energy and America’s marketplace is changing. -
Railroad Administration Lacks Data to Justify Two-Person Crew, Railroads Tell White House
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Federal Railroad Administration hasn't provided any data that proves a two-person crew is safer than a one-person crew when it comes to operating mainline freight and passenger trains, railroad representatives told the White House.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) The US Government Is Pressuring Europe to Dial Back Its Pesticide Rules
Mar 17, 2015 | Mother Jones
By Elizabeth Grossman
There's an important debate going on in Europe that could dramatically influence how pesticides are used on the United States' 400 million acres of farmland. At the center of the debate are endocrine disruptors, a broad class of chemicals known for their ability to interfere with naturally occurring hormones.
Endocrine disruptors have been linked to a range ofhealth disorders [PDF] that include obesity [PDF],diabetes, behavior, and learning problems [PDF], and to reproductive disorders, including infertility. These chemicals are found in many plastics and countless consumer products, including cosmetics, and building materials. They include bisphenol-A (BPA), certain phthalates, and numerous flame retardants. The active ingredient in some of the pesticides most widely used across the American farm landscape, such as atrazine, 2,4-D, and organophosphates, are also widely believed to fall in this category.
In 2011, due to growing concern, the European Union decided to restrict the use of pesticides that act as endocrine disruptors. But that legislation cannot be fully implemented until members of the European Commission can agree on an official definition of "endocrine disrupting chemicals." That decision is now overdue.
Once in place, these would be the first such regulations anywhere in the world. And given the global market for pesticides—and agricultural products—what happens in Europe will have important implications in the US and beyond.
Case in point: The endocrine disruptor argument is being watched closely by those taking part in—and watch-dogging—the closed-door trans-Atlantic trade talks now going on. As part of those discussions, the US government and pesticide industry groups are reportedly urging for a "harmonization" of US and E.U. policies. But critics, including the Center for International Environmental Law, note that US and E.U. trade groups are pushing to ensure that E.U. environmental standards begin conforming to US regulations. And when it comes to pesticides, many US standards are less stringent than those in Europe.
At the heart of the current E.U. debate is whether to designate chemicals as endocrine disruptors based on either a) science that shows their potential to act as endocrine disruptors or b) science that also includes a risk assessment with data about exposure and documented adverse effects—a scenario that can be challenging in the realm of endocrine disruptors whose effects may take years to become apparent.
If defined as the former—essentially using the E.U.'s precautionary approach—a great many more chemicals could potentially be swept into this category and possibly restricted. The latter would make it considerably more difficult to restrict a chemical's use. In recent comments submitted to the European Commission, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Foreign Agriculture Service argues strongly for the latter approach, one that would also include an economic cost-benefit analysis, saying that, "imposing unnecessary restrictions" on pesticides "could have far-reaching and particularly detrimental consequences."
The US government's position largely echoes the positions taken by chemical industry groups, includingCropLife America and the American Chemistry Council—groups that have a great deal riding on the outcome of this decision. Based on estimates compiled by companies that manufacture pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, the US government says that restricting pesticides as endocrine disruptors based on the broader definition would jeopardize as much as $69 billion worth of imports to Europe, including over $4 billion worth coming from the US Pesticides themselves are also big business, with sales worth billions every year.
More than 90 percent of the corn, soy, wheat, and potatoes grown in the US—many of our prime export crops—are treated with pesticides. Virtually no conventionally grown crops are untouched, but tomatoes, apples, grapes, rice, oranges, and peanuts top the USDA's list for the amount used on the farm level.
Pesticides used most on these crops include glyphosate (the active ingredient in "Roundup"), atrazine, chlorpyrifos, 2,4-D, and two less well-known pesticides called metolachlor and acetochlor. All of these have been identified in various scientific studies as having adverse effects on the endocrine system.
At the same time, exposure to endocrine disruptors appear to be costing Europeans an enormous amount of money. According to several studies published earlier this month, the estimated annual healthcare costs associated with exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in pesticides was $126 billion.
This is the estimated annual cost of several neurological disorders linked to these chemical exposures, including lowered IQ and behavioral disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The studies' authors say this is likely an under-estimation and suggest that exposure and costs in the US are comparable or greater.
In information posted to its website, CropLife America says that "to date" the US EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program "has demonstrated that crop protection products do not impact the estrogen axis in people or wildlife."
But Andrea Gore, University of Texas at Austin professor of pharmacology and toxicology whose research focuses on endocrine disruptors, says "there is ample evidence that many kinds of pesticides are endocrine disrupting chemicals" and that "many pesticides are known to act through estrogen systems."
Gore also says she feels "strongly" that the EPA's endocrine disruptor screening test methods are out-of-date and "do not include state-of-the-art approaches to identifying estrogenic chemicals," a view shared by other scientists working in this field. These test methods, she adds, don't address "the most relevant issues to endocrine disruption, such as critical development periods of life when even very low-dose exposures can have permanent and often adverse effects later in life."
The European Commission is now reviewing the more than 27,000 comments received on its proposed definition of endocrine disruptors. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether US policy-makers will consider the recent healthcare cost estimates for endocrine-disrupting pesticide exposures as they move forward with these deliberations.
Sweden, Denmark, and the European Council of Ministers have filed a lawsuit against the European Commission over its failure to define endocrine disruptors by its own December 2013 deadline. The E.C. expects to complete this decision-making process in 2016.
Commenting on these policy debates, Paul Towers, spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network, worried that the US position could "lower the bar" and lessen health protections everywhere.
-
Durbin Introduces Bill That Would Boost Research Spending
Mar 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Maggie Severns
Sen. Dick Durbin today introduced a bill called the American Innovation Act that would invest an estimated $100 billion over 10 years in basic research programs across the federal government.
Durbin's bill would lift the current budget caps and increase funding by 5 percent plus inflation each year for certain programs. Five programs are targeted by Durbin's bill: the Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science Directorate and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Scientific and Technical Research.
“The American Innovation Act will make funding for critical science research projects less political and more predictable," Durbin said. "It will allow America’s smartest scientists and researchers to spend less time figuring out how to cut their budgets and more time finding new ways to produce clean energy and clean water and other solutions that the world needs."
The bill has support from a number of science, medical and research groups and received quick praise from leaders of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the Association of American Universities. Rep. Bill Foster will introduce a companion bill in the House. -
Durbin Offers Bill with $100B Boost for Research
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Katherine Ling
The Senate's second-ranking Democrat wants Congress to supply a predictable $100 billion funding stream for basic science research over the next decade by providing a required annual 5 percent increase to five federal research agencies.
The "American Innovation" bill introduced yesterday by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would provide "less political and more predictable" budgets for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, Department of Defense's Science and Technology Programs, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Scientific and Technical Research, and NASA's Science Directorate.
It aims to reverse a near-term trend of decreased funding for R&D, while competitors like China have continued to increase their R&D investments, Durbin said in a statement.
"It will allow America's smartest scientists and researchers to spend less time figuring out how to cut their budgets and more time finding new ways to produce clean energy and clean water and other solutions that the world needs," Durbin said.
"U.S. government support for scientific research has helped split the atom, defeat polio, conquer space, create the Internet, map the human genome and much more. I am introducing this bill so that we can continue to invest in the best ideas of our scientists and America will remain the land of the future for generations to come," he added.
The measure echoes recent calls by Bill Gates, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine and other prominent members of the science and business community for reinvigorated funding for basic research to keep the United States "economically competitive" (Greenwire, Feb. 24).
Federal funding for science has lost 20 percent of its purchasing power in just three years, and a downward trend in funding has translated to a $1.5 trillion investment deficit in the nation's innovation and young researchers -- many of whom now seek funding in other countries, according to Durbin's office.
In contrast, China has been increasing its R&D investments by 20 percent a year for the past decade and is on course to invest more in R&D than the United States as early as 2020 if nothing changes, Durbin's office said.
A bipartisan, comprehensive science and education bill, known as COMPETES, that passed in 2007 set funding for research agencies to double by 2013 -- but appropriators never came close to fulfilling the authorized funding levels. A bill introduced by House Republicans last year to reauthorize several of these agencies would have only boosted funding levels by 1.5 percent for fiscal 2015 -- even lower than what appropriators eventually approved.
The White House fiscal 2016 budget would provide $146 billion for R&D overall, an $8 billion or 6 percent increase from 2015 enacted levels, but that includes a $1 billion boost for the National Institutes for Health, which is not included in Durbin's bill as he introduced complimentary legislation to support NIH last session. NSF, NIST and DOE's Office of Science combined would see a $700 million increase to $13.8 billion under Obama's proposed budget.
Durbin announced the bill in a speech yesterday at 1871, a digital startup hub in Chicago. The Science Coalition, a Washington, D.C.-based organization representing public and private research universities, also presented Durbin with a "Champion of Science" award at the event.
The bill is supported by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; the Science Coalition; the Task Force on American Innovation; IBM Corp.; the Association of American Universities; the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; and the Close the Innovation Deficit campaign, a coalition of more than 120 national business, higher education, scientific, patient and other organizations, according to Durbin's office.
-
European Polymer Makers Invest In U.S.
Mar 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
Three European chemical makers are investing a combined $100 million-plus in U.S. production of specialty polymers. Taken together, the projects are a sign that the U.S. is a preferred investment location for more than just ethylene crackers and other basic chemical plants.
Solvay is spending $85 million to build a grassroots polyether ether ketone plant in Augusta, Ga., and expand output at an existing facility in Panoli, India. The project will add more than 2,500 metric tons of capacity for the high-performance polymer by mid-2016, according to Solvay.
Arkema will build a facility in Mobile, Ala., for polyether ketone ketone, a high-performance polymer the firm debuted in 2013. Arkema says the plant will open in the second half of 2018. At the same time, the company plans to double capacity at its existing facility in France.
And focusing on a lower-end polymer used in coatings and adhesives, Wacker Chemie will spend more than $50 million to build a vinyl acetate-ethylene dispersions plant at its site in Calvert City, Ky. To open later this year, the plant will add 85,000 metric tons per year of capacity and make the complex the largest of its kind in the Americas, Wacker says.
The polyaryl ether ketone expansions by Solvay and Arkema make sense given the economic growth the U.S. is enjoying as much of the rest of the world stagnates, according to Jay Dwivedi, who completed a study of the high-end polymers market last year for Principia Consulting. “The U.S. is not only a large market for high-performance polymers, it is also growing,” Dwivedi says.
Arkema points out that U.S. demand for its polymer, trade-named Kepstan, is expanding in the aerospace and defense sectors, where it is used in structural thermoplastic composites and to make semistructural parts via three-dimensional printing.
Other attractive applications for polyaryl ether ketones, Dwivedi notes, include medical implants and specialized electronics. Moreover, the polymers are lucrative products. They can sell for more than $60 per kg, he says, and should enjoy growth rates of close to 10% per year.
-
Accelerating Chemical Production With Biology
Mar 16, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A new report by the National Research Council says the U.S. can accelerate its ability to manufacture chemicals using biological methods by broadening the use of synthetic biology; developing better models and tests of biological processes; and ensuring that regulations, risk assessments, and workforce education is in place for a shift to biobased manufacturing.
The report, “Industrialization of Biology: A Roadmap To Accelerate Advanced Manufacturing of Chemicals,” was commissioned by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. It was written by a panel of experts chaired by Thomas M. Connelly Jr., formerly of DuPont. Connelly is now the executive director and chief executive officer of the American Chemical Society, the publisher of Chemical & Engineering News.
The committee’s vision is to put biological routes for chemical production on par with the techniques of chemical synthesis. The report notes that biological tools, such as the use of genetically engineered microbes, can make specialty chemicals and high-volume chemicals from nonpetroleum inputs including sugar, cellulose, waste gases, and even minerals. Using new tools and feedstocks will also result in new chemical products with improved performance or costs, it says.
Biotechnology has brought some early successes, including scaled-up processes for industrial enzymes, 1,3-propanediol, and alcohol-based biofuels, the report notes. But by adopting genetics advances used by the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, chemical makers can make many more chemicals with help from biology and bring them to market faster.
The committee offers a 10-year scientific road map targeting milestones in all phases of industrialization. It recommends that federal grant-making agencies support “the scientific research and foundational technologies required to advance and to integrate the areas of feedstocks, organismal chassis and pathway development, fermentation, and processing.”
Milestone targets include reducing feedstock costs and increasing the types of carbon inputs, developing tools for continuous fermentation production, and inserting synthetic DNA into organisms used to manufacture chemicals.
The report also addresses possible social hurdles facing the industry’s growth. It proposes that the government quantify the contribution of biobased manufacturing to the economy and says industrial biotechnology firms should partner with academia to ensure training of qualified workers. On the regulatory front, the committee raises concerns about the timeliness of the Environmental Protection Agency’s processes for regulating industrial microbes and assessments of chemical risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
The report shows that adding biology and genomics tools to manufacturing makes this an exciting time for chemists, Connelly says. “It’s an expansion of the tool kit for chemical synthesis. Synthesis in the future may well involve both conventional chemical steps as well as biological and enzyme-mediated steps,” he says. “When I see the kind of things you can do biologically at room temperature and pressure, under benign conditions, I see the same principles but deployed in new and exciting ways.”
-
Albemarle Streamlines Mineral Flame Retardant Portfolio
Mar 16, 2015 | Zacks
Chemical maker Albemarle ALB said that it is streamlining its mineral flame retardant product portfolio and refocusing its resources on further development and growth of major product grades. The move will allow it to put more emphasis on technology innovation to better address future customer needs.
Moreover, Albemarle will also boost production capacity for the fine precipitated hydrate aluminium trihydrate ("ATH") product line at its Bergheim plant in Germany. The expansion, which is expected to complete by the end of this year, will better place the company to respond to rising demand.
Through the streamlined portfolio, Albemarle will continue to make and distribute key Martinal mineral flame retardant grades - Martinal ON 313 S, Martinal ON 320, Martinal ON 904, Martinal ON 906, Martinal ON 908, Martinal ON 921 and Martinal ON 935.However, Albemarle will immediately stop making certain Martinal products such as Martinal ON, Martinal ON 310, Martinal ON 313 and Martinal ON 4608. But the company will continue to market these products until end-2015 or until all inventories have been depleted.
Albemarle, in Jan 2015, said that it is realigning its global business units following the closure of its $6.2 billion acquisition of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. The move will align the company's strategic assets and businesses to be market focused and enable it to more effectively leverage its resources on innovation and growth.
The new business structure, which will come into effect by the end of first-quarter 2015, will be comprised of three global business units - Chemetall Surface Treatment, Refining Solutions and Performance Chemicals. Each business unit will also have a dedicated team of sales, R&D, process engineering, manufacturing and sourcing, and business strategy personnel.
The new structure will help Albemarle achieve its strategic objectives of growing faster, performing at even higher levels and speed up the recognition and achievement of synergies beyond the identified cost synergies. It will also help the company to leverage its long-term lithium strategy.
Albemarle currently carries a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell).
Better-ranked stocks in the chemical space include Asahi Kasei Corp. AHKSY, Innospec Inc. IOSP
and Air Products & Chemicals Inc. APD
. While Asahi Kasei and Innospec sport a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), Air Products carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. -
Exide to Close Lead Acid Battery Recycling Facility in California and Pick up $50m Clean-up Bill
Mar 16, 2015 | Waste Management World
By Ben Messenger
Lead acid battery manufacturing and recycling firm, Exide Technologies, is to immediately and permanently close a battery recycling facility in Vernon, California, and to pay $50 million to clean-up the site and surrounding neighbourhoods, which have been affected by environmental toxins for close to a century following an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ explained that the agreement calls for Exide to permanently close the plant which, the company admits, produces a host of hazardous wastes, including lead, cadmium, arsenic and volatile organic compounds.
“The reign of toxic lead ends today,” asserted acting United States attorney, Stephanie Yonekura. “After more than nine decades of ongoing lead contamination in the City of Vernon, neighbourhoods can now start to breathe easier.”
The department added that Exide had planned to resume operations at the recycling facility as early as next month, but the agreement calls for the facility to be shuttered, demolished and cleaned up.
Exide is also required to make expedited payments that will complete funding of a $9 million trust fund that will be used to clean up 216 nearby residences in the Boyle Heights neighborhood and the City of Maywood.
The deal to close the recycling facility estimates that Exide’s direct costs of compliance are well in excess of $100 million. These costs include the company walking away from recent improvements to the facility and incurring new costs for lead and plastic that must now be purchased to manufacture new batteries.
Non Prosecution Agreement
According to the DOJ the United States Attorney’s Office entered into the Non Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because negotiations with the bankrupt company revealed that even the threat of a criminal prosecution would almost certainly force the liquidation of the company.
The department said that the NPA opens the door to new funding for the company, which employs thousands of workers in the U.S. and around the world, and ensures that money will be available to pay for the clean-up of the Vernon site and several other toxic sites around the U.S.
Without the NPA, prosecutors believed that Exide would have ceased to exist as a viable company and responsibility to clean up toxic sites such as the recycling plant in Vernon would revert to governmental agencies.
“The agreement with Exide ensures that the Vernon site will be permanently closed, while guaranteeing that the company will survive to adequately finance the clean-up of this long-suffering community,” said Yonekura.
Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s regional administrator for the Pacific Southwest commented: “The closure of this facility is a victory for the residents of Vernon who have suffered from decades of toxic pollution. This historic action was made possible because of the tireless efforts of local community members, including parents, environmental groups and religious leaders. Today’s announcement shows that companies who fail to meet federal environmental laws will face serious consequences.”
Polluter pays
In addition to the commitments to close the Vernon facility and pay for associated clean-up costs, the DOJ said thatExide has acknowledged criminal conduct, including the illegal storage, illegal disposal, illegal shipment and illegal transportation of hazardous waste.
For example, the NPA states: “Exide admits that it knowingly and willfully caused the shipment of hazardous waste contaminated with lead and corrosive acid in leaking van trailers owned by Wiley Sanders Truck Line, Inc. and operated by Lutrel Trucking, Inc. and KW Plastics of California, Inc., from the [Vernon] facility to Bakersfield, California, a significant number of times over the past two decades, in violation of federal law. Each incident could be charged as a felony violation of the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.”
The department explained that admissions of criminal violations is important because Exide agreed that it could be prosecuted for the felony environmental offenses it previously committed at any time over the next 10 years if it fails to abide by the terms of the NPA.
A violation would include failing to adequate finance clean-up efforts at the recycling facility, a program that will be overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
The DOJ added that the NPA with Exide is the result of an investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Criminal Investigations Division and the U.S. Department of Transportation – Office of the Inspector General.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry's 'Fingerprint' on Draft Bill Causes Buzz
Mar 16, 2015 |
By David McCumber
It's certainly well-known in Washington that when it comes to the making of the sausage, lobbyists frequently have their thumbs in the pork. But usually, they don't actually leave their electronic signatures on bills.
The elaborately titled Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act makes its debut at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Wednesday. It's a high-stakes bill: If it becomes law, it would be the first update in 39 years of federal regulation of toxic substances like asbestos, formaldehyde and hundreds of other chemicals.
In recent days, a draft of the bill - considered the product of more than two years of negotiation and collaboration between U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La.; Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.; and both chemical-industry and environmental groups - was circulated by Udall's office ahead of the hearing. The draft bill, obtained by Hearst Newspapers, is in the form of a Microsoft Word document. Rudimentary digital forensics - going to "advanced properties" in Word - shows the "company" of origin to be the American Chemistry Council.
The ACC, as the council is known, is the leading trade organization and lobbyist for the chemical industry. And opponents of the Vitter-Udall bill have pounced on the document's digital fingerprints to make the point that they believe the bill favors industry far too much.
"We're apparently at the point in the minds of some people in the Congress that laws intended to regulate polluters are now written by the polluters themselves," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, who will testify against the bill at Wednesday's hearing.
"Call me old-fashioned, but a bill to protect the public from harmful chemicals should not be written by chemical industry lobbyists," Sen. Barbara Boxer said Monday. "The voices of our families must not be drowned out by the very industry whose documented harmful impacts must be addressed, or the whole exercise is a sham."
Boxer, who chaired the committee when the Democrats held the majority, and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., have introduced an alternative version of the bill with much more stringent regulatory provisions.
Udall's office was a little indignant and somewhat embarrassed Monday. "That document originated in our office," said Udall's communications director, Jennifer Talhelm. "It was shared with a number of stakeholders including at least one other senator's office. One of those stakeholders was the ACC."
Talhelm added, "We believe that somebody at the ACC saved the document, and sent it back to us," accounting for the digital trail. "Sen. Udall's office has been very, very engaged with bringing various stakeholders to the table as part of the process of writing the best possible bill," Talhelm added. "This is just one example."
Earlier this month, a New York Times story detailed Udall's alliance with the chemical industry on the bill. In that story, ACC President Cal Dooley, a former California Democratic congressman, said "the leadership (Udall) is providing is absolutely critical" to the industry.
On Monday, ACC spokeswoman and vice president Anne Kolter said, "It doesn't mean the original document was generated here. Anyone could have put that (digital signature) in there. You could change it."
Asked if that meant she was denying ACC wrote the document, she said, "I have no idea ... There's no way for anyone to tell."
"You're not the first reporter to ask about this," she said. "We've been able to raise enough questions" that nobody else has written about it, she added.
Cook of the EWG said the copy of the draft he received bore the same electronic signature, and a Boxer staffer on the committee confirmed that their copy did as well.
A Senate IT staffer told Boxer's office, "We can confidently say that the document was created by a user with American Chemistry Council. Their name is specified as Author and their Organization is specified as American Chemistry Council."
The Vitter-Udall version of the bill is expected to gain enough bipartisan support to pass out of committee to the Senate floor.
The bill's fate from there is uncertain, and some of the Boxer-Markey provisions could possibly be included in the final bill.
In its current form, the bill is opposed by many environmental, health and labor organizations and several states, because it would gut state chemical regulations. So the president's signature is not assured.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Questions Raised on Authorship of Chemicals Bill
Mar 16, 2015 | SF Gate
By David McCumber
It’s certainly well-known in Washington that when it comes to the making of the sausage, lobbyists frequently have their thumbs in the pork. But usually, they don’t actually leave their electronic signatures on bills.
The elaborately titled Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act makes its debut at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committeehearing Wednesday. It’s a high-stakes bill: If it becomes law, it would be the first update in 39 years of federal regulation of toxic substances like asbestos, formaldehyde and hundreds of other chemicals.
In recent days, a draft of the bill — considered the product of more than two years of negotiation and collaboration between Sen. David Vitter, R-La., Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and both chemical industry and environmental groups — was circulated by Udall’s office ahead of the hearing. The draft bill, obtained by Hearst Newspapers, is in the form of a Microsoft Worddocument. Rudimentary digital forensics — going to “advanced properties” in Word — shows the “company” of origin to be the American Chemistry Council.
The ACC, as the council is known, is the leading trade organization and lobbyist for the chemical industry. And opponents of the Vitter-Udall bill have pounced on the document’s digital fingerprints to make the point that they believe the bill favors industry far too much.
-
EPA Chemical Safety Chief to Testify on TSCA Reform
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, will be the lead witness March 18 as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds a hearing on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697). Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced the legislation, which would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act, March 10 . In addition to Jones, the witness list includes environmental and health advocates, some of whom have praised the Udall-Vitter legislative effort and others who support a different TSCA-reform bill (S. 725) that Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced March 12 (49 DEN A-2, 3/13/15). Details about the hearing are available at http://1.usa.gov/1Cmd3QD.
-
Safer Chemicals' Igrejas Discusses Competing Senate TSCA Reform Bills
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing this week on a bipartisan measure introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is one of two bills currently up for consideration, following the introduction of a measure by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) last week. During today's OnPoint, Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, discusses the competing bills and the potential for a compromise within the EPW Committee. Today's OnPoint will air on E&ETV at 10 a.m. EDT.
-
Comments on Proposed Rule on Phthalates In Children's Products Extended to April 15
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has voted to extend the public comment deadline for its proposed rule that would limit some phthalates in children's products.CPSC Commissioners voted 5-0 on March 13 to extend the comment period for its phthalates proposed rule by 30 days, from March 16 to April 15, Scott Wolfson, CPSC spokesman told Bloomberg BNA.The proposed rule, issued in December 2014, would permanently ban five phthalates and lift interim bans on the use of two phthalates in children's products.The CPSC received two requests to extend the comment period for the phthalates rule by 60 days, according to the March 12 ballot votedocument.The CPSC's staff recommended denying the requests for extension, but the commissioners voted for the 30-day extension.Kaye: More Time for DataCPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye said he voted for extending the comment period for the phthalates proposed rule to allow more time for data to be submitted.“Although the Commission did not receive any requests containing a justified basis for extending the comment period, I voted to approve a 30-day extension in the event the planned data analysis presentation by industry to CPSC staff on March 16 warrants further submission of comments,” he said in a March 15 statement.While the CPSC is following the CHAP report's recommendations on banning five phthalates, it has already missed Congress's deadline for issuing a final rule.Congress had directed the CPSC to issue a final rule six months after issuance of a report from the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on the safety of the plasticizers in children's toys. That report was issued in July 2014.“I am mindful of the specific direction by Congress in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act for the CPSC to move to issue a final rule without delay. Because this action is in the interest of public health, CPSC staff will continue to move expeditiously to present a draft final rule to the Commission for its consideration,” Kaye said in the statement. -
Product Safety Board Delays Comment Period for Phthalate Rule
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E PM
By Sam Pearson
The Consumer Product Safety Commission this afternoon agreed to push back the public comment period on a set of controversial new regulations on phthalates in children's products that have been the subject of criticism from the chemical industry.
The commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on the phthalate restrictions earlier this year, and the public comment period was due to end today.
The agency made the announcement ahead of a meeting between staff working on the rules and officials from the American Chemistry Council, Exxon Mobil Corp. and BASF Corp. The officials planned to discuss the CPSC's use of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey this afternoon with the industry representatives.
CPSC has proposed making permanent an interim ban on diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, and also permanently banning four other phthalates -- diisobutyl phthalate, or DIBP; di-n-pentyl phthalate, or DPENP; di-n-hexyl phthalate, or DHEXP; and dicyclohexyl phthalate, or DCHP -- in children's products and child care items.
"Although the commission did not receive any requests containing a justified basis for extending the comment period, I voted to approve a 30-day extension in the event the planned data analysis presentation by industry to CPSC staff" requires additional comments to be submitted, CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye said in a statement. "Because this action is in the interest of public health, CPSC staff will continue to move expeditiously to present a draft final rule to the commission for its consideration."
The American Chemistry Council has lobbied the agency to redo calculations completed by an advisory body called the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates, whose members were nominated by the National Academy of Sciences, to account for more recent data the group contends would show that exposure to the phthalates has declined and the regulations are not necessary (Greenwire, Feb. 20).
The CPSC is required to evaluate whether the rule is needed under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which also directs the agency to "consider the level at which there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women or other susceptible individuals and their offspring."
ACC President Cal Dooley wrote to the agency last month urging it to scrap the proposed regulations because it would create an "irresponsible and scientifically unsound precedent." The industry group has also taken issue with the CPSC's use of a closed rather than an open peer review and a cumulative risk assessment.
The agency's action will extend the public comment deadline to April 15.
-
Chemical Reform Bill is 'Deeply Problematic,' Law Experts Say
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Lydia Wheeler
Law professors from around the country say they have “serious reservations” about the new chemical reform bill introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.)
Days before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is expected to discuss the legislation, a group of 25 professors and public interest lawyers sent a letter to committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Co-signers include Thomas Cluderay, general counsel for the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has been one of the most vocal outliers of the Udall-Vitter bill.
The letter said the proposed legislation preserves the same inadequate safety standard used in the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
“Although the Vitter-Udall proposal incorporates into its safety standard definition a prohibition against considering cost and non-risk factors, the definition remains ambiguous and — notably —completely contradictory to other sections of the Vitter-Udall proposal,” said the letter signed by Hope Babcock, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center; David Driesen, university professor at Syracuse University College of Law; and Perry Wallace, a law professor at the American University Washington College of Law.
By leaving the term “unreasonable risk” undefined, the groups said the courts are likely to interpret Congress’ intent as it has been previously construed in case law, as still requiring a cost-benefit analysis.
“Given the contradictions around consideration of costs and benefits throughout the Vitter-Udall Proposal and the ambiguity of the safety standard, it is deeply problematic from a public health perspective,” the letter went on to say. “To ensure that this Congress’s TSCA reform efforts produce a statute that is better than the status quo, any legislative fix must use the truly health-protective safety standard, a “reasonable certainty of no harm.”
The Senate EPW Committee is expected to hear testimony from Edward McCabe, senior vice president and chief medical officer for the March of Dimes Foundation, and EWG President and Co-founder Ken Cook during Wednesday's hearing.
-
Chemical Safety Reform: We're Not There Yet
Mar 16, 2015 | Roll Call
By Ken Kimmell and Andrew A. Rosenberg
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good” is perhaps the most-repeated axiom you hear on Capitol Hill.
But when a bill is this crucial to public health and safety, there’s another axiom to heed: “The devil is in the details.”
This week, the Senate will likely begin consideration of a chemical safety bill with bipartisan sponsors (Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M.). The bill would mandate a new approach for the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals and provide some resources to help accomplish that goal. Sens.Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., have also introduced a stronger, more protective bill, though it does not currently have bipartisan co-sponsorship.
The bill attempts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, rightly criticized for being too weak and ineffective. Since the law passed in 1976, the EPA has managed to regulate only a tiny fraction of the more than 80,000 chemicals in commercial use.
The Vitter-Udall bill, when first introduced in the last Congress, was far too weak. Over time, it has significantly improved. Let’s not ask ,“Is it perfect?” but rather “Is it good enough for enactment?”
Not yet.
But with a few more changes — and strong implementation — we can significantly benefit public health and safety.
Here are some of our concerns:
The bill’s timeline would regulate chemicals very slowly. Since 1976, the EPA has evaluated only 200 chemicals, and banned or restricted only five. If only 1 percent of chemicals in use today were considered unsafe, there would be 800 chemicals to address. Under the timelines specified by the bill, it would take the agency decades to reach that goal, without even considering any new chemicals that come along.
Independent science needs to play a stronger role. The bill as drafted does outline a science and peer review process, but could be stronger in ensuring its independence from chemical industry influence. To truly protect public health and safety, determinations on the safety of chemicals must be based on a clear, independent science process. The evidence must be peer-reviewed free from conflicts of interest. Also, the bill opens the door to many more challenges of science by industry — a recipe for slowing or halting the process of regulating dangerous chemicals.
The bill makes it more difficult for the states to take the lead on regulating chemicals. Current state chemical restrictions won’t be affected until the EPA takes action to regulate a specific chemical. But states will have a very hard time trying to regulate any additional unsafe chemicals after the law is passed because federal rules would largely pre-empt state authority to take future action to protect their citizens, and states wouldn’t even be allowed to enforce the federal rules. The bill specifically bars states from adopting and enforcing restrictions for unsafe chemicals that are identical with the EPA’s. All enforcement would rest with the EPA, which lacks the resources to conduct nationwide enforcement on its own.
-
Perfluorinated Chemical Comment Deadline Extended
Mar 16, 2015 | Perfluorinated Chemical Comment Deadline Extended
Companies that make or use certain perfluorinated chemicals have until June 26 to comment on a significant new use rule (SNUR) the Environmental Protection Agency published Jan. 21, according to a notice the agency published March 16 (80 Fed. Reg. 13,513). Comments were due March 23. The proposed rule would keep 26 perfluorinated chemicals that manufacturers already have withdrawn from U.S. commerce off the market and require the agency's oversight of imported goods made with those chemicals (80 Fed. Reg. 2885; 11 DEN A-11, 1/16/15). The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global Automakers Inc., Intel Corp. and the Semiconductor Industry Association requested the extension. Comments, to be marked Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225, can be submitted athttp://www.regulations.gov. EPA's comment extension is available athttps://federalregister.gov/a/2015-05958.
-
$2.57 Million Elementis Penalty Reversed In Decision on Hexavalent Chromium Study
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A $2.57 million fine against Elementis Chromium Inc. has been reversed by a final order by the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (In re Elementis Cromium Inc., EPA EAB, TSCA Appeal No. 13-3, 3/13/15).Elementis was not required to submit a study that showed workers exposed to hexavalent chromium faced an increased risk of lung cancer, because the agency already knew that lung cancer could result at a lower cumulative dose, the board said in an order posted online March 16.Chemical manufacturers are required to file adverse effects information, known as substantial risk notifications, when the information pertains to a previously unknown effect or when an effect is more serious than previously known, the board said. It cited EPA guidance as to when Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act requires chemical manufacturers to file substantial risk notifications.If Elementis's worker study had been reportable—meaning it should have been submitted in accordance with Section 8(e) of TSCA—the company's violation of the law would have constituted a continuing violation for which fines accrue each day the obligation to provide the information remains unfilled, the board said.Elementis claimed it was not required to submit the report. It also argued that the agency did not file its complaint until 2010, which was after the five-year statute of limitations had expired.Because violations of TSCA 8(e) are continuing, the statue of limitations did not apply, the board said.Exemption for ReportingThe good news for chemical manufacturers is that appeals board judges Leslye Fraser and Kathie Stein wrote a well-reasoned opinion that concluded the study at issue supported well-established information already known to the agency and, therefore, fell within the exemption from reporting, Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail.The ruling, however, confirms “once again, that EPA takes TSCA Section 8(e) extremely seriously and while compliance with all of TSCA is important, special attention needs to be devoted to TSCA Section 8(e) reporting obligations,” she said.Neither of the attorneys who represented Elementis—Ronald Tenpas, with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, nor John McAleese with McCarter & English, LLP—could be reached immediately March 16.Study on Worker Mortality RateAt issue was an industry-funded study on the mortality rate of workers exposed to hexavalent chromium. The study showed workers faced significant lung cancer risks. Elementis obtained the information Oct. 8, 2002, but did not provide it to the agency until Nov. 17, 2008, when the company submitted the study in response to an EPA subpoena. The agency fined Elementis $2.57 million in 2013 for failing to disclose that information (221 DEN A-26, 11/15/13).Elementis argued that it was not obliged to submit the occupational study for many reasons, including that it confirmed information the EPA already had about the carcinogenic risks of hexavalent chromium (211 DEN A-13, 10/31/14).Although they disagreed with many points Elementis raised about its study, the judges concluded it was not reportable. -
Echa Consults on 16 Testing Proposals
Mar 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Echa is consulting on 16 testing proposals on 12 chemicals until 30 April. The substances and the hazard endpoints for which vertebrate testing is proposed, are:2-benzofuran-1,3-dione; 2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethanol – reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity);3,5-bis(2,4-dimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)polyheterocycle – genetic toxicity in vivo;dichlorocyclohexylmethylsilane – reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity);dipotassium heptafluorotantalate – genetic toxicity in vivo;fatty acids, C16-18, reaction products with diethanolamine – reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity);fatty acids, C18-unsaturated, dimers, oligomeric reaction products with tall-oil fatty acids and tetraethylenepentamine – reproductive toxicity and sub-chronic toxicity (90-day);methylsilanetriyl triacetate – reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity);reaction products of 1H-Imidazole-1-ethanol, 4,5-dihydro-, 2-(C11-C13 odd-numbered alkyl) derivatives and sodium hydroxide and chloroacetic acid; long-term toxicity to fish; reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity) and sub-chronic toxicity (90-day);tellurium dioxide – sub-chronic toxicity (90-day);tert-butyl α,α-dimethylbenzyl peroxide – long-term toxicity to fish;tetrakis(phenylmethyl)thioperoxydi(carbothioamide) – long-term toxicity to fish; andtripotassium propylsilanetriolate – reproductive toxicity (pre-natal developmental toxicity) and sub-chronic toxicity (90 day).
-
Canada Imposes New Notice on Decenamide
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Environment Canada has imposed a significant activity notice requirement for a form of decenamide as a cosmetic, drug or natural health product on the basis that such new uses could result in its becoming toxic. Application of the notice requirements in Section 81(4) of the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act to the chemical follows concerns about dermal toxicity, irritation to the eyes, corrosiveness to the skin and effects on human kidneys, the department said in a notice published March 14 in Canada Gazette, Part I. The notice calls for notification of any new uses of N,N-dimethyl-9-decenamide as a cosmetic or drug greater than 100 kilograms in a calendar year, but provides a transitional provision this year for notification only for uses exceeding 1,000 kilograms. Users must notify Environment Canada at least 90 days before the new use is to commence and the department is to complete its review within 90 days after receiving notice. The new use notification requirements do not apply to uses of the chemical governed by other federal statutes, or as pesticides, fertilizers or feed products. The notice is available at http://bit.ly/1BKj6MY.
-
Senators Want Chemical Safety Board Chair To Step Down
Mar 16, 2015 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
Two U.S. senators on Thursday asked President Barack Obama to demand the immediate resignation of the Chemical Safety Board’s chairman for an alleged pattern of hostility toward career staff and whistleblowers.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. Story can be found here: [http://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/630950/senators-want-chemical-safety-board-chair-to-step-down]
-
Safety Standard in Udall-Vitter Proposal 'Deeply Problematic,' Opponents Warn
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson
Legislative language defining U.S. EPA's burden of proof to restrict harmful chemicals does not go as far as necessary and could make the agency vulnerable to legal challenges from the industry, a group of professors and legal scholars warned in a letter sent yesterday to Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
The letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee outlined concerns with a pending bill, S. 697, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," to update how chemicals are regulated in the United States. With a committee hearing on the legislation scheduled for later this week, the scholars said they fear the bill would not do enough to expand the agency's authority to restrict harmful chemicals.
Offering a preview of arguments expected to be made by opponents of the bill in the months ahead, the attorneys wrote that the measure, sponsored by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), would not do enough to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976's safety standard. The arguments are likely to be repeated at a news conference planned for this afternoon with Boxer, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), California environmental activist Erin Brockovich, groups that target asbestos contamination, state regulators and environmental health groups opposed to the bill, as well as at an EPW committee hearing tomorrow.
"There is widespread agreement that TSCA is broken, and reform is due," the letter said. "The more important discussion is the discussion around why and how it's broken."
A spokeswoman for Udall disputed the claims in the letter, noting that a diverse group of stakeholders crafted the legislation and agreed on a stringent safety standard.
The scholars and activists wrote that an effective safety standard is the way to "truly reform" the chemicals law -- such as by requiring chemicals to meet the more restrictive standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm," a more protective level already used in food safety and pesticide laws, but dismissed by the chemical industry as impractical.
The letter was signed by Environmental Working Group General Counsel Thomas Cluderay; Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and the president of Citizens for Progressive Reform; Vermont Law School law professor Stephen Dycus; and 24 others.
Under the bill, the EPA would be permitted to take regulatory action against chemicals that fail to meet the safety standard -- defined as "a standard that 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," including to the general public or "any potentially exposed or susceptible population" that the agency has deemed relevant.
An alternative piece of legislation, introduced by Boxer and Markey, would instead require that EPA "ensures with reasonable certainty, without taking into consideration cost or other non-risk factors, that no harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the intended or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, including no harm to the general population or to any potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation that the Administrator has identified as relevant to the safety assessment and determination for a chemical substance."
The attorneys wrote that even though the Udall-Vitter bill appears to bar EPA from using a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to take action on a chemical, the law's ambiguity will provide ammunition for industry attorneys to limit the agency's authority. The bill also requires the agency to select the least burdensome action through a cost-benefit analysis while developing rules to restrict a chemical designated as a high priority, the attorneys noted.
"By retaining the term 'unreasonable risk,'" they wrote, "the Vitter-Udall Proposal's safety standard fails to send a clear signal that Congress intends to address the problems arising out of the Corrosion Proof Fittingsdecision," the 1991 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that EPA had not provided enough evidence to show that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk.
It's also "deeply problematic from a public health perspective" to imply that some health risks are tolerable, the letter said.
The attorneys wrote that if legislators do not define the term "unreasonable risk," the courts will do it for them -- and legal precedent suggests the phrase will be interpreted in a way consistent with previous case law requiring a cost-benefit analysis.
"The ambiguity in this definition will likely result in costly and extensive litigation, delaying further EPA action to protect people and the environment from hazardous chemicals," the attorneys wrote.
Aides working with Udall and Vitter have said that the bill is intended to allow EPA to ban asbestos, overcoming the legal barriers put in place after the appellate court ruling.
"It's clearly defined as not incorporating cost-benefit, so how can you take any ambiguity in that?" a Senate aide said. "I just don't see it."
The aide said it's appropriate to consider the cost of EPA action after making the safety determination, for example, by requiring the use of protective gear while handling a chemical in an industrial setting instead of banning the chemical from commerce.
EPA has noted in its principles for TSCA reform that the agency should have "flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including children's health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns" when making regulatory decisions for chemicals that do not meet the safety standard. Though the Udall-Vitter bill is less restrictive than the Boxer language, advocates say it still would be an improvement over current law, which requires EPA to select the "least burdensome" option to restrict a chemical.
"It's incorrect to say the law is too ambiguous to be an improvement," Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said in a statement. "The safety standard in the bill was written and agreed to by stakeholders including major environmental organizations and others. For the first time ever, it eliminates a requirement that EPA do the cost-benefit analysis that prevented the agency from regulating asbestos 25 years ago."
-
West Virginia: 2 Plead Guilty in River Pollution
Mar 16, 2015 | AP (In The New York Times)
Two former owners of Freedom Industries pleaded guilty on Monday to environmental violations stemming from last year’s Charleston chemical spill, which prompted a temporary tap water ban for 300,000 residents. At separate hearings, William Tis, 60, and Charles Herzing, 64, entered the pleas to causing an unlawful discharge of a coal-cleaning agent into the Elk River. Each faces up to a year in prison. They also face fines of $25,000 per day per violation or $100,000, whichever is greater. But after entering his plea, Mr. Tis expressed doubt when Judge Thomas Johnston of Federal District Court asked him whether he had committed the crime. “I have signed my name to these documents,” Mr. Tis said. “No, I don’t believe I have committed a crime, but I am pleading guilty.” Pressed by the judge to explain, he said: “I do believe I am guilty of this offense. There are people we had hired,” and “their failure results in my failure.” Plea hearings are scheduled Wednesday for a consultant and the tank farm plant manager, and next Monday for the company itself. The former owner, Dennis Farrell, and former president, Gary Southern, face trial this year on charges related to the spill. Freedom filed for bankruptcy protection eight days after the Jan. 9, 2014, leak.
-
Federal Authorities Investigating Chemical Leak, Explosion at Menasha Paper Mill
Mar 16, 2015 | Fox
By Bill Miston
Federal authorities say they are investigating a chemical leak and explosion at a Menasha paper mill that forced people out of their homes.
No one was injured in the blast at SCA Tissue, but dozens of homes south of the plant were evacuated shortly after 8 a.m. Monday morning.
“Just a loud explosion, sounded like a crack of thunder, real close to the house,” said Jon Muska, who lives on Lock St., just south of the plant.
Muska says he woke up and looked outside and saw what he thought what a cloud of steam coming from the mill. About a half-hour later there was a knock on his door.
“It was the fire department,” he said. “They were asking everybody to evacuate, because of a chemical spill.”
“Upon our arrival and further investigation we did note there was a vapor cloud that was emanating from the building also there was some liquid on the ground, outside the building, which also had some vapors coming off of it,” said Assistant Chief Mike Sipin of the Neenah-Menasha Fire Department.
Authorities say an “organic polymer” was being unloaded at the plant when it leaked and came into contact with another chemical, sodium hypochlorite – a more concentrated form of household bleach. Both are used in cleaning water from the paper making process.
The two reacted, creating heat and an explosion that blew off a portion of a roof of the plant, as by design, where the chemicals are located.
“That created a reaction that resulted in a buildup of heat and ultimately cause a small explosion that occurred in the onsite storage vessel, in a building on the southwest corner of the facility,” Sipin said.
Sodium hypochlorite is corrosive and can cause skin burns and irritation when contacted or inhaled in large amounts.
Homes to the south of the plant were evacuated as a gas plume filled the air. Hazardous-materials crews were called in from Oshkosh and Appleton to handle the spill. Sipin says the spill was contained before it could reach the sewer system and the evacuation was precautionary.
“Just for the sole purpose of safety, in the event we had a wind shift and the product was being blown over this way.”
The evacuation order was lifted by early afternoon.
SCA officials say the incident impacted only a small part of the plant and some operations.
“Safety is our top priority at our plant, for our employees – certainly for the community,” said SCA Vice President of Communications Amy Bellcourt in a phone interview with FOX 11, “So, we will evaluate exactly what happened. We’re still investigating this now and if any changes in how we handle deliveries of these materials are required, we will certainly make them.”
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration – OSHA – says it is investigating the case. A full report could take at least six months to complete.
The Swedish company bought the one-time Wisconsin Tissue Plant from Georgia-Pacific more than ten years ago.
According to OSHA, one inspection complaint was filed in December of last year for violating housekeeping, plant safety and record keeping practices. OSHA’s area director says the agency considers those somewhat minor infractions.
-
San Diego, Port Authority Sue Monsanto To Finance Cleanup of PCBs in Bay
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The City of San Diego and its Port Authority are suing Monsanto Co. in federal court, asking a judge to order the company to pay for the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls in San Diego Bay (San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Monsanto Co., S.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-00578, 3/13/15).The case centers on Monsanto's manufacturing of PCBs, which the Environmental Protection Agency has determined are a probable carcinogen.San Diego is arguing that the company produced these chemicals, which it sold under the trade name Aroclor, well after it was widely known that they were hazardous to human health and the environment.The city's lawsuit cites internal Monsanto documents from the 1960s that show company officials were aware that PCBs posed a threat.The city also said in its lawsuit that PCBs are one of the primary pollutants in its bay that are contaminating its aquatic life and preventing San Diegans from utilizing its waters.San Diego wants the court to force Monsanto to pay for all current and future PCB cleanup activities in the bay. It is also asking the court to impose punitive damages on the company. -
'We're Close' on Cyber Bill, says Intel Chairman
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Cory Bennett
The final text of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s major cybersecurity bill could be released Monday night or Tuesday morning, Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told The Hill.
“We’re real close,” he said off the Senate floor.
The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) would give legal liability protections to private firms sharing cyber threat data with the government. It advanced out of committee on Thursday by a 14-1 vote.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Reform Measures Face White House Opposition
Mar 17, 2015 | RegBlog
By Divya Chawla
Some Republican politicians have expressed disdain for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). RepresentativeMichele Bachmann once pledged to padlock its doors, and House Speaker John Boehner called one of its recent proposals “nuts.”
Given this perception, it should come as no surprise that some Republicans are pushing for passage of two bills to change how the EPA uses scientific evidence to craft regulation. One bill, the Secret Science Reform Act, would prohibit the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.” It would compel the agency to release all scientific and technical information used in its assessments.
Another bill, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, would change the membership and procedures of the agency’s Science Advisory Board, a panel of independent experts who make recommendations to the agency on the quality of scientific and technical information considered to frame regulations.
At first glance, the proposed legislation appears to square with President Obama’s promise to promote agency transparency and safeguard public confidence in the science informing policy decisions. But in a pair of statements, the White House announced its staff would advise President Obama to veto both bills. The White House opposes the so-called Secret Science bill because it believes it would unduly burden the agency and restrain important regulatory action by arbitrarily restricting the data the EPA can use.
Further, the Obama Administration opposes the Advisory Board bill for fear it will limit the Board’s effectiveness by instituting quotas based on employment by a state, local, or tribal government rather than relying purely on scientific expertise. Yet these statements, perhaps ironically, urge Congress to support the administration’s endeavor to make scientific and technical data more accessible and regulation more transparent.
Supporters, including industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council, believe that the Secret Science bill would improve how the EPA uses scientific data, making its regulations more effective. One of the bill’s most vocal supporters, Representative Lamar Smith, chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, says the EPA needs more transparency given that it has proposed some of the costliest regulations in history. He cites, for example, an EPA ozone rule that will cost taxpayers approximately $90 billion per year, as well as a Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule for power plants that could cost up to $10 billion every year. Smith pointed out that more than 99% of the health-based justifications offered for the MATS rule derive from scientific research that the EPA will not disclose publicly.
The Secret Science bill presents challenging issues. First, the legality of mandatory disclosure of all scientific data underlying a rule is contested. In a letter to lawmakers, American Statistical Association president David Morgansteinasserts that the EPA would have to exclude public health research that relies on patient data like hospital admission records from consideration because confidential patient data cannot be made public. The use of data constituting trade secrets would also be barred as a result of this bill.
Second, the bill might create significant fiscal burdens. While Republicans state that it is possible to use data without disclosing personal information or trade secrets, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the EPA relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies per year, and that meeting the goals of the Secret Science would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per study. The report anticipates the EPA might choose to reduce the cost of compliance by relying on fewer scientific studies or on those already easily accessible, which might compromise the quality of the agency’s work.
Representative Chris Stewart, who sponsored the Advisory Board bill, said that increased opportunities for public comment, acknowledgment of dissenting panelists’ opinions, and partially barring scientists from advising on their own research would go a long way in making the Board’s decisions more balanced. However, the bill allows industry lobbyists to serve on the Board as long as conflicts of interest are disclosed. By contrast, scientists on the panel are barred from advising the EPA on their own research unless it is externally peer-reviewed and publicly disclosed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that the provisions increasing corporate access to the Board, yet undermining the involvement of academics and scientists, are counter-productive. Advocacy groups also warn that the bill could create an “endless loop” of public comment that will significantly increase the EPA’s workload and reduce productivity.
Both bills passed the House of Representatives and companion legislation in the Senate was referred to the Committee on Environment & Public Works.
-
Ohio Judge Rules Antifracking Ordinance Preempted by State Law
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
An Ohio “community rights” ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing has been struck down by a local judge who said it conflicts with state law.
By overturning the Broadview Heights's ordinance, the court showed that it is “not prepared to uphold our right to protect our health and safety,” Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund organizer Tish O'Dell told Bloomberg BNA today.
Ruling in favor of Bass Energy Co. and Ohio Valley Energy, two companies with state permits to drill in Broadview Heights, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Astrab said the voter-approved ordinance is preempted by R.C. Chapter 1509, which gives the state sole authority over drilling decisions.
Moreover, Astrab said, R.C. 1509.02 contains an express prohibition against local governments exercising powers in a way that “discriminates against, unfairly impedes, or obstructs oil and gas activities and operations” regulated by the state.
The decision cites a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling establishing precedent on the issue; in the Munroe Falls case, justices ruled that state law supersedes home rule when it comes to oil and gas drilling.
-
Earlier Disclosure of Chemical Use Required by Michigan Fracking Rules
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Revised Michigan regulations on high-volume hydraulic fracturing require companies to disclose information about the chemicals they plan to use when they apply for permits, rather than after drilling has begun.The rules, which the state said are designed to “provide additional assurance to Michigan residents that high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations have the requisite regulatory oversight for the protection of the environment and public health,” became final March 11.The rules codify steps taken in 2011 to strengthen requirements for high-volume drilling, Hal Fitch, director of the DEQ's Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals, told Bloomberg BNA March 16. “They go the extra mile, really, I think in terms of transparency and information availability,” he said.In addition to requirements governing water withdrawals, the rules require more advance notification about fracking operations, as well as baseline water quality sampling, Fitch said. The new regulations also require companies to use the FracFocus chemical disclosure registry, rather than material safety data sheets, to report on chemicals used in the drilling process.The state first proposed the new rules in October 2013 (205 DEN A-7, 10/23/13).Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemical additives into geologic formations to create fractures through which hydrocarbons can flow to a well. The practice has become a focus of concern recently because of fears that drinking water might become contaminated.Potential Legal IssuesA University of Michigan report currently out for public comment suggested the state require companies to disclose more information about the chemicals they use, including information that may be proprietary, and that water quality be more closely monitored ( 35 DEN A-7, 2/23/15).Environmental advocates said the rules could be stricter, and the state would do well to reconsider them once the report—the product of a two-year assessment designed to provide information and guidance, not recommendations, to policymakers—is final.Fitch said requiring full disclosure of all chemicals could pose legal issues. “The problem is, in Michigan, we cannot withhold any information from a Freedom of Information Act request unless we're provided specific authority to do that in statute,” he said. “Since these are trade secrets according to the federal definition, we didn't want to be in a position of having to divulge that.”Legislation changing that requirement is “something we'd be open to considering,” he said.Additional Measures NeededThe new rules represent “a step in the right direction, but we still think there are further steps that need to be taken,” James Clift, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council, told Bloomberg BNA March 16. Expanding baseline water quality testing to include all oil and gas wells, not just high-volume fracturing operations, and giving local governments greater control over drilling locations are among concerns, he said.Legislative changes to the rules—or a second look at them—may be warranted, environmental advocates said. “We're always up for Round 2, especially after the University of Michigan study is completed,” Clift said. “I suspect that once it's finalized, you might see more discussion on what should come next.”“If we're going to be serious about regulating fracking in Michigan, we need to take a hard and fast look at full chemical disclosure and local control,” said Nic Clark, state director at Clean Water Action.Though high-volume fracking isn't widespread in Michigan—just 13 wells are currently producing natural gas and there are 11 sites at which drilling has been completed—the process has been used for decades on smaller, shallower wells in the state. -
First North Carolina Fracking Regulation To Take Effect as Measure to Block It Expires
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeff Day
A North Carolina regulation authorizing and regulating hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas will take effect March 17.The hydraulic fracturing rule, the state's first, was opposed by environmental groups but supported by most state legislators and the state oil and gas industry. It covers permitting, safety, location, waste storage, water usage and other issues related to drilling activities.The state Mining and Energy Commission approved the regulation in November 2014 (224 DEN A-14, 11/20/14).Legislation introduced in the General Assembly to disapprove the rule (H.B. 76 and S.B. 72) as of March 16 appeared certain to fail. The measures had to pass by March 16, 60 days after the rule's approval by the state Rules Review Commission, Jamie Kritzer, a spokesman at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), told Bloomberg BNA.Molly Masich, the codifier of rules in the state's Office of Administrative Hearings, said in an interview that the 60-day limit, established by the 2014 legislation authorizing fracking, is unique.Mary Maclean Asbill, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), told Bloomberg BNA March 13 that normally when bills are introduced to disapprove rules, new regulations are blocked until the end of the annual legislative session, whether or not the bills pass.Permit applications are to be filed with the North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, part of the DENR. The division will approve or disapprove permit applications. However, bonding requirements will be set by the state Mining and Energy Commission, Kritzer said.Wildcat or Big Drilling Companies?Asbill said she expects the first permits will be granted this coming summer.The SELC attorney expressed concern that large energy exploration companies with relatively good environmental practices will not be interested in the state, due to the nationwide glut of oil and gas and low prices produced by fracking in other states, and the relatively small amount of oil and gas available in North Carolina. She said only wildcat drillers will seek permits, adding that their practices will pose major environmental threats.However, David McGowen, executive directive of the North Carolina Oil and Gas Association, expressed confidence that large companies will seek to drill in North Carolina soon, despite the low prices. He told Bloomberg BNA that he expects the companies to drill exploratory wells to determine just how much oil or gas is beneath the state.Separate Stormwater Permit RequiredThe regulation also requires a would-be fracking company to apply for a separate stormwater permit.It generally requires that fracking fluids, construction debris and herbicides and other byproducts of drilling be contained within 50 feet of water bodies and natural stormwater flows.A stormwater permit application must include a stormwater management plan that includes descriptions of the:• site activities with the potential to affect the pollutant content of stormwater runoff;• spill prevention and response procedures;• preparations for rainfall events in excess of physical stormwater control and treatment measures; and• good housekeeping measures, facility inspections and maintenance on structural control measures. -
Mexico Begins Foray Into Fracking Rules With Focus on Guidelines to Protect Water
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
Mexico's Environmental Ministry issued recommendations for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, focusing on drinking water protection as the country inches closer to allowing the drilling method for natural gas that has expanded rapidly in the U.S.While non-binding, the recommendations mark the first fracking-related guidelines in Mexico.The country's binding fracking regulations—when they are announced—will come from a different part of the government: the newly formed Security, Energy and Environmental Agency (ASEA).As the agency, which officially opened its doors March 1, starts to take over the responsibility for developing regulations, environmental groups have raised concerns that any such environmental rules be legally binding before hydraulic fracturing begins. But some said the Environmental Ministry announcement was a welcome first step.The ministry recommended that 90 percent of the water used in hydraulic fracturing come from recycled water and that monitoring be adopted to ensure that nearby aquifers are not contaminated.It also called for steps to protect biodiversity, air and soil quality, and to monitor for any resulting seismic activity. The recommendations were included in a publication, “The Environmental Criteria Guide for the Exploration and Extraction of Hydrocarbons in Shale,” dated March 4.“What they have issued are recommendations, but there is no requirement for Pemex [the state-owned petroleum giant] or for individual companies to honor these recommendations,” said Ana Mendivil, an analyst with the Mexican Center for Environmental Law. “We are looking for ASEA to take these recommendations and make them obligatory.”Hydraulic Fracturing Still TheoreticalAt this point, hydraulic fracturing is mostly theoretical in Mexico. The country plans to hold its first private auction later this year and offer private investors the opportunity to develop shale plays in Northern Mexico.The published guidelines are a first effort to provide environmental oversight over how the process will develop and include both general criteria to ensure the protection of the environment and specific issues in the exploration, drilling and termination of a well.“It gives us a deeper sense of the thinking of the Mexican government,” said Pablo Zarate, a consultant with FTI Consulting and former senior energy official. “It is very important as the Mexican authorities are looking into this that they balance both sides' needs. They need to ensure this industrial practice is carried out safely and that it follows best practices, and that it guarantees the safety of the communities. On the other hand, you don't want to put an incredibly complicated regulatory yoke that won't allow Mexican companies to be competitive.”Mexico-Specific Rules NeededIndustry watchers give the ministry high marks for developing standards based on international best practices, but said the next hurdle will be tailoring them more specifically for Mexico.“These are guidelines that have been put in place based on what folks have learned by studying what the industry standard is at a global level,” said Duncan Wood, the director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute. “They will need to take into account Mexican law and country-specific conditions.”U.S. operators agree that having a baseline set of environmental regulations is a needed step to give those eyeing the market some idea of the possible associated costs of complying with regulations, such as 90 percent water recycling.“It may be an issue,” said Brian Kalinec, a Houston-based independent geologist who consults for several small, independent oil and gas operators. “Operators would be looking at the cost and the challenge of having access to that much recycled water or being able to recycle that much water on a practical basis. It could slow the whole process down.”Environmental ConcernsEnvironmentalists also have compiled a list of concerns they would like to see included in the final regulations, such as a guarantee of complete restoration and remediation for areas contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.Many expect that negotiations with regulators on the business and the environmental implications will take place in the coming weeks, with both sides giving input on how this draft could be fine tuned.“They haven't taken the time to discuss the guidelines with the industry itself and others and receive feedback,” Wood said. “This is probably the beginning of the conversation. It will develop over time.”Environmentalist also are urging ASEA to include regulations that will provide the human rights protections that Energy Ministry officials have promised will be part of the opening of the energy sector.“In the [Environmental Ministry] document, there is no mention of the indigenous communities,” said Gabriela Nino, an analyst with the Mexican Center for Environmental Law. “Hydraulic fracturing does not only have environmental implications–there are also societal consequences. What is missing is an acknowledgement of the need to ensure that human rights [of impacted communities] will be protected.” -
House Democrats Back Obama Plan to Halt Gulf Revenue Sharing
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Phil Taylor
House Democrats are quietly backing President Obama's bid to divert billions of dollars in future offshore oil and gas revenues from Gulf Coast states, a position that has angered their Gulf colleagues.
House Natural Resources Committee Democrats made their views known in a Feb. 20 letter to the Budget Committee obtained by E&E Daily. The letter was Democrats' response to the budget "views and estimates" submitted by Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
"The Outer Continental Shelf belongs to all Americans, not individual states, and we believe that the revenue should be used to benefit all Americans," committee Democrats led by Natural Resources ranking member Raúl Grijalva of Arizona wrote to Budget Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) and ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
"Coastal restoration efforts in the Gulf are going to be funded by billions of dollars of BP Clean Water Act penalties pursuant to the RESTORE Act," they added. "We are committed to Gulf restoration efforts and believe that additional coastal restoration funding should be provided through the appropriations process as necessary after the effectiveness of RESTORE Act funding is determined."
Obama's Gulf of Mexico revenue proposal was unveiled as part of his fiscal 2016 budget request in early February. It's been sharply attacked by Gulf Coast lawmakers, as well as some prominent environmental groups and Obama allies that depend on Gulf energy revenues to support coastal restoration.
Some conservationists privately support redirecting states' revenues, which the administration has proposed using for national conservation priorities, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But prominent green groups have yet to publicly back the president. Democrats have also remained quiet.
Under a 2006 bipartisan revenue-sharing law, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas are entitled to receive 37.5 percent of federal offshore revenues -- up to $500 million annually. Revenues so far have been limited to leases from small areas in the eastern and central Gulf, but beginning in late 2016, revenues are slated to significantly increase from leases throughout the Gulf.
Obama's budget proposed diverting more than $3 billion in Gulf Coast revenues over the next decade to fund national conservation and public lands priorities, arguing that revenue from federal mineral sales should be shared by all Americans.
The proposal incensed Gulf Coast lawmakers and drew a sharp rebuke from former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who authored the revenue-sharing law with former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). As of one year ago, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) had provided more than $30 million to Louisiana for wetlands restoration, hurricane protection and flood control projects, Landrieu said.
Some conservationists were surprised when Obama proposed repealing GOMESA provisions in the 2016 budget. Some believed the administration was drawing a line in the sand as coastal lawmakers eye expanding revenue sharing to all coastal states.
Landrieu last Congress co-sponsored such a proposal with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), but the administration withheld its support, saying it would add about $5 billion to the federal deficit.
It's not the first time Natural Resources Democrats have objected to GOMESA.
Last year, Democrats led by then-ranking member Peter DeFazio of Oregon argued in a letter to Budget Committee leaders that ending GOMESA revenue sharing could increase revenue to the U.S. Treasury by nearly $30 billion over the next 60 years.
Taxpayers for Common Sense has also rallied behind the Obama plan.
"This really is a much larger, longer fight we've been having since GOMESA came out," said Autumn Hanna, TCS's senior program director. "We realize it's an uphill battle."
The proposal would raise an estimated $3.069 billion within the next decade, beginning in 2018, the Interior Department budget said. The money could be used for LWCF, payments in lieu of taxes, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, federal coastal restoration and resilience programs, and other national priorities, Interior said.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) yesterday called the plan "insulting" to Louisianans.
"If anything, President Obama and congressional Democrats should want Louisiana to keep more of this revenue -- it's going to vital coastal restoration," he said in an emailed statement yesterday. "Our coasts are the first line of defense to a hurricane or tropical storm, and it's absolutely critical that we do everything in our power to protect and restore them."
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said federal policies are to blame for the state's vanishing coastline.
"GOMESA is a way [to] proactively protect Louisiana families, businesses and our coastline," he said in an emailed statement. "The president and his supporters who want to take this money away are hurting the people who were flooded in hurricanes Rita and Katrina."
Earlier this month, seven oil-state Republican senators blasted the Obama plan, arguing that GOMESA revenues are critical for Gulf states to provide infrastructure, public safety and social services for workers who drill offshore, and to maintain their coastlines.
The Obama plan is also opposed by the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, groups that have invested heavily in restoring the eroding Gulf coastline. According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Louisiana voters amended the state's constitution to dedicate future offshore royalties to coastal restoration, part of a $50 billion, 50-year master plan to rebuild barrier islands, marshland and beaches that defend against floods.
-
EPA Rejects State Push To Delay ESPS Implementation Pending Lawsuits
Mar 16, 2015 | InsideEpa
A top EPA official is rejecting calls from recalcitrant states to delay finalizing or implementing its rule to curb greenhouse gases (GHGs) from existing power plants, which the agency plans to issue this summer, in the face of opposition from cooperative states whose officials say any delay would undermine their ability to comply.
Speaking to high-ranking state environmental regulators at the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C. March 16, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe said EPA will “move forward” with the existing source performance standards (ESPS), echoing recent comments from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that the agency will stick to its existing schedule.
McCabe was responding to a question from Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler, who asked whether EPA could stall the implementation process while “some really significant legal questions” over the ESPS are resolved, citing the heavy investment states will make in the effort to comply.
The rule calls for states to craft their own implementation plans, drawing from a range of strategies to curb GHGs, but has run into legal action even before it goes final from several states, including Ohio, who challenge its lawfulness under the Clean Air Act. Once the rule is finalized, most observers expect more lawsuits will be filed, including one that will seek to stay the rule until the Supreme Court rules.
Butler asked McCabe if there was “any sense” that implementation of the ESPS could be put on hold, “not as a delaying tactic, but as a resource allocation” issue.
In response, McCabe noted that the timetable for ESPS differs from, for example, EPA's ozone national ambient air quality standards, which must be issued by Oct. 1 under court order. The ESPS is instead under a presidential deadline for issuance in final form, she said.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner John Stine, however, offered a different perspective, saying any delay would undermine his state's effort to comply. “We feel the drag” of the need for additional dialogue between states and EPA that could delay the rule's implementation, Stine said. Industry and regulators in the state are already moving ahead with planning GHG reductions that could help meet the final ESPS rule, and this risks being compromised by delay, he said.
While she rejected calls to delay the rule's implementation, McCabe sought to allay fears from some state regulators that the ESPS as proposed would not allow states enough time to make the necessary changes to state statutes and regulations to allow implementation.
“We will not finalize something which in our view is literally impossible” to implement on time, McCabe said, adding that EPA will credit “good-faith efforts” to meet the rule. “I do think we have some tools in the Clean Air Act to deal with these issues,” she said, without elaborating further.
Despite such assurances, opponents of the ESPS led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are urging states not to cooperate in crafting their own plans for rule implementation, raising the possibility that EPA would impose a federal implementation plan on them instead.
Asked at the ECOS meeting what such a federal plan would look like, McCabe said only that “there is not a lot of specifics that I am really in a position to talk about today."
She said that EPA is wrestling with questions such as whether the agency will develop one “generic” plan for multiple states, or individually-tailored plans. Eventual federal plans would offer “flexibilities” and “options” for compliance, McCabe said.
Congressional Debate
Other speakers warned, however, that EPA's effort to provide states with flexibility was being undermined by calls by McConnell and other critics. Joe Mendelson, Democratic chief climate counsel for the Senate environment committee, said that McConnell's call for states to “just say no” threatens “co-operative federalism that underlies our environmental statutes.”
Previously, Republicans have complained that EPA is undermining co-operative federalism by usurping states' powers under the air law.
Mendelson said efforts by GOP lawmakers to halt the ESPS will not likely succeed, as Democrats are “very confident” that the president would veto any legislation attacking the rule, and Republicans lack the 67 votes required for a veto override. “I hope states don't stop their implementation planning,” but more forward to do what is best for them, Mendelson said, adding, “ultimately, litigation on it is not a compliance strategy."
But Susan Bodine, the environment committee's GOP counsel, said Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) remains concerned about the ESPS rule and EPA's overreach into areas of energy regulation beyond the agency's legal purview. “It is a significant concern,” she said. -- Stuart Parker (sparker@iwpnews.com)
-
EPA to Propose Emissions Standards For Medium-, Heavy-Duty Trucks in June
| BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency anticipates proposing its second phase of greenhouse gas emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks in June, missing a White House deadline.President Barack Obama had ordered the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to propose the combined greenhouse gas and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for model year 2018 and later medium- and heavy-duty trucks in March, but the agencies have not yet sent the proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, prompting speculation they would miss that deadline (42 DEN A-5, 3/4/15).The EPA updated its regulatory review tracker March 16 to indicate the proposal is now expected in June.The new standards would build upon similar requirements (RIN 2060–AP61) the two agencies issued for model year 2014 through 2018 heavy-duty pickup trucks, delivery vehicles and tractor trailers in 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 57,106).Truck manufacturers and operators anticipate the latest round of greenhouse gas emissions standards will drive new technological improvements more than the EPA and NHTSA's previous rule. The upcoming rule is also expected to include the first federal standards for trailers, building on similar efforts in California (23 DEN A-6, 2/4/15). -
Power Plant Startup Rule Lawsuits Held in Abeyance Pending Supreme Court Decision
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appellate court will hold in abeyance lawsuits challenging air toxics standards for power plants during periods of startup pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Industry and environmental groups are challenging in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a November 2014 EPA rulemaking (RIN 2060-AS07) that allows coal- and oil-fired power plants to comply with the EPA's mercury and air toxics standards by initiating startup using clean fuels and continuing to use the maximum possible amount of clean fuels during the startup period.
The D.C. Circuit said in its March 13 order that it will delay hearing the challenges until after the Supreme Court resolves challenges to the EPA's underlying mercury and air toxics standards.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument March 25 on whether Section 7412(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act requires the agency to consider cost when it determines regulation of toxic pollutants from power plants is “appropriate and necessary.”
The D.C. Circuit told petitioners to file motions to govern proceedings in the lawsuits over the startup provisions 30 days after the Supreme Court has resolved the underlying challenge to the power plant standards.
Industry and environmental groups filed their statements of issues in the start up provisions lawsuits in February.
-
Grants Can Be Used for Clean Power Plan Implementation, McCabe Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Federal grants to support state and local air quality management programs will be available for implementing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, even if Congress does not provide additional funding that was requested by President Barack Obama, EPA's top air official said today.
Janet McCabe, the EPA's assistant administrator for air and radiation, told state environmental officials that those grant funds are available to states to use to implement their work under the Clean Air Act. While Congress ultimately will act on the EPA's funding, the president's budget request reflected that states will need more funding than what is currently available to implement the agency's Clean Power Plan, she said.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request included $268.2 million for state and local air quality management grants, a $40 million increase from the fiscal 2015 enacted level. The budget request specified that $25 million of that additional funding would be dedicated to implementing the Clean Power Plan.
The proposed version of the Clean Power Plan included emissions rates goals for each state and four “building blocks,” including investment in renewable energy generation and expanding the use of natural gas-fired generating capacity, that states could use to meet the emissions reductions. Once finalized, states will need to work on implementation plans describing how they plan to meet their emissions targets.
McCabe, speaking at the spring meeting of the Environmental Council of the States, declined to give details on a model federal implementation plan that the agency has said will be released alongside the final version of the Clean Power Plan this summer.
-
EPA Air Quality Grants Will Be Available To Implement Power Plant Carbon Rule
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Federal grants to support state and local air quality management programs will be available for implementing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, even if Congress does not provide additional funding that was requested by President Barack Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency's top air official said March 16.Janet McCabe, the EPA's assistant administrator for air and radiation, told state environmental officials that those grant funds are available to states to use to implement their work under the Clean Air Act. While Congress ultimately will act on the EPA's funding, the president's budget request reflected that states will need more funding than what is currently available to implement the agency's Clean Power Plan, she said. McCabe spoke at the spring meeting of the Environmental Council of the States in Washington.The proposed version of the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) included emissions rate goals for each state and four “building blocks” that states could use to meet those targets, including investment in renewable energy generation and expanding the use of natural gas-fired generating capacity (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14).It will be a challenge for states to adequately implement the Clean Power Plan rule without an increase in state grants, Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in a March 16 email to Bloomberg BNA.“While we appreciate the flexibility of using existing grants to cover new climate planning activities, the fact of the matter is funding for our basic, core programs is already seriously deficient,” Becker said.The president's fiscal year 2016 budget request included $268.2 million for state and local air quality management grants, a $40 million increase from the fiscal 2015 enacted level. The budget request specified that $25 million of that additional funding would be dedicated to implementing the Clean Power Plan (22 DEN B-1, 2/3/15).States Support Funding IncreaseBecker said NACAA recommends that Congress provide EPA with a $40 million increase for the air grant program but that states be given flexibility in how they spend the money instead of requiring $25 million be allocated to the Clean Power Plan.Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA in a March 16 email that states have concerns about taking on a resource-intensive Clean Power Plan implementation effort while still carrying out core Clean Air Act programs.“There are many decisions the Agency will be making in the final rule that will help determine the scope, timing, and cost for state regulators as they pivot to consider their options,” Woods said.No Details on Federal PlanMcCabe declined to share details on the model federal implementation plan (FIP) the EPA is working on for the Clean Power Plan. The agency in January announced plans to release a proposed FIP alongside regulations covering new, existing and modified/reconstructed power plants by “mid-summer” of 2015 (05 DEN A-1, 1/8/15).The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to issue a FIP to cover states that don't submit adequate state implementation plans (SIPs). The proposed federal plan also is expected to aid states in crafting SIPs once the Clean Power Plan is finalized.When asked how the EPA will issue a proposed FIP at a time when the agency does not know which states it will apply to, McCabe said the agency is considering “variation” between the states in developing a proposed model federal plan.McCabe said she assumes many states will submit SIPs for the Clean Power Plan, and the EPA will be looking at how to implement the best system of emissions reduction for “whatever states” do not submit valid plans.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) recently called on states to “hold back” on submitting plans for complying with the Clean Power Plan to give Congress more time to act on efforts to block the legislation and to allow litigation on the legality of the rule to proceed (43 DEN A-1, 3/5/15). -
Clean Power Plan Not a Danger to PJM States
Mar 16, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The strategic consulting firm Analysis Group took aim again today at Clean Power Plan critics who charge the U.S. EPA rule will harm grid reliability.
In a new report focused on the area served by regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection, the Analysis Group argued that the existing power plant rule allows ample opportunity for states to construct rules that will safeguard power supplies while reducing carbon dioxide.
This is particularly the case, the Boston-based firm argued, if states opt to cooperate on regional approaches to rule compliance that would minimize changes to the way electricity is dispatched across the power system. PJM and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) have both come out in support of regional approaches as a means of complying with the EPA rule.
Today's report argued that dire warnings about grid reliability are common whenever a major change in the industry is proposed but that issues would only come about if states, regulators and the industry go on autopilot and refuse to respond to problems before they arise.
"Given the significant shifts already underway in the electric system, the industry would need to adjust its operational and planning practices to accommodate changes even if EPA had not proposed the Clean Power Plan," the report's executive summary argued.
The report explored the idea -- championed by PJM, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur and others -- that EPA insert a reliability safety valve in its final version of the rule to be released this summer (EnergyWire, Nov. 10, 2014).
Such a mechanism would be unnecessary, the Analysis Group found, given the flexibility already present in the rule including the interim compliance period's "glide path" -- which averages emissions rates between 2020 and 2029.
But if EPA does add a new reliability provision to its rule, "we think EPA should design it in a way that creates appropriate incentives for reliance upon normal reliability tools and thus makes it unlikely that a waiver will need to be called upon."
That means an excess of emissions released through the reliability safety valve should be offset somewhere else, the report suggested. And waivers should be granted only after a rigorous and transparent process to determine whether they are appropriate, it said.
Susan Tierney, one of the report's authors and a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department, said in an interview this afternoon that most of the reliability concerns raised have more to do with worries about cost "than about keeping the lights on."
If states prioritize carbon mitigation and reliability, they can craft plans -- especially in conjunction with their neighbors -- that will not jeopardize power supply, she said. And while there are ways to protect low-income consumers from price spikes, the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions does warrant some investments.
"Carbon pollution has tremendous costs on the economy," she said, pointing to her own city's experience with record-breaking snow this year. "The Supreme Court has said that EPA had to do this."
The agency has said that while its rule might lead rates to increase in some cases, investments in demand-side efficiency will mean that ratepayers see lower, rather than higher, bills overall.
The Analysis Group released a broader report last month that assessed reliability issues across the country, but today's report was initially timed for last week's FERC meeting.
PJM serves 13 states and the District of Columbia, including many of the participants in the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
-
Portman Ads Attack Likely Opponent Over Support of Obama Coal Policies
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has launched a series of advertisements accusing his likely opponent in the Buckeye State's 2016 Senate contest, former Gov. Ted Strickland (D), of supporting Environmental Protection Agency carbon pollution rules and other policies that have harmed the state's coal industry.The Web-only advertisements, which allege Strickland supports President Barack Obama's “war on coal,” are among the first efforts to use administration environmental policies in the 2016 elections.“Strickland likes to pretend he's for working people, but when it comes to families who depend on coal for their livelihood, he sides with the Obama administration instead,” Corry Bliss, Portman's campaign manager, said in a March 16 statement. “Rob Portman believes Ohio workers deserve better than Strickland, who defended Obama's coal policies as the head of a Washington special interest group and watched 350,000 jobs disappear as governor.”Portman's ads link Strickland's work the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy research organization, to support of anti-coal policies. Strickland himself defended Obama's environmental record in a 2012 interview with The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register and said coal had “done pretty well” under the Obama administration.EPA regulations, especially the agency's Clean Power Plan to address carbon emissions from power plants, were an issue in many high-profile elections in 2014 even though voters frequently rate the environment as less likely to influence their vote (196 DEN A-13, 10/9/14).Strickland served as Ohio's governor from 2007 through 2011 following six terms serving coal-reliant southeastern Ohio in the House. His campaign did not respond to requests for comments on Portman's ads.To face Portman in the general election, Strickland must defeat P.G. Sittenfeld, a Cincinnati city council member, in the Democratic primary. -
Hill Fills EPA's Mailbox with Letters on Carbon Rule
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Jean Chemnick
The art of letter writing isn't dead, at least if you're a member of Congress concerned about the Clean Power Plan.
Capitol Hill spent much of the winter writing to U.S. EPA, supporting or opposing its marquee proposal to curb power-sector carbon dioxide emissions, according to records kept by the agency and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
December was a particularly heavy month, as House and Senate members rushed to weigh in ahead of the end of EPA's public commenting period on the draft rule. Some missed the Dec. 1 closing date by a few days. The agency's congressional correspondence log for the month showed it had received 11 letters from lawmakers related to the power plant proposal and 30 on all other topics.
Some of these Clean Power Plan letters sounded the same themes that EPA's proponents and detractors have used in public debate over the rule, while others proposed changes for the final version or requested more information about how the rule might affect them.
The rule was described as "unrealistic" and "outrageous" by Republicans and "laudable "and "practical" by Democrats. Moderate Democrats wanted tweaks to make it easier to comply with the proposal, while liberal Democrats wanted a greater role for energy efficiency.
Taken together, the letters showed a Congress eager for a role in the Obama administration's most sweeping bid to contain carbon emissions, whether or not it can muster the votes needed to legislate on it.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) coordinated a Republican letter and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) spearheaded a moderate Democratic one that made the same points, and both arrived at EPA on Dec. 10.
The letters -- signed by 23 Republicans and five Democrats, respectively -- suggested that EPA make changes large and small before releasing the final version this summer.
Specifically, both letters urged the agency to scrap its 2020 through 2029 interim compliance target, noting that it would require states to meet the bulk of their targeted reductions years before the rule's 2030 final date.
They say these reductions are supported by an assumption that states can shift from reliance on their coal-fired power fleet to greater use of combined-cycle natural gas. But the senators argued that swift change could trigger compliance problems.
Also on the senators' wish list: more time for states to write their plans and more clarity about how credit would be allocated for power that is generated in one state but used in another.
"We recognize that climate change is a significant global threat that requires serious action to be taken at both the national and international levels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the five Democrats noted in their version of the letter. "In order to best achieve these goals, however, changes must be made to the current proposal."
The Fischer letter put it this way: "We strongly believe the best way to address the aforementioned concerns is by withdrawing this ill-conceived and overreaching rule in its entirety."
EPA also received dueling missives from the top Republican and Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, with Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) blasting the agency for "inventing" its legal basis for the rule "out of whole cloth." Ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson's (D-Texas) letter criticized Smith's "tone" and expressed support for the rule.
Meanwhile, six Democratic senators signed a letter spearheaded by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) advising EPA to include more details in its final rule this summer about how demand-side efficiency programs would be assessed.
The draft rule assumes states can garner emissions cuts through utility-backed programs aimed at reducing demand. But the senators asked that EPA "explicitly set forth a path for crediting end-use energy efficiency improvements, delivered by non-utility, third-party entities, which are measurable, verifiable, and quantifiable."
-
Major Environmental Statute Revamp Unlikely In Congress This Session, Senior Aides Say
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Congress probably lacks the political willpower to retool major environmental statutes this session with the possible exception of reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act, senior House and Senate aides told the Environmental Council of the States March 16.Multiple state regulators said decades-old environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act place enormous burdens on their cash-strapped agencies and frequently allow courts and interest groups to determine their priorities.Susan Bodine, Republican chief counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, agreed that many of the deadlines established in decades-old statutes were “unrealistic” and said her committee was open to possible changes, while Joe Mendelson, chief climate counsel for Democrats on the Senate environmental panel, expressed concern about tinkering with deadlines and said they frequently helped accelerate necessary regulatory action.Aides said more targeted, “surgical” fixes to specific statutes could be possible with Republicans in control of both chambers, but even those efforts could be delayed by members seeking to attach measures to legislation that would spark disagreement, aides said. Popular bipartisan energy efficiency and sportsmen's legislation are among the bills that foundered last session due to fights over amendments.“I would not close the door at all on the possibility of doing fixes and discrete issues,” Bodine said. “I would say [Congress] is unlikely to do a major overhaul.”Significant Challenges for TSCATSCA reform—the only possible major overhaul of an environmental statute named by House and Senate aides—nevertheless faces an uncertain road to passage due to lingering fundamental differences over issues like state preemption, according to Mendelson.Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member on the committee, continues to maintain legislation (S. 697) introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is worse than current law, according to Mendelson. Boxer introduced her own bill (S. 725) with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) March 12 (49 DEN A-2, 3/13/15).Republicans and Democrats both agree the statute needs to be overhauled and aides from both parties said they expected “robust” debate over possible solutions this Congress.“I think that there's agreement that there needs to be reform, including issue with the safety standard and also giving EPA stronger authority to actually take action,” Bodine said of TSCA legislation. “The choice is really current law, which I think people generally agree is not effective, versus a stronger TSCA that balances these issues.”The House plans to pass legislation on TSCA reform and coal ash management “hopefully by the August recess,” Tina Richards, counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said.Mendelson agreed the 1976 chemical safety law needed reform but only if the revamped statute makes it easier to protect human health and the environment.“The question is whether the legislation actually strengthens the law, and I think Senator Boxer feels the Vitter-Udall bill does not do that,” Mendelson said.Role of Clean Water ActOn the issue of water quality, Ryan Seiger, Democratic staff director and senior counsel on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the Clean Water Act is not very effective at addressing nonpoint sources of water pollution but said how Congress should address the shortcomings would be a “long-term debate.”“The leading water quality concern these days is nonpoint sources,” Seiger said. “It is also the place where the Clean Water Act is, I don't want to say least-effective, but it is definitely not as robust as the point source side” he said. “Whether or not there's a political will to take that on is a whole different conversation,” he said.Another issue Congress plans to address this year will be the Environmental Protection Agency's State Revolving Fund loan programs, which provide money to states to help them make loans for water infrastructure programs and have received strong support from both Democrats and Republicans.The EPA's fiscal year 2016 funding proposal contained an overall 2.3 percent cut in the funds. The agency requested $1.19 billion for the drinking water fund, an increase of $279.1 million or 30.8 percent over the 2015 fiscal year but only asked for $1.12 billion for the wastewater fund, a cut of $332.9 million or 23 percent.Rep. Peter Defazio (D-Ore.), ranking member of the full committee, and Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the panel's Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, plan to introduce legislation shortly establishing “goals” for the state revolving funds, according to Seiger.“It's incumbent on us to set those targets—to establish the numbers that we say are the right numbers for addressing both the drinking water and wastewater side,” Seiger said.Bodine echoed comments from a recent Senate hearing where Democrats and Republicans voiced deep concern over the proposed cuts in the agency's budget for fiscal year 2016 (43 DEN A-7, 3/5/15).Concern Over ‘Cooperative Federalism' ErosionMendelson also warned environmental regulators of what he described as an attempt to curb their role in protecting human health and the environment as a reaction to EPA regulations such as proposed carbon pollution limits for power plants.“I think it is important to note that there is what I would say is a move against cooperative federalism that underlies some of our environmental statutes,” Mendelson said. “That's trying to cut off—to a certain extent—your role …. I would hope you wouldn't want to have your role diminished.”Congress is likely to pursue Congressional Review Act challenges to EPA regulations, standalone legislation and riders in the appropriations process to fight back against the rules, according to Mendelson, but he said all of those will come up short because President Barack Obama will veto any attempt to block his policies aimed at addressing climate change.The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which the agency estimates will cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels, will also “go forward,” Mendelson said, and states should continue preparing their compliance plans rather than heeding the advice of some—like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—to simply not comply with the regulation (43 DEN A-1, 3/5/15) .“I hope states don't stop their implementation planning, that they grab hold of it and do what's best for their states, and also recognize that ultimately litigation is not a compliance mechanism,” Mendelson said.Bodine said the Senate Environment and Public Works was still conducting oversight of the proposed rule and had no immediate plans for legislation. -
Obama Guarantees GOP Will Change on Climate
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Ben Kamisar
President Obama said that the Republican Party will be forced to change its views on climate change in a new interview with Vice News.
"I guarantee that the Republican Party will have to change its approach to climate change because voters will insist upon it," he said in the interview, released Monday.
Obama described the "phase the Republican Party is going through" as one of political dysfunction.
"There have been times in history where Democrats have been unreasonable, there have been times when Republicans have led the way, but right now, on a lot of the issues that young people care about, it’s not both sides arguing and creating gridlock. You’ve got one side that is denying the facts."
Obama has been a vocal proponent of tackling climate change through aggressive efforts.
He said that "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," during this year's State of the Union address.
Obama also helped negotiate a deal with China to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and his Environmental Protection Agency is pushing tough rules on carbon pollution.
The president also called it "disturbing" that Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chairman of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee and the author of a book that calls global warming "the greatest hoax," took to the Senate floor last month to throw a snowball in an effort to disprove that the Earth's temperature is rising.
The president said congressional committees on the environment typically consist of lawmakers from areas that rely heavily on fossil fuels and that some lawmakers are "shills for the oil companies and the fossil fuel industry."
Obama added that he doesn't fault average Americans for putting their wallets in front of the bigger picture on climate.
"If you poll folks, they are concerned about climate change, but they are more concerned about gas prices," he said.
"You can’t fault somebody for being concerned about paying the bills or being able to fill up your tank to get to your job."
While he doesn't believe he can solve the climate change question alone, Obama said he's hopeful that his push to make changes including doubling fuel efficiency and clean energy production can help advance a long campaign.
"If I’m able to do all those things, when I'm done, we’re still going to have a heck of a problem, but we will have made enough progress that the next president and the next generation can start building on that, you start getting some momentum," he said.
-
Oil Lobby wants Ozone Rule Scrapped
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry says it’s inappropriate for the Obama administration to try restricting ozone standards when the country is still working toward the current requirements.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) says the current standard, set in 2008, would be sufficient to protect health and the environment if states were actually given time to achieve it.
“We think it makes sense that people should start working on attaining those standards right now, and there is no new compelling health information, so people should work on those standards right now before considering tightening those,” Howard Feldman, the API’s director of regulatory affairs, told reporters Monday.
“As proposed, the new standards could impose unachievable emission reduction requirements in virtually every part of the nation, including rural and undeveloped areas,” he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to reduce the allowable ground-level ozone concentration to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, from the current 75 parts per billion.
-
GOP governors blast EPA ozone rule
Mar 16, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Eleven Republican governors told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Monday that its proposed rule to reduce ozone is “onerous” and “job-crushing.”
The governors, who called themselves the “chief protectors of our states’ economies,” said that the EPA’s November proposal could put up to 96 percent of the counties currently monitored for ozone above the threshold.
That could put major restrictions on business, development, infrastructure construction and other activities, they warned.
“New development resulting in any new ozone emissions in the area must be offset with emission reductions elsewhere — turning economic development into a zero-sum game,” the governors wrote. “The end result, of course, is that the costs will be passed on to hard-working Americans.”
The governors signing the letter include potential president contenders for 2016 like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
-
Battle Over Ozone heats Up Ahead of Hill Hearing, Comment Deadline
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Peterka
The oil industry and a coalition of Republican governors yesterday called on U.S. EPA to pull back from a proposal to tighten the national ozone standard.
In a call with reporters, the American Petroleum Institute charged that lowering the limit would undermine the Obama administration's efforts to boost the middle class. The 11 Republican governors also argued in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that a lower standard would have far-reaching economic impacts.
EPA in November proposed to tighten the ozone standard of 75 parts per billion -- last set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb based on a review of public health data.
"Fundamentally, we question the wisdom and motivation behind burdening our nation's still-recovering economy and the American consumer with more costly regulations," said Howard Feldman, API's senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, who added that API would support legislation to halt EPA's proposed rule.
The comments come ahead of a hearing today in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on the "impact and achievability" of EPA's proposal (E&E Daily, March 16).
EPA is also poised to close the public comment period on the ozone proposal at midnight tonight. According to the federal docket, the agency has received about 50,000 comments on its proposed range.
Environmental and public health advocates have broadly urged EPA to set the new standard at no higher than 60 ppb, arguing that the science points to adverse health effects such as reduced lung function at higher concentrations.
Throughout this week, nearly 100 community leaders from across the country planned to travel to Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress and urge them to support a stricter standard, along with other proposed EPA regulations over carbon dioxide emissions and coal ash. The lobbying is being done by veterans, college students, school administrators, retirees, attorneys and civil rights activists who are "alarmed by the increasing political attacks on the EPA and public health protections," according to a statement.
"We want to make it clear that voters will hold their members of Congress accountable if they side with polluters over American families," Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said in the statement yesterday.
Under the Clean Air Act and affirmed by the Supreme Court, EPA is allowed to consider only public health data when setting a new ambient air quality standard. Industry groups have argued that the science doesn't justify a tighter ozone standard and that a lower limit would lead to billions of dollars in compliance costs.
The 11 Republican governors yesterday cautioned that it would stymie economic development in areas found to be out of compliance.
"It goes without saying that most cities and counties have no chance of attaining this standard," the governors of Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin wrote in their letter.
Feldman of API, who was previewing the oil trade group's written comments to EPA, argued that the science did not justify a tighter standard.
"We do not think the science is compelling," Feldman said. "We don't think there's a significant amount of new science since the standard was set last time."
Feldman added that EPA has not considered the "adverse health impact" on people who could lose jobs as a result of tightening the standard. API would support the reintroduction of legislation that would halt EPA from setting a tighter standard until most of the country comes into attainment with the 2008 limit, he said.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) introduced the bill last Congress, but it did not receive any votes or hearings.
At the hearing today, the Science Committee will likely hear similar arguments from a witness panel that includes members of the business community. The ozone rule is also likely to come up for a hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming months.
Environmentalists argue that public opinion is tilted toward a more stringent standard, pointing to the roster of public speakers at a trio of public hearings that EPA held on to the standard in January. Speakers in favor of a tighter standard greatly outweighed those who were opposed; according to the Sierra Club, 429 people spoke in favor of a tighter limit, compared with 55 against.
-
With Help from Erica Martinson and Elana Schor
Mar 16, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Jennifer Shutt
NO-ZONE: Eleven Republicans from states including Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi wrote to EPA today to express opposition to proposed changes to the agency’s ozone air quality standard, writing that tightening the requirements would interfere with the states’ “free market policies” and bring “onerous, job-crushing” results. Tuesday is the deadline to file comments on the proposed changes.
-
Previewing Public Input, Groups Split On EPA's Secondary Ozone NAAQS
Mar 16, 2015 | InsideEpa
By Lea Radick
EPA's decision not to propose a distinct secondary ozone air standard sought by environmentalists is prompting praise from industry groups who say a stand-alone limit would spur regulatory confusion, but uncertainty from states about how to attain the proposal -- a preview of upcoming public comments on the rulemaking.
The mixed reaction to the proposal on the secondary ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) offers early insight into the input groups plan to give EPA ahead of its March 17 deadline for comment. EPA in November proposed to tighten the 2008 primary health-based NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to a range between 65 and 70 ppb, and to continue its current practice of matching the secondary limit to the primary limit.
However, EPA is also proposing to switch to the use of a so-called W126-based standard for implementing the secondary standard. It would be the first time the agency used the standard, after dropping its planned use in the 2008 NAAQS.
The agency's proposed rule would use a W126 seasonal index to assess the impact of the ozone on ecosystems and vegetation, within a range of 13 to 17 parts per million-hours, averaged over three years.
Industry groups are opposed to tightening the primary ozone standard below the current 75 ppb limit, but they nevertheless back EPA's plan to make the secondary standard the same. Such an approach is "well thought-out and justified" and provides adequate protection for the environment, says one industry source.
The source claims there is "zero advantage" for EPA to grant environmentalists' long-running request to craft a separate, unique secondary standard aimed at better protecting the environment from adverse ozone impacts. Such a standard "just ends up creating confusion and a lot more work with not more gain," the source argues, saying that existing EPA air rules will already help reduce both primary and secondary ozone harms.
'Policy Reason'
There is no "policy reason" to set a different secondary standard unless EPA's goal is to "stymie the economy and create more nonattainment areas," the source says. If the agency were to create separate primary and secondary ozone NAAQS, some areas could potentially be attaining one standard but in nonattainment for the other. "It's like having two speed limits on the same highway. It just doesn't make sense," the source adds.
Similarly, a spokeswoman for the American Forest and Paper Association says, "Essentially, we like what EPA did by not changing the secondary standard and aligning it with the primary; we believe the current secondary standard is protective" -- although the group opposes tightening the primary limit.
When the Bush administration issued its 2008 final rule tightening the ozone limit to 75 ppb from the previous 1997 standard expressed as 84 ppb, it dropped consideration of a separate secondary limit.
Although industry groups welcomed that decision due to concerns about the burdens of having to comply with two distinct ozone standards, environmentalists opposed it and filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court consolidated that challenge with industry-filed litigation over the tightening of the standard to 75 ppb, and ultimately upheld the primary standard, deferring to EPA's rulemaking.
But the court in its July 2013 ruling remanded the secondary NAAQS decision back to EPA, and the proposed rule released late last year effectively serves as the agency's response to the remand. Environmentalists have already raised early concerns about the decision not to propose a unique secondary ozone limit.
For example, one environmental attorney has said they are "very disturbed" by EPA's proposal for the secondary standard, noting it is at odds with recommendations from the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to establish a stand-alone limit in order to adequately protect the environment from ozone.
Another environmental attorney has said it is "critical" that EPA set a distinct secondary standard that goes beyond the benefits to public health, adding that tightening the standard is going to benefit ecosystems, too.
States' Concerns
While industry offers support for EPA's secondary ozone standard proposal, state regulators say they are concerned about how to attain a stricter limit regardless of the approach the agency takes.
A Western state source says their comments on EPA's proposal will convey that it is EPA's duty to set the standards for both the primary and secondary NAAQS based on available science.
If the agency chooses to adopt the W126 form for the secondary standard, "we as states need a considerable amount of guidance on how to implement a standard like that," the source says. There are "a lot of unknowns" associated with the novel secondary standard, according to the source, especially in areas with winter ozone monitoring seasons and in "hot high desert areas," in which some plants affected by ozone grow at night.
If EPA sets the same level and form for the secondary standard as the primary standard, "all the implementation details would be driven by meeting the primary standard," the source said.
However, if EPA "decoupled" the primary standard and sets an "independent" secondary standard based on the W126 metric, depending on the level of the standard, there "may be areas that are in violation of the secondary standard . . . while not being in violation of the primary and it's a mystery to me as to what the implications of that would be."
Similarly, a Colorado state source says the secondary standard is a "dilemma" as EPA is proposing it as "W126 but using the primary as a surrogate for it. . . . It seems a little odd."
If EPA does set the secondary standard using the W126 metric as proposed, the "big concern" is that rural areas are going to be in violation of the secondary standard but not in violation of the primary standard, the source says. "How is that treated, especially when you have high background ozone?" the source asks.
Background ozone is formed by natural sources, such as wildfires and intrusion from stratospheric ozone -- high altitude ozone that offers protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays -- as well as transport of man-made ozone or ozone-forming pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from overseas. It is a major concern for states that would be attaining a stricter ozone standard but for that level of natural ozone.
Likewise, the source questions if EPA sets the form for the secondary standard based on the primary standard but sets it at a level lower than the primary standard, "does that makes sense? If a rural areas does go in violation of the secondary standard, what measure would even be taken to reduce ozone?"
Primary Standard
Meanwhile, industry and environmentalists continue to spar over EPA's proposal to tighten the primary ozone standard from 75 ppb down to a range between 65 and 70 ppb.
Industry groups have often cited figures in a July 2014 study done by NERA Economic Consulting on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). According to that study, if EPA were to tighten the standard to 60 ppb, it would be "the most expensive regulation in the history of the economy" with $2.2 trillion in compliance costs and a reduction of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by $270 billion per year.
An update to that study released Feb. 26, which examines the economic impact of lowering the standard to 65 ppb, confirms NAM's previous finding that the proposed rule could be "the most expensive regulation ever issued by the U.S. government," according to a summary of the updated study.
To update the study, NERA used new EPA data that it released along with the proposed standard late last year in its macroeconomic model to estimate the economic impacts of the estimated costs of reducing emissions to attain a 65 ppb standard. NERA updated the costs of the known air controls that EPA identified to attain the 65 ppb standard using the agency's new cost data, and used the same "evidence-based approach" to develop a cost estimate for the emissions reductions needed that EPA refers to in its current regulatory impact analysis as "unknown."
NAM said the updated study found that revising the standard to 65 ppb could reduce U.S. GDP by $140 billion per year and $1.7 trillion from 2017 to 2040, and result in 1.4 million fewer job equivalents per year on average through 2040. NAM said a tighter NAAQS could cost the average U.S. household $830 per year in the form of lost consumption.
EPA made "questionable assumptions" of cost controls and "ignores logic and history," Ross Eisenberg, NAM vice president of energy and resources policy said during a Feb. 26 press conference about the revised study.
However, in a blog post written in response to the updated NAM report, Frank O'Donnell, president of the nonprofit group Clean Air Watch, calls the updated study "another hyperbolic report."
O'Donnell criticizes a map NAM produced showing areas of the country that would be out of compliance with a 65 ppb ozone standard, saying that the map "appears to be based on old information -- data from 2011-2013," and that it "apparently does not factor in one basic reality -- that the air will be cleaner a decade from now than it is today," because of various existing EPA air regulations
-
Tough Sledding for Efforts to Attach KXL Rider to Transportation Bill
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
The notion of using legislation to fund highway and transit projects as a vehicle for approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline is hitting roadblocks from KXL backers.
Congress' failure to override President Obama's veto of pro-pipeline legislation, plus his increasingly harsh criticism of the project, has supporters scrambling to find new wheels for the issue.
Rep. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), sponsor of legislation to approve KXL's crossing of the U.S.-Canada border, said in recent weeks that the transportation reauthorization was a "good candidate" for a KXL rider. That's because Obama and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want the transportation measure to pass.
But the allure of a transportation bill as a vehicle for a number of policy issues is also why so many of its backers are skeptical of a KXL rider.
If a long-term road and transit funding bill does materialize, they don't want the contentious KXL debate to sabotage it.
Earlier this month, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said putting KXL in the transportation bill was "worthy of consideration."
Asked later about the issue, Inhofe spokeswoman Kristina Baum said, "The chairman's top priority is to pass a fiscally responsible, long-term highway bill. I believe next steps on the pipeline are still being discussed."
Last night, Inhofe seemed to smother the idea. He said controversial riders are generally more successful if attached to must-pass bills and said neither KXL nor a long-term transportation bill is must-pass.
"They both should be passed, but they're not must-pass," said Inhofe, suggesting that merging the two could be counterproductive. "So I don't think that's going to be a reality."
Following Hoeven's comments about using transportation as a vehicle for KXL, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works panel, called it a "ludicrous idea."
Boxer is keen on a long-term transportation reauthorization, but she loathes KXL. And she has been a key voice in preventing GOP-led energy and environment riders in previous bills.
But this time, concern is not only on the left. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said during a recent conference call, "I have some hesitancy to attaching Keystone to [transportation], because that could gum up those works."
According to WTAP-TV, Capito said, "Quite frankly, I think we need to move forward on the infrastructure bill and find other avenues for Keystone. For me, the transportation bill is not a good place to put it."
Hoeven and other KXL backers aren't married to the idea of merging the issue with roads and transit. "I think we either put it in an energy bill or an infrastructure bill like the transportation bill or maybe an appropriations measure," said Hoeven recently.
Still, whether a pro-KXL rider ends up in a final transportation bill may be uncertain up until the end of negotiations on Capitol Hill.
Back in 2012, lawmakers merging House and Senate transportation bill versions were close to attaching a measure to pre-empt U.S. EPA coal ash disposal regulations.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) was uncertain about including KXL in the highway measure during a recent interview (E&ENews PM, March 4).
But last night he said, "It's Congress. Anything is possible."
-
Obama Denounces Climate ‘Shills’ on the Hill
Mar 16, 2015 | Politico Pro Energy
By Andrew Restuccia
Too many lawmakers are “shills” for fossil-fuel companies that oppose acting on climate change, President Barack Obama said in an interview released Monday — though he’s optimistic that young, environmentally conscious voters will eventually prompt the GOP to change its tune.
“In some cases … you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry and there’s a lot of money involved,” Obama said in an interview with Shane Smith, founder of the website Vice. “Typically in Congress, the committees of jurisdiction, like the energy committees, are populated by folks from places that pump a lot of oil and pump a lot of gas.”
Asked about one example — a recent stunt in which Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) tossed a snowball on the Senate floor while arguing against human-caused global warming — Obama said, “That’s disturbing.”
Obama acknowledge that some resistance to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions comes from people’s worries about economics. “You can’t fault somebody for being concerned about paying the bills and being able to fill up your tank to get to your job,” he said.
Still, he said, younger generations are more passionate about environmental issues — and that “keeps me optimistic” for the long term.
“I guarantee you that the Republican Party will have to change its approach to climate change because voters will insist upon it,” Obama said.
In a five-minute-plus exchange about climate change, Obama acknowledged that his environmental policies will not solve the problem. But he insisted he is laying the groundwork for future presidents to continue making progress.
“Now when I’m done, we’re still going to have a heck of a problem, but we will have made enough progress that the next president and the next generations can start building on it and you start getting some momentum,” he said, touting his efforts to boost renewable energy, his joint announcement of carbon curbs with China and the ongoing negotiations toward an international global warming agreement.
But Obama was also honest about the political challenges, warning that climate change poses a uniquely difficult quandary for many in Washington. “The hardest thing to do in politics and in government is to make sacrifices now for a long-term payoff,” he said.
-
OPEC Warns U.S. Oil Boom Could Be Over by Year-End
Mar 16, 2015 | Wall Street Journal
By Benoit Faucon
OPEC said Monday the U.S. oil boom could be over by the end of this year, offering a pessimistic view of American producers’ ability to withstand a historic collapse in crude prices and predicting that global petroleum supplies would realign with demand.
The cartel, in its closely watched monthly oil-market report, cited spending cuts by U.S. producers and the falling number of American rigs drilling for oil in recent months after crude prices fell by about 60% from last summer to January before rallying in February. For instance, rig counts fell faster in February than they did in January, according to the latest Baker Hughes report.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries report comes when oil markets are at a crossroads and demonstrates the uncertainty over the staying power of the American oil boom.
Just last week, the International Energy Agency said that American producers were defying expectations and that their continued production could cause crude prices to slump again. U.S. producers say they have developed techniques to pump crude more quickly, and on drilling wells while holding off on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking until prices make operations more viable.
Total U.S. crude production hit a record high of 9.4 million barrels a day last week.
But OPEC stuck to its view that American oil is more expensive to produce and vulnerable to crude prices that have fallen below $45 a barrel for Nymex futures contracts in recent days.
“As drilling subsides due to high costs and a potentially sustained low oil price, a drop in production can be expected to follow, possibly by late 2015,” the cartel’s report said of American production.
The organization had previously said production of U.S. oil would start falling in 2018. By contrast, the IEA, in its medium-term oil market report published last month, predicted U.S. oil production will continue growing through 2020, amid increased productivity from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of underground shale formations.
The diverging views show how much difficulty oil-industry prognosticators like the IEA and OPEC are having during this market slump.
“It is an experiment. Nobody has a clue,” said Olivier Jakob, managing director at Swiss-based consultancy Petromatrix GmbH in Zug, Switzerland.
The report provides support for OPEC’s decision last November to maintain production levels in the face of collapsing prices. In the past OPEC has cut production to prop up prices, but this time, members--led by Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of crude--decided to fight for market share.
The report follows optimistic statements from Saudi Arabian officials and other Persian Gulf producers about the price of oil “stabilizing” in recent weeks. On Sunday, Ibrahim al-Muhanna, a top adviser to Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, said prices would rise as demand increased across the world.
OPEC’s report raised its forecast for global oil demand by 50,000 barrels a day to 92.33 million barrels a day.
And it cut its prediction for overall U.S. oil production growth, saying it will only rise by 820,000 barrels a day this year compared with 1.61 million barrels a day in 2014.
OPEC’s report said the cartel had some woes of its own and its crude production declined by 140,000 barrels a day to 30.02 million barrels a day due to disruptions in Libya and Iraq.
-
Stable Emissions Show Growth, Mitigation Possible, Envoy Says
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chisaki Watanabe
A report showing that global emissions were unchanged last year shows economic growth is possible amid the fight against climate change, a World Bank official said.
Carbon dioxide emissions were stable at 32.3 billion metric tons, even as the global economy advanced 3 percent, the International Energy Agency said in a statement Friday. It was the first time that has happened amid economic growth in 40 years, the Paris-based agency said, citing preliminary estimates.
“The IEA report was terribly important because it shows it can be done,” Rachel Kyte, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change, said today. “It shows that we can begin to really plan growth that is low-carbon and resilient and we can begin to de-couple growth from carbonization.”
The IEA said the halt in emissions growth is attributable to changing patterns of energy consumption in China and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.
“Here we have evidence it can be done through smart policies, smart fiscal, macro economic and energy pricing policies,” said Kyte, who is in Japan for a United Nations conference on disaster risk reduction.
-
Strong Energy Policy Should Follow the Market
Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By James Hewett
For decades, nearly all energy production in the United States has been dominated by the fossil fuel industry. As oil traditionally drove the rise and fall of America’s GDP, legislators reacted to demand by implementing supportive tax policies for fossil technologies, sending over $7 billion in subsidies their way every year. But the relationship between energy and America’s marketplace is changing.
Most recently, a new report from the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that wind power alone could supply 35 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050. Like others, that DOE projection is based on a growing demand for renewable power—that is, if the current demand is given the opportunity to play out.
A common argument holds that strong public policy should follow the marketplace. We should stick to this adage when it comes to energy policy. In the energy space, tax policy, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC), or its counterpart, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), are merely reactions to demand for renewable energy. We have similar tax credits for a wide range of industries.
And it’s important to remember that the PTC and ITC shouldn’t be accredited with all of renewable energy’s success. It’d be equally absurd to ascribe the ubiquity of fossil fuels to government subsidies. Rather, these policies can evolve to follow and support the rise of a profitable private sector. Renewable energy’s success is derivative of free market interests, such as private sector innovation and growing demand for diversified energy resources. For example, advancements in technology have allowed the cost for producing wind energy to drop by over 58% in the last five years, and solar by 64%. As costs continue to fall, an increasing number of investors are being drawn to the industry. Fair, long-term policies will help this trend.
Tax credits are simply mechanisms to help motivate investment of private capital. And often, companies are waiting for the right signals to invest in markets where demand already exists. Taking a quick scroll through the weekly headlines reminds us that the demand for investing in renewables today is strong – and only getting stronger. Google, Walmart, GM, Lockheed Martinand Amazon all have recently shifted millions in private funding into the clean energy sector. Have no doubt that these moves are motivated by profits, and not philanthropy. Whether Google is powering its California headquarters or GM is building the latest in American Muscle, consistent public policy is helping these mega-firms do what they do best: increase revenue. That’s why when Ohio froze a portion of its state renewable energy policy last June, it was businesses — major investors like Whirlpool, Honda and Honeywell – that voiced their disdain for the freeze. How can they be expected to attract private investment without long-term policy certainty?
As if to make the market’s growing desire for more renewable energy abundantly clear, even financial giants like Citigroup have ran the numbers and are looking to finance wind and solar projects to produce long-term dividends. When it’s all tallied up, over $300 billion was invested in the U.S. renewable energy sector in last 10 years alone.
When businesses are able to invest in high-growth markets, it almost always means job creation, too. One of the most overlooked aspects of policies like the PTC and ITC, is that they spur investment and job creation in places that need it most; locales like the Rust Belt and our Great Plains benefit greatly for instance. Before renewable energy tax policy was passed, a negligible number of Americans worked in the renewable industry. But since their passage the number of American workers in the clean power sector has swelled to well over half a million.
Thanks to business-friendly policies, America’s fossil fuel monopoly is transitioning to a more free energy market. Instead of reiterating a federal tax code that picks fossil fuels to win, policies like the PTC and ITC are helping renewable energy sources compete on a more level playing field. As testament, America now produces more wind energy than any other country in the world, and renewables in general now bring electricity to over 29 million households.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, only four major energy tax preferences are permanent: three are for fossil fuels and one is for nuclear energy. That’s why it’s a discredit to hundreds of thousands of American workers, a growing industry and our free-market ideals to claim business-minded tax credits are ‘crony capitalism.’ As evidence continues to prove, our marketplace increasingly demands renewable energy, and the economy is unmistakably better off because of these policies. After all, shouldn’t good public policy follow the market?
-
Railroad Administration Lacks Data to Justify Two-Person Crew, Railroads Tell White House
Mar 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Federal Railroad Administration hasn't provided any data that proves a two-person crew is safer than a one-person crew when it comes to operating mainline freight and passenger trains, railroad representatives told the White House.This lack of data calls into question the need and justification for an upcoming agency proposal (RIN 2130-AC48) that would set minimum crew-size requirements for most of these trains, certain railroad representatives said. Additionally, the rule, which aims to make passenger and freight transport safer, could prove costly and ineffective for both large and small railroads, some companies and industry groups said.“By prohibiting railroads from adjusting train crew size, the FRA will greatly reduce U.S. railroads' ability to control operating costs without making the industry safer,” according to a presentationfrom consulting group Oliver Wyman Group, submitted to the White House by the Association of American Railroads at a Feb. 12 meeting.BNSF Railway Co., the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Union Pacific Railroad and two consulting groups were also at the Feb. 12 Office of Management and Budget meeting. The short line group and Indiana Rail Road Co. attended a separate OMB meeting Feb. 20 that the company requested.Proposal Would Cover Crude-by-RailThe FRA's proposal, which hasn't yet been published, is expected to establish minimum crew size requirements for most mainline freight and passenger trains, depending on the operation types. This would include trains carrying crude oil.The White House receivedthe proposal for review on Jan. 7. It was sparked in part by the Lac Megantic, Quebec, crude oil train derailment and explosion (05 DEN A-6, 1/8/15).Railroads that carry intercity passengers, commuters or any amount of toxic-by-inhalation materials are supposed to implement positive train control systems by the end of 2015, under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-432).However, several members of Congress are looking to extend that deadline by the end of 2020 through a recently introduced senate bill (S. 650), an extension that the National Transportation Safety Board has opposed (44 DEN A-13, 3/6/15).Both Indiana Rail Road Co. (a regional railroad) and the Association for American Railroads have said the agency hasn't provided the data to justify its rulemaking, which would be costly.Industry Wants Railroads to Decide Crew SizeEd Greenberg, a spokesman for AAR, said no safety data exists that would support this type of rulemaking. He couldn't speak to the specifics of the meeting, but he told Bloomberg BNA that the association believes the ability to determine “crew size should remain with individual railroads, working with rail labor.”AAR-labeled studies by ICF International Inc. and Oliver Wyman were submitted to the White House at the AAR-requested Feb. 12 meeting that support this position. For example, the Wyman presentation said safety data regarding single-person train crews in the U.S. and Europe prove the one-person crews “are no less safe than multiple-person crews.”The Wyman study also highlights how the pending installation of positive train control systems for Class I freight railroads (the seven largest U.S. freight haulers) will “provide the same redundancy as a second person in the engineers cab.” There could also be significant cost savings for these railroads by using one-person crews that could be put back into safety equipment, the study said.Jo Strang, vice president of regulatory affairs for the short line association, told Bloomberg BNA her group in both meetings urged the White House to conduct a small business regulatory analysis.“We have a significant number of small businesses that could be negatively affected by this,” Strang said.Small BusinessesThe short line group also requested that the FRA proposed rule include a grandfathering provision to allow any railroads that have been operating safely with one-member crews to be allowed to continue doing so. While the railroad administration has indicated that railroads could seek permission to operate with one-person crews, Strang said this doesn't provide as much certainty as the “clarity and certainty of a clean grandfathering provision.”Indiana Rail served as an example of that at its Feb. 20 meeting. The company submitted a handoutto the White House declaring that between 2006 and 2013, one-person crew operations accounted for 24 percent of the company's “man hours,” but only 5.7 percent of its “human factor incidents.”The company also highlighted that meeting two-person crew requirements that are expected for short line-hauls would significantly increase the company's operating costs, meaning customers may “revert to trucks, adding to highway congestion, and loss of business would result in a net loss of railroad jobs,” Eric Powell, a spokesman for Indiana Rail, told Bloomberg BNA.“Our safety statistics over the last 18 years provide fact-based evidence that one-person crews are completely safe when implemented and utilized properly,” Powell said.The White House's Office of Management and Budget didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's message asking when the meeting records were posted.BNSF Railway Co. declined to comment for this article.For More InformationThe Indiana Rail Road Co, handout is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9untpf.The ICF International Inc. “Evaluation of Single Crew Risks: Comparative Risk Assessment” report is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9untqs.The Oliver Wyman “Analysis of North American Freight Rail Single-Person Crews: Safety and Economics” report is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9untrl.The Oliver Wyman “Analysis of North American Freight Rail Single-Person Crews: Safety and Economics” presentation is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9untta.The ICF International Inc. “Evaluation of Single Crew Risks: Comparative Risk Assessment” presentation is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9untue.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested