Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Bill Vote Set for 14 May
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy will vote on 14 May on a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Makes Another Attempt to Update Chemical Regulations
Apr 15, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A new Congress means taking yet another crack at updating the 1970s law regulating U.S. chemical manufacturing, transportation and use. -
(ACC Mentioned) Water Column Revised
Apr 15, 2015 | Journal Star
A representative with the American Chemistry Council cited several issues with the Jack Zohner column titled “’Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink’ … someday?’ “ column which appeared in the print version of the April 11, 2015 Neighborhood Extra. -
NGO Platform: TSCA, REACH and the Downstream User
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Mark Rossi
As the US Congress sits on the precipice of revising the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), it’s worth assessing to what extent REACH and the proposed new reform bill support downstream users in implementing their chemicals management programmes. -
TSCA Reform Legislation: Enhancing EPA Testing Authority
Apr 15, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison, Ph.D.
While most of the attention around legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has focused on the issue of preemption, it’s important not to lose sight of how new legislation would address fundamental problems in the current law. -
US EPA Receives Test Data for Two Chemicals
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data for two chemicals – methanone, diphenyl and ethane, 1,1′-oxybis[2-chloro – following a test rule issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The data relates to the substances' aquatic toxicity. -
Toy Story
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Elaine Burridge
The lead paint crisis which hit toy manufacturers in 2007-08 was an alarm bell for an industry which had become lax in its market surveillance. -
EPA Proposes Reporting Requirements for Dry Cleaning Solvent Named 'Reasonably Likely' Carcinogen
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Companies could be required to report emissions of a solvent linked to cancer if a proposed rule by U.S. EPA is finalized. -
Controversial Data Breach Bill Passes House Committee
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Elise Viebeck
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a controversial bill creating national data security standards after a chaotic markup that revealed deep Democratic concerns about the measure. -
Lift US Ban on Oil Exports, Say GOP Trio
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A trio of Republican committee chairmen pitched lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports on Wednesday, arguing it would help U.S. allies break their reliance on Russia and the Middle East. -
U.S. Could Eliminate Net Energy Imports by 2030
Apr 15, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider
The U.S. could soon export more energy than it imports, significantly changing the country’s appetite for foreign fuels starting as early as 2020, according to a new report from the Energy Information Administration. -
Methane Emissions from Oil & Gas are on the Rise, Confirm Latest EPA Data
Apr 15, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
Methane emissions from the US oil and gas sector increased, according to new data finalized today by the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Electric Co-Ops Lobby EPA's McCarthy for More Time on Clean Power Plan
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro and Emily Holden
Executives from some of the nation's leading rural electric cooperatives met with U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Monday, pressing for more time to comply with the Clean Power Plan so that billions of dollars of costs sunk into their generation fleets will not be wasted. -
Coal Company Lays Off Hundreds, Blames Obama Policies
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major Appalachian coal mining company is laying off hundreds of workers in West Virginia and blaming the lost jobs on President Obama’s environmental policies. -
Texas Exposure Method Could Boost Critics Of Stricter EPA Ozone NAAQS
Apr 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Texas toxicologists have crafted an alternative method to analyzing the public's responses to ozone exposure in a bid to influence EPA's pending decision on potentially revising its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), with the state looking to bolster push-back against the agency's proposed tightening of the limit. -
House Panel Takes on Science Behind Obama Carbon Pledge
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A House committee hearing on President Obama's international climate commitment today veered heavily into the science of warming, as panel members argued about the role of human emissions. -
Quebec Energy Minister Arcand Discusses Province's Role in EPA Power Plan
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - TV
Should international renewables be considered as part of Clean Power Plan compliance? Is the Clean Power Plan an avenue for growth for existing international collaborations on emissions reduction and trading? -
BLM Crafting Guidance on Social Cost of Carbon -- Internal Memo
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management is developing comprehensive guidance on calculating the climate change impacts of mining oil, gas and coal from public lands, according to an internal memo obtained by Greenwire. -
House Panel Approves $35B Energy, Water Spending Bill
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy and Water appropriators easily passed their $35.4 billion funding bill on Wednesday. -
House Panel Advances Bill to Kill Obama Water Rule
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider and Ariel Wittenberg
After vigorous debate, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee cleared legislation this morning that would deal a death blow to the Obama administration's controversial water proposal. -
EPA's Top Water Official Sees CWA Jurisdiction Rule, Utility ELG As Priorities
Apr 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Ken Kopocis, de facto head of EPA's Office of Water (OW), says his policy priorities in the coming months include finalizing the agency's controversial rule to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction and meeting a court-ordered deadline to issue power plant effluent standards, as well as steps to tackle algal blooms and stormwater. -
House Democrats Introduce Crude-By-Rail Bill
Apr 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
Five House Democrats are out today with a bill intended to improve the safety of oil transported by rail, essentially a companion bill to a measure introduced in the Senate last month.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Bill Vote Set for 14 May
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy will vote on 14 May on a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The panel's Chairman John Shimkus (R-Illinois) made the announcement on Tuesday, at the start of a committee hearing on a bipartisan draft measure to update the decades-old law that he unveiled last week (CW 9 April 2015).
Mr Shimkus said that after hearing from stakeholders, a bill with language “reflecting consensus revisions” would be released for the May mark up. He will also ask the chairman of the full House Energy and Commerce Committee to take up the measure for full consideration “as soon as practicable”.
The draft TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 “represents a significant departure” from the Udall-Vitter reform bill (CW 10 March 2015) as well as the approach taken by the House last year, and has “a number of benefits relative to these two proposals”, said Committee ranking member Paul Tonko (D-New York).
But there are still some tough issues to address, including preservation of authority to act on managing chemicals, he added.
Jim Jones, head of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, criticised provisions that would allow industry to ask the agency to conduct risk evaluations of chemicals. This, he said, is likely lead to the EPA focusing the majority of its limited resources on completing evaluations, which once requested, start the clock ticking on a number of deadlines. It could also result in “evaluations for the chemicals with the most potential for risk being put off indefinitely”, while the agency worked on the requests.
Also, the agency would be required to conduct and publish the evaluations within 180 days - an unrealistic deadline, he said.
Mr Jones also faulted provisions that would mean the agency had to demonstrate that a substance had the potential for unreasonable risk, before starting a risk evaluation. These would create a “possible analytical 'catch-22' in which the the EPA must make a finding regarding the potential for risk, prior to beginning the risk evaluation process.”
And athough the provisions would require chemical companies to meet the full cost, the money would go to the Treasury instead of the agency, he said. But Mr Shimkus said the EPA should have access to the funds - in line with the intent of the bill.
Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, sought clarification at the hearing on how the “relatively short review deadline” for industry-requested risk evaluations is “consistent with a robust review of the hazards, exposures and risks of chemical substances”. He also wanted to know the degree to which state regulations that are identical to EPA actions could depart from the federal approach.
Testifying on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Beth Bosley, president of Boron Specialties, called the bill's preemption provisions fair and reasonable, and that the bill should allow for EPA consideration of industry draft risk evaluations, as the Udall-Vitter Senate bill also does.
Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, acknowledged “positive elements” in the draft, including its retention of key elements of the current TSCA's timing of preemption.
Under the House draft, preemption would kick in only after the EPA makes a final decision on a chemical, either in a rule managing the risk or in a decision that it poses no unreasonable risk. Under the Udall-Vitter bill, however, states would be constrained from acting on a chemical, once the agency chooses a chemical for risk evaluation.
Mr Igrejas also welcomed its provisions which allow states to co-enforce federal rules and a “workable” preemption waiver clause. Among changes he suggested was to give the EPA the discretion to turn down an industry request for assessment and initiate its own, “without having to make multiple findings”.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Makes Another Attempt to Update Chemical Regulations
Apr 15, 2015 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
A new Congress means taking yet another crack at updating the 1970s law regulating U.S. chemical manufacturing, transportation and use.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy met April 14 to open discussion on the latest proposal to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
“We are six and a half years into a debate on changes to a major federal environmental statute that has not been significantly amended since it was enacted nearly 40 years ago,” Mike Walls, vice president for regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said in testimony April 14. “It is well past time that TSCA reform moves forward. The discussion draft is a major milestone toward the objective of TSCA reform this year.”
The as yet unnumbered House bill, penned by subcommittee chairman Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), is considered to be a more limited version of the Chemicals in Commerce bill Shimkus authored last year — which garnered little support from across the aisle.
The draft bill would set up a new system for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate risks associated with chemicals already on the market, and set a three-year deadline for the agency to complete risk evaluations. Evaluations initiated by manufacturers would have to be done in 180 days.
Critics of the House bill argue the new review process could be exploited if businesses force the EPA to assess chemicals that aren’t much of a safety risk, leaving them without the time or resources to review chemicals that are actually hazardous to workers or consumers. Industry would be required to pay for the assessments they request, however.
Jim Jones, the EPA’s top chemical safety regulator, said he has concerns about the new rules for the agency, including that the deadlines laid out in the bill are “unreasonably short” and that the agency, which has not taken an official position on the legislation, may not have enough resources to meet new requirements.
Under the current law, EPA has identified 80 chemicals that need to be reviewed, five of which have completed assessments and another 20 are awaiting review. EPA can asses anywhere from three to eight chemicals per year now, Jones said, and would need as much as twice as many resources to review 20 chemicals in one year if a new law opened that many cases.
Activists and environmental groups also still have reservations about this year’s bill as well. Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, testified that there are some improvements over previous versions of TSCA reform bills, but that “some of the fundamentals are still missing.” He cited the bill’s lack of language that would prioritize EPA-initiated chemical assessments over industry-initiated ones, single out harmful bioaccumulative chemicals for swift action and the possibility that cost considerations could leave the public unprotected from some dangerous chemicals.
“Cost considerations should be reserved for the question of how to mitigate the risk, not whether to mitigate it,” he said. “As it stands, we believe the draft would allow a major risk, such as a chemical that causes cancer or birth defects, to remain unmitigated if it was deemed too expensive to do so. That is a very different outcome than mitigating the risk in a cost-effective way.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Water Column Revised
Apr 15, 2015 | Journal Star
A representative with the American Chemistry Council cited several issues with the Jack Zohner column titled “’Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink’ … someday?’ “ column which appeared in the print version of the April 11, 2015 Neighborhood Extra.
The American Chemistry Council:
- Cited the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website in which the FDA updated its perspective on BPA last year and now states that BPA is safe at the low levels to which consumers are exposed.
- With regard to blood pressure, the American Chemistry Council cited British Heart Foundation research which stated: “We don’t believe there is any cause for the public or heart patients to be concerned by BPA.”
- And, the Council further said that “typical disposable water bottles available for purchase do not contain BPA, which is primarily used in hard, reusable plastic or cans.”
The edited column appears below:
by John Henry (“Jack”) Zohner
Grandma and Grandpa had a hand water pump on their kitchen sink. It was fun to pump water and Grandma seemed to never grow tired of watching me pump it for her. The water came from their cistern that was filled by collecting rainwater from their roof. That water was fairly safe to drink back then!
Grandma and Grandpa were married in 1914 and lived through some interesting times. Imagine living through two world wars and the Great Depression. Their values and expectations in life were conservative, to say the least. Grandma and Grandpa were a great example of hard work, integrity, and honesty. They lived long and healthy lives.
The world has changed in so many ways since then. Today the world population is over 7 billion. Some believe the earth can safely support 2 billion people, which is what lived here in 1900. Predictions are we will be at more than 30 billion by the end of this century.
The impact to the earth of an increasing population to 30 billion is mind-boggling considering the damage that has been done already. One important area of concern is ongoing pollution of our drinking water.
Over 50 million chemicals have been found or made already and the speed of developing new ones is increasing. It took 33 years to get the first 10 million chemicals registered and nine months to get the last 10 million chemicals into the American Chemical Society database.
Our 7 billion population steadily pollutes the worldwide water supply with sewage. Every day, over 2 million tons of sewage and industrial and agricultural waste is discharged into the world’s water, which is the equivalent of the weight of the entire human population.
Untreated sewage causes infectious waterborne diseases that are the number one killer of children under five years old. More people die from unsafe water annually than from all forms of violence, including war.
The pollution impact from increased populations today also includes garbage in landfills and even oceans, lakes, and streams. An example is more than 270,000 tons of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That’s more than 5 trillion pieces, which does not include plastic wastes on the ocean floors.
One of the most common plastic pollutants is plastic water bottles, which require over 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. An example of plastics leaching into a plastic bottle is to set a half-full drinking water bottle out in the sun on a hot day and then taste the water. Consider not swallowing that water!
Improving the quality of the world’s water supply will require improved awareness and increased responsibility. Many of the improvements are out of our control; however, there are things we can do locally. Reducing overall chemical usage helps.
For instance, rainwater washes chemicals from our lawns and streets into storm water that ends up in Salt Creek and flows to the Platte River, where our drinking water comes from. Our treated sewage effluent also dumps into Salt Creek. We reap what we sow!
Quality water is vital to good health. Our bodies are 60% water. If we lose even 1% of body weight in fluids, we are clinically dehydrated. A rigorous one-hour workout can cause us to lose nine pounds of sweat.
We can control the quality of our drinking water in our homes or businesses by installing Reverse Osmosis (R.O.) systems. The R.O. system is a small unit that is typically installed under the kitchen sink for approximately $550, including an additional faucet. R. O. systems remove harmful chemicals and provide healthy drinking water. It’s also good for cooking and crystal clear ice.
On a personal note, thanks to everyone that voted for John Henry’s to allow us to win the Lincoln Journal Star 2015 Best of Lincoln first place in Plumbing and also Heating and Air Conditioning, plus second place in Customer Service.
-
NGO Platform: TSCA, REACH and the Downstream User
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Mark Rossi
As the US Congress sits on the precipice of revising the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), it’s worth assessing to what extent REACH and the proposed new reform bill support downstream users in implementing their chemicals management programmes.
In 2008, BizNGO, a multistakeholder collaboration of businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government agencies and academics, working together to advance safer chemicals and sustainable materials, released a set of aspirational Principles for Safer Chemicals developed from best practices among downstream users in managing chemicals in their products and supply chains.
Understanding impacts
Two of the BizNGO Principles for Safer Chemicals are especially relevant to understanding the impacts of government policies on downstream users: 1) know and publicly disclose chemicals in products and 2) assess the hazards of those chemicals and prefer inherently less hazardous chemicals. The table overleaf compares the extent to which the EU’s REACH Regulation and a proposed bill in the US Senate, support and obligate downstream users to achieve the BizNGO Principles. The bill by Senators Vitter and Udall to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is called the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
In terms of knowing chemicals in products, REACH provides clear direction that downstream users must communicate uses up to suppliers and know and publicly disclose (if requested) if their product contains substances of very high concern (SVHC). The Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act does essentially nothing to support downstream users in knowing chemicals in products and disclosing them to the public; and its requirements for upstream communication to suppliers on uses are uncertain.
Significantly, REACH requires companies to provide minimum data sets on the inherent hazards of chemicals. This data will enable downstream users to evaluate and compare chemicals on their hazard characteristics. The Chemical Safety Act, while expanding the ability of the US EPA to require testing of chemicals, explicitly prohibits the agency from requiring minimum data sets.
While it is important to avoid the unnecessary testing of chemicals, it is also vital to have a data set on chemicals that enables their comparison on a common set of endpoints. The EPA needs the authority to establish a minimum data set on chemicals, although this may differ depending on the specific chemical.
‘Inefficient and wasteful’
On assessing the hazards of chemicals, the proposed US law falls short of REACH and impedes harmonising European and US requirements for chemical testing. Given that most US chemical companies sell into the European market, and therefore are already meeting those requirements, it is inefficient and wasteful to establish a totally separate testing regime in the US.
To support the use of inherently safer chemicals, REACH provides a clear and more streamlined process for identifying and restricting SVHCs. Over the course of seven years, the Regulation has identified 161 Candidate SVHCs, while over five years, the US bill only requires the designation of 25 high priority chemicals.
Clear predictability
It is clear from the table below that REACH provides greater support to as well as obligations for downstream users in their chemicals management programmes in comparison to the proposed US Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Importantly REACH gives predictability in the process of proposing and restricting chemicals by sending clear early, followed by serious warnings, and finally restrictions.
In summary, to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of chemicals regulation, revisions to TSCA need to harmonise with European testing requirements, which includes establishing minimum data sets, and establish a clear, consistent, predictable and streamlined trajectory to move from identifying high priority substances to restricting the uses of chemical in products and articles. Harmonisation, consistency and predictability are critical for downstream users and these elements are all lacking in the proposed Chemical Safety Act.
In addition to the Vitter-Udall bipartisan bill proposed, senators Barbara Boxer (Democrat-California) and Edward Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) have put forward a counter bill. Chemical Watch is interested in knowing which bill you prefer by taking our poll that runs until Friday 17 April. You can access the poll here.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
-
TSCA Reform Legislation: Enhancing EPA Testing Authority
Apr 15, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison, Ph.D.
While most of the attention around legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has focused on the issue of preemption, it’s important not to lose sight of how new legislation would address fundamental problems in the current law. This post will be the first in a series examining flaws in TSCA and how recent bipartisan reform proposals would address them.
The Lautenberg Act, S. 697, is the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation introduced in the Senate in March. A bipartisan process has also begun in the House, leading to last week’s release of a discussion draft of “The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.” In this series of posts, I’ll describe how each of these legislative vehicles would address the specific problematic area of the current law I’m discussing.
First up, EPA testing authority.
Under current TSCA, for chemicals already on the market, EPA must generally go through notice-and-comment rulemaking (which is usually a multiyear process) before it can require testing. EPA must also first make certain risk or exposure findings in order to require testing, namely that a chemical:may present an unreasonable risk; oris produced in substantial quantities and either enters the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant/substantial human exposure.
The first of these requirements is a Catch-22: showing potential risk is not an easy task without the data that required testing would provide. The second requirement is also circular in nature: for example, a highly potent carcinogen could be harmful at much lower exposures than a weak one, yet this statutory requirement has forced EPA to define “substantial” and “significant” on a generic basis, in the absence of the hazard information that testing would provide and would be used to determine what actually are substantial or significant levels of production, release or exposure of a given chemical.
As a result of these constraints, EPA has managed to require testing on fewer than 300 of the 62,000 chemicals that were on the market and grandfathered in when TSCA was first enacted.
EPA fares a little better with respect to new chemicals, where it can use consent orders to require testing. EPA staff estimate the agency imposes some type of testing requirement on about 4% of the Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) it reviews. With EPA having reviewed nearly 40,000 PMNs over the course of TSCA, that’s about 1,600 new chemicals for which any testing was required.
Let’s generously assume all of those chemicals went on to enter commerce (a clear overestimate, as only about half of PMN’d chemicals go on to enter commerce). This would mean that on the order of 2,000 of the 85,000 chemicals – 2.4% – on the TSCA Inventory have had some testing required under TSCA. Put another way, EPA has not required any testing of 97.6% of the chemicals that have been on the market at some point since TSCA passed in 1976.
How would TSCA reform legislation address this problem?
The Lautenberg Act allows EPA simply to issue orders to require testing instead of going through rulemaking (though it must justify why it is using an order rather than a rule). It also strikes the requirement that EPA first show potential risk or high release or exposure in order to require testing. EPA can require testing to inform all actions it must take, including new chemical reviews, prioritization, safety assessments/determinations and development of risk management rules. The bill generally requires EPA first to request submission of the needed information before mandating testing; and EPA cannot require testing as a means to establish minimum information sets for chemicals generally.
So, while the bill does not provide EPA with unfettered authority to require testing, it provides a major expansion in such authority, a clear improvement over current TSCA.
The House discussion draft also allows EPA to require testing via issuing an order rather than through a rulemaking, and does not include a requirement that EPA justify why it is using an order rather than a rule. Except for testing necessary to conduct a risk evaluation, however, the draft retains TSCA’s current Catch-22requirement that, before it can require testing, EPA must first show potential risk or high release or exposure.
Next up: New chemicals.
-
US EPA Receives Test Data for Two Chemicals
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has received test data for two chemicals – methanone, diphenyl and ethane, 1,1′-oxybis[2-chloro – following a test rule issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The data relates to the substances' aquatic toxicity.
Methanone, diphenyl is used, among other things, in making insecticides and as a polymerisation inhibitor for styrene. Ethane, 1,1′-oxybis[2-chloro's is used as a general solvent and in paints, varnishes, lacquers and finish removers.
-
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Elaine Burridge
The lead paint crisis which hit toy manufacturers in 2007-08 was an alarm bell for an industry which had become lax in its market surveillance. Lead paint, which has been outlawed in Europe and the US for several decades, had been found in toys made for firms including Mattel, at factories in China. Rick Reiss, principal scientist at consultancy firm Exponent, says: “The lead recalls were a huge wake-up call for companies doing business in China, as well as Chinese manufacturers.”
China is estimated to manufacture 70-75% of the world’s toys and its toy manufacturing industry is estimated to have generated $33.6bn in sales in 2014, according to market researcher IBISWorld. Mr Reiss says Chinese manufacturers are now well aware of the issues associated with metals, in particular, lead, as well as chemicals that are classified in Europe. “I believe that there are more experts in China now so manufacturers can work with people to help compliance.” He adds, however, that it is difficult at times to get clear exposure data but concedes this may be an insurmountable barrier.
Al Kaufman, senior vice president, technical affairs of the New York-based Toy Industry Association (TIA) which represents about 85% of the North American market by sales volume, says that manufacturers, including those in China, have made a concerted effort to tighten up their procedures. “There has been a real focus on quality assurance and internal controls have been put in place,” he says.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which established an office in Beijing in 2009, says that toy recalls remained low in the fiscal year of 2014, with 30 recalls in total and just one involving a lead violation. This compares to 172 toy recalls in fiscal year 2008, of which 19 were due to excessive lead content.
Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and general counsel at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), says: “The 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act strengthened CPSC and gave it new authority to protect children from unsafe products. Mandatory toy standards, lower lead and phthalate limits, independent third-party testing, and increased port inspections stop more dangerous toys than ever before from reaching toy shelves.”
Nevertheless, a survey released last December in the US found that, despite recent progress, toys were still being manufactured with toxic chemicals. The report by the US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), Trouble in Toyland, said results of laboratory tests found toys containing phthalates or chromium well over the legal limits as well as some with lead. For example, a toy tambourine was shown to have chromium at more than nine times the legal limit of 60ppm.
In response, the TIA stated that PIRG’s conclusions were “seriously flawed”. Following an in-depth analysis, the association said that results were based on tests conducted by a non-CPSC accredited laboratory or on methods that were not approved by the CPSC.
In Europe, new chemical requirements under the Toy Safety Directive (TSD) entered into force on 20 July 2013. The revised rules extended the number of chemical elements regulated by migration limits from eight to 19. In addition, the limit values for the eight substances included in the prior legislation became stricter.
Last June, the EU amended the TSD and introduced new restrictions on three flame retardants – tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), 2-propanol, 1-chloro-, phosphate (3:1) (TCPP) and tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate TDCP, and bisphenol A (BPA). EU member states must implement the new requirements from 21 December.
Limit values for substances such as phenol and formamide in toys for children under three years of age, were also being discussed last year with a proposed adoption date of Q1 2015. The proposed date of entry into force is Q3 2016.
Brussels-based trade association, Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) which represents toy manufacturers operating in the region, says it still sees wilful non-compliance in the market. According to its director general, Catherine Van Reeth, one third of notifications in 2013 on Rapex – the EU’s rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products – related to illegally high phthalate content. She points out, however, that more than 94% of the toy brands notified on the system were not by a member of TIE. Some notifications were also suspected counterfeits.
In the EU, reputable toy manufacturers have to comply with thousands of pages of requirements and standards and toys may undergo hundreds of tests, including chemical tests. Undoubtedly, and as illustrated by the lead crisis, it is in a toy manufacturer’s best interests to ensure its products are safe and free from toxic chemicals.
Under EU safety rules, an obligatory chemical safety assessment determines whether materials received from suppliers, and the substances they may contain, can be used to manufacture toys. Regardless of origin, these products have to comply with detailed quality assurance procedures which are audited frequently to ensure conformity, van Reeth explains.
Major toy brand, Hasbro, which was unaffected by the lead crisis, says its exemplary safety record (no product recalls since 2008) is down to its five-step quality assurance process. For example, Hasbro’s testing and inspection processes for lead and heavy metals in toys include:raw material control from suppliers to third-party factories;lead paint testing – before paint is applied, during production and before toys leave the factory;frequent, unannounced safety and quality control checks at factories by Hasbro employees and independent auditors;independent, third-party testing of products imported from China; andrandom product testing, unannounced inspections and spot checks to ensure products meet its lead paint standards before shipment to retailers.
Hasbro says its products were unaffected by the massive toy industry recalls in 2007 because of two key factors: its product safety commitment and its close working relations with, and oversight of, its Chinese vendors and their factories.
The company adds that it now designs products to avoid the use of BPA and does not use brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in its children’s clothing. “We design our products in ways that pass regulatory flammability requirements without the use of BFRs,” Hasbro says.
The Lego Group says it performs high-level chemical safety assessments, based on its access to complete chemical ingredients lists from its raw material suppliers. From 2008-13, more than 20 of the Danish group’s employees had to verify that over 2,000 raw materials used in Lego products met the requirements of Europe’s TSD. It says that an enhanced IT system stores and can trace easily all chemical information relating to its products, regardless of where they are produced in the supply chain.
Take a single Lego brick, for example. The detailed safety appraisal, including an element risk assessment, a model review and toy safety report, would fill 25 pages in printed form. Its Lego fire truck, which consists of 206 elements, passed more than 1,000 checkpoints in the group before it was approved.
Maureen Logghe, head of international strategies for the Belgian Ministry of Economic Affairs, says Europe is continuing to work with the Chinese government on toy safety. The European Commission has a working group with Chinese authorities to discuss the requirements of the TSD and look at joint workshops and seminars for manufacturers in China.
The joint action, between the Product Safety Forum of Europe (Prosafe) and China’s General Administration of Quality, Supervision and Quarantine (AQSIQ), started in July 2013 and will run for 24 months. The overall purpose of the action is to increase cooperation between the Chinese export control authorities and European customs and market surveillance agencies and avoid the need for double testing. “Toy firms are retesting products in Europe to ensure compliance, even though they have already been tested in China,” Ms Logghe explains.
Ms Van Reeth says TIE welcomes the fact that the TSD calls on member states to ensure that there are sufficient border controls and effective market surveillance. “Rogue traders continue to place unsafe and non-compliant products on the market and proper surveillance is crucial to block the entry of non-conforming toys,” she says.
It is hoped that the combination of better market surveillance and increasing cooperation with Chinese authorities should help to cut the number of toys containing unlawful levels of harmful chemicals in the future.
-
EPA Proposes Reporting Requirements for Dry Cleaning Solvent Named 'Reasonably Likely' Carcinogen
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Companies could be required to report emissions of a solvent linked to cancer if a proposed rule by U.S. EPA is finalized.
The proposed rule, published today in the Federal Register, would add 1-bromopropane to a list of chemicals subject to annual reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. EPA said the action was prompted by 1-bromopropane's inclusion in the 13th Report on Carcinogens, which is produced by the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The report, published last year, named the solvent as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." It noted that exposure to the colorless liquid has increased because it has been used as a substitute for ozone-depleting chemicals or other suspected carcinogens such as perchloroethylene, a volatile organic compound (Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2014).
Also known as n-propyl bromide, or nPB, the chemical is a solvent often used in commercial applications, including dry cleaning facilities, asphalt production, aircraft maintenance and synthetic fiber manufacturing. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not have a specific exposure standard for workers who handle nPB.
At least 15.3 million pounds of nPB was produced in the United States in 2012, the most recent year of EPA data, and companies manufacturing the substance include Dow Chemical Co. and Albemarle Corp. The companies did not respond to a request for comment today on the EPA action.
EPA publishes the information obtained under the section in its Toxics Release Inventory, a website that allows the public to search for releases of covered chemicals at specific locations.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA, initially listed 308 chemicals and 20 chemical categories, but the list has been modified in the decades since.
EPA said in the proposed rule that 1-bromopropane was the only chemical identified by the Report on Carcinogens that was not already subject to reporting requirements under EPCRA.
The proposed rule is subject to a 60-day public comment period.
-
Controversial Data Breach Bill Passes House Committee
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Elise Viebeck
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a controversial bill creating national data security standards after a chaotic markup that revealed deep Democratic concerns about the measure.
The Data Security and Breach Notification Act appears headed for further changes prior to a vote by the full House. The committee approved it on a party-line vote of 29-20.Wednesday’s markup exposed a rift between Energy and Commerce members on key matters, including whether the bill should preempt stronger consumer data protections at the state level.
Ranking Member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) called the legislation “deeply flawed.”
“I am very concerned,” he said. “I just think that this is moving much too quickly. There are a lot of changes that I think need to be made. I’m very concerned, particularly, about the preemption issue. All of these things need a lot of time and work … I would like to see the process slowed down.”
The bill from Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) is designed to replace the patchwork of state data security and breach notification laws.
Currently, companies that experience a data breach or hack must comply with a variety of requirements across the country. Lawmakers consider it a priority to at least streamline the requirement for consumer notification.
The presence of a national data security standard in the bill has caused problems from the beginning. Democrats and privacy groups argue that replacing stronger state laws will leave consumers vulnerable.
A series of Democratic amendments to make the standard more specific, to create a floor for data security requirements and to avoid a level of preemption failed. A manager’s amendment and a change capping federal penalties for some breached companies passed with support from Republicans, along with a handful of other amendments.
Republicans rejected the proposals by saying they are trying to keep the bill “narrowly tailored.” Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) suggested that several Democratic changes would hamper the bill’s chances of passing the Senate.
“I say this with a smile — I don’t expect to [pass the bill under] suspension,” Upton said, referring to non-controversial measures that require a two-thirds majority vote on the House floor.
The legislation would require companies to maintain “reasonable security measures and practices” to protect consumer data, and to disclose breaches when there is a risk of consumer harm. The notification would be required to take place within 30 days of when a company determines the scope of a breach and restores their systems.
In a sign of the controversy surrounding the bill, its lead Democratic cosponsor ultimately voted against it after supporting an amendment from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) that would significantly alter the measure’s approach. -
Lift US Ban on Oil Exports, Say GOP Trio
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A trio of Republican committee chairmen pitched lifting the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports on Wednesday, arguing it would help U.S. allies break their reliance on Russia and the Middle East.
In an op-ed in Foreign Policy Magazine, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John McCain (Ariz.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.) wrote that lifting the export ban could provide a lifeline for American allies that otherwise rely on imports from more hostile countries.
Poland, for example, received 96 percent of its 2012 crude oil imports from Russia, the senators wrote, citing International Energy Agency estimates. Russia is behind one-third of oil imports in the European Union, while Middle East countries account for two-thirds of oil imports to Asian allies India, Japan and South Korea.
“The benefits to global security of allowing oil shipments to our trading partners are obvious and indisputable,” the senators wrote. “Our friends in Asia, eager to comply with Western sanctions against Iran, would have a new alternative source for their energy needs. European allies, struggling to diversify away from Russia, would be able to receive U.S. domestic oil almost immediately.”
The op-ed comes from Senate GOP leaders on energy and foreign affairs issues.
Murkowski is chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, McCain leads the Armed Services Committee and Corker is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Oil interests have said lifting the ban on crude oil exports, instituted in 1975 to respond to the OPEC oil embargo, is one of their highest priorities this Congress. Murkowski's committee held a hearingon lifting the ban in March. Committee Democrats were uneasy with the proposal, and even Murkowski acknowledged that it might be difficult to make the case for allowing exports if consumers worry it would raise gas prices in the United States.
-
U.S. Could Eliminate Net Energy Imports by 2030
Apr 15, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Alison Sider
The U.S. could soon export more energy than it imports, significantly changing the country’s appetite for foreign fuels starting as early as 2020, according to a new report from the Energy Information Administration.
Despite energy prices that are sharply lower today than they were a year ago, the federal government’s new outlook forecasts that U.S. oil and natural gas production will continue to rise over the next five years.
As American drillers keep pumping, the U.S. will meet more of its own energy needs. The trend will also boost the amount of natural gas, refined fuels such as diesel and ultralight oil the U.S. has available to ship overseas, reversing the country’s energy importing trend that has been in place since the 1950s.
“Advanced technologies are reshaping the U.S. energy economy,” said Adam Sieminski, EIA Administrator. “The projections show the potential to eliminate net U.S. energy imports in the 2020 to 2030 time frame.”
In the new outlook released Tuesday, Mr. Sieminski pointed to greater use of renewable energy sources, more efficient cars and trucks as well as growth in American oil and gas production as transforming the country’s energy picture.
The government appears to be even more bullish about U.S. oil production this year than it was last year. Despite a nearly 50% drop in the price of crude-oil since then, the government’s expectation for oil production growth is even more robust than in last year’s energy forecast.
U.S. oil output will peak at 10.6 million barrels a day in 2020, according to the EIA’s base case in this year’s forecast. That is up from last year’s base case prediction that U.S. oil production would peak at 9.6 million barrels a day by 2019.
The agency set forth six different scenarios based on the energy prices and economic growth. In a high oil price scenario the U.S. could become a net exporter of energy as early as 2019, the EIA said. But even in scenarios where oil prices don’t rebound very quickly, the U.S. will export more energy than it imports by 2030, the report said.
The U.S. has been a net importer of energy for nearly six decades, but new trade routes opening up will change that, including natural gas exports from the U.S. to Europe and Asia and greater shipments of a type of ultralight oil called condensate that can now be sold to foreign buyers.
Cheap, plentiful natural gas should also be a boon to heavy industry and manufacturing inside the U.S., the EIA said. Manufacturers of chemicals, metals and pulp and paper products are particularly energy intensive and will benefit from America’s abundant gas supply. Low-price natural gas will also help keep electricity prices in check, which should help industries that use large quantities of power.
—Cassandra Sweet contributed to this article.
-
Methane Emissions from Oil & Gas are on the Rise, Confirm Latest EPA Data
Apr 15, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Mark Brownstein
Methane emissions from the US oil and gas sector increased, according to new data finalized today by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sadly, the figures come as no surprise, based on preliminary numbers and plenty of other observations, both scientific and anecdotal. No surprise unless you’re part of the industry’s public relations machine, which keeps insisting that up means down.
What is legitimately surprising is that this problem continues in spite of the many simple, proven and cost effective ways there are to fix it. And therein lies opportunity.
EPA’s latest inventory estimates fewer wells than in previous years, yet still concludes that in 2013, the oil and gas industry released more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere from their operations—a three percent increase over 2012—making it largest industrial source of methane pollution. That’s enough to meet the needs of 5 million households, and packs the same climate punch over the first 20 years as the CO2 emissions from more than 160 coal-fired power plants.
What’s more, new EPA figures almost are certainly an understatement. A 2014 study by Stanford University found that the agency may be systematically underestimating emissions.
The oil gas industry has been quick to tout their small victories in minimizing methane pollution, but there’s always a catch. In fact, according to EPA today, the only sector of the natural gas supply chain where emissions have decreased is the production phase. What industry is not as quick to point out is that those emissions dropped as a direct result of EPA regulations of hydraulically fractured gas wells.
Lobbyists will assure us that emissions are under control, and that voluntary efforts are sufficient to help us turn the corner on emissions. But in fact, the inventory itself shows a decline in voluntary emission reductions.
Methane is a serious challenge – responsible for approximately 25 percent of the warming we currently experience, and trapping 84 times more heat over 20 years than carbon dioxide. But it’s also a huge opportunity to make a major dent in overall greenhouse emissions, quickly and at reasonable cost. It’s time we started taking advantage.
-
Electric Co-Ops Lobby EPA's McCarthy for More Time on Clean Power Plan
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro and Emily Holden
Executives from some of the nation's leading rural electric cooperatives met with U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Monday, pressing for more time to comply with the Clean Power Plan so that billions of dollars of costs sunk into their generation fleets will not be wasted.
"Stranded costs, stranded assets and stranded debt: That's our most immediate and most significant concern," said Patrick Ledger, CEO of Arizona's G&T Cooperatives.
"Our mission was to demonstrate that some of the assumptions they've made [with regard to the Clean Power Plan] are sort of inapplicable to co-ops. And we wanted to talk about why," Ledger said.
Ledger made his remarks during an interview with E&E Publishing reporters less than an hour after he and nine other executives from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association met with McCarthy and senior counsel Joe Goffman at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Compared with utilities owned by investors, cooperatives are smaller and serve more residents than industrial users, with homes consuming about two-thirds of their electricity.
Co-ops are more dependent on coal power, and they worry that their states -- especially the ones with stringent goals -- will expect them to carry an equal share of the responsibility for reducing emissions without accounting for their more limited options for diversifying.
They say the costs of Clean Power Plan changes would be spread among fewer users, many of whom are poor. Faced with higher electricity rates, those users might stop consuming so much power -- making lifestyle changes like heating their homes less in the winter or cooling them less in the summer, said Mel Coleman, NRECA board president and CEO of the North Arkansas Electric Cooperative.Co-ops want states to chart their own 'glide path'
McCarthy, as has been reported by others involved with the plan, was mostly in listening mode during the meeting with the executives.
The challenges posed by the looming interim compliance timeline in 2020 under the proposed rule to curb carbon emissions were a chief concern.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative CEO Duane Highley. Photo courtesy of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp.
"We got the impression that we were not the first to bring this to her attention and that change was under consideration," said Duane Highley, president and CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperatives.
But, he added, "I do think there's serious limits to what she can actually do under the construct" of the proposed rule.
The NRECA delegation included Ledger, Coleman and Highley, as well as Stuart Lowry, CEO of the Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative; Edd Hargett, CEO of the East Texas Electric Cooperative; Clay Robbins, senior vice president of the Oglethorpe Power Cooperative; David Saggau, CEO of Great River Energy; Jim Compton, CEO of the South Mississippi Electric Power Association; Steve Smith, CEO of Hoosier Energy; and Lisa Johnson, CEO of the Seminole Electric Cooperative.
The NRECA goal was to persuade McCarthy and her staff of the benefits of "letting each state set its own glide path, to let states have the flexibility to implement their plans in ways that represent the different natures of their states," said Kirk Johnson, NRECA's senior vice president for government relations.
That degree of flexibility would solve a lot of the stranded asset concerns and not "burden consumers with having to pay twice for their electricity," he said. For co-ops, "this is an existential situation."
The "paying twice" theme was echoed by Highley, who explained that many co-ops such as his have paid millions of dollars for air quality controls to retrofit power plants. To ask owners of such plants to retire while the debt on those investments is still outstanding and finance new natural-gas fired plants means that co-op members would be "paying twice for the same capacity."
Moving "as little as five more years on the final compliance date does a lot, so a lot of these assets come to [the end of their] useful life within that period," Highley said. "That helps us make rational plans; it gets us closer to a business-as-usual case. And the difference between business-as-usual and these accelerated timelines is almost nothing in terms of global carbon dioxide."A 'carve-out' for co-ops
If EPA doesn't grant co-ops' wishes and allow more time for states to make carbon reductions, the executives have floated other options that they say would ease the rule's effect on their customers.
One proposal would carve out a "subcategorization" with less stringent standards for the smallest nonprofit and municipal generators, Ledger said. Cooperatives are "teeny," he said, and exempting them would have a negligible effect on the rule's overall carbon reduction goals.
Arizona's G&T Cooperatives CEO Patrick Ledger. Photo courtesy Arizona’s G&T Cooperatives.
"Instead of pushing them into bankruptcy, you give them an opportunity to participate in the rule and get some appropriate type of carbon reduction," he said.
Another option, more specific to Arizona, would recalculate EPA's Building Block 2, which assumed the state could redispatch natural gas to run at 70 percent capacity to reduce the need for coal plants.
The Arizona Utilities Group suggests changes to bring the state's emissions rate reduction requirement down from 52 percent to 34 percent between 2012 and 2030.
Ledger argued that co-ops cannot "magically redispatch to [natural gas] plants on the other side of the state without transmission," and the rule unfairly assumes they could deliver that power to their members.
He said he worries that Arizona might divide carbon-reduction responsibilities among generators without considering the special circumstances of co-ops. With a tight standard to meet, Arizona will have little discretion to lessen the blow to the smaller utilities, Ledger said.
Without a change to the rule, co-ops are "counting on altruism" and being able to "ride the coattails" of other utilities for states to meet their goals, he said. "That is a terrible position to be in."
"In a state like Arizona, where we're the smaller generator, we're nonprofit, we don't have as much money and influence ... there's at least a possibility that if the same standards are applied to us, we're not going to be able to survive," Ledger said.
Johnson said letting shareholder-owned utilities take over if that happens is like "asking the co-op utilities to sell their soul ... for expedience." While investor-owned utilities have to consider profits, co-ops are totally focused on affordability and reliability, he said.
At the end of their 30-minute EPA meeting, however, the CEOs left with some measure of hope.
"You will see some changes," Highley recalled McCarthy saying.
Sunflower's Lowry walked out more optimistic. "The thing she said at the end of the meeting was exactly what I wanted to hear her say -- which was that 'we don't want to adopt a rule that is going to negatively impact reliability or price to the customer.'"
-
Coal Company Lays Off Hundreds, Blames Obama Policies
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A major Appalachian coal mining company is laying off hundreds of workers in West Virginia and blaming the lost jobs on President Obama’s environmental policies.
Murray Energy Corp. will lay off the 214 workers at three mines in Marion and Marshall counties.
Murray said in a late Tuesday statement that the layoffs are “due to the ongoing destruction of the United States coal industry by President Barack Obama, and his supporters, by the increased utilization of natural gas to generate electricity, and by the extremely excessive coal severance tax in the state of West Virginia.”
Bob Murray, the company’s head, is an outspoken critic of Obama.
He was accused in 2012 of forcing miners to attend a rally for Mitt Romney and laid off workers after the election. He’s called the Obama administration “insane” and “regal.”
The announcement came two days before Murray will argue before a federal court in Washington, D.C., that the Obama administration’s landmark climate change regulation is illegal.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon limit for power plants has not been made final, Murray has argued in court briefs that it is already causing power utilities to switch away from coal use, and it needs to be stopped.
The EPA expects the rule to reduce coal’s market share for electricity by more than 20 percent.
The coal industry has complained that other Obama regulations have also harmed its operations, including limits on toxic air pollution and miner safety rules.
-
Texas Exposure Method Could Boost Critics Of Stricter EPA Ozone NAAQS
Apr 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Texas toxicologists have crafted an alternative method to analyzing the public's responses to ozone exposure in a bid to influence EPA's pending decision on potentially revising its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), with the state looking to bolster push-back against the agency's proposed tightening of the limit.
During a recent workshop hosted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), toxicologists with the commission said their approach is intended as an alternative to EPA's population exposure analysis, using multiple epidemiology studies to compare with a dose-response curve based on human exposure chamber studies to better understand how different groups of people respond to ozone exposure.
"This provides a tool that translates ozone human clinical data into a format that can be used by policy makers to decide on a protective level for the ozone NAAQS," says a TCEQ paper describing the analysis.
"The results shown here demonstrate that the current ozone NAAQS level of 75 [parts per billion (ppb)] is adequate to protect sensitive members of the population,” says the paper.
EPA has proposed to tighten the 75 ppb limit established in 2008 down to a level between 65 and 70 ppb in order to meet a Clean Air Act mandate that the NAAQS be set at a level requisite to protect public health within an adequate margin of safety. EPA, its science advisors, some states and environmentalists say health threats from ozone exposure, such as asthma risks, warrant a stricter standard.
However, GOP lawmakers, other states and industry oppose a tighter NAAQS due to fears it would impose massive costs, and Texas' analysis could help EPA's critics make a scientific case against changing the standard. It builds onprevious studies that state regulators have said could help undermine calls to tighten the NAAQS.
Sabine Lange, the TCEQ toxicologist leading the state's novel analysis, said of EPA's scientists, "They have the same data and have come to different conclusions about the sensitivity of asthmatics using the same data. We don't agree with that."
TCEQ's approach starts with a dose-response analysis comparing total dose of ozone against a traditional lung function endpoint: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Lange says this part of the approach "is not different from the literature."
Exposure Study
Lange and colleagues used a human exposure study for their dose-response analysis, again, a traditional approach. But these exposure studies are of athletic, healthy adults who are exposed to high levels of ozone in the study because of their ability to exercise for extended periods of time while breathing various levels of ozone, and TCEQ sought to compare this dose-response curve to studies of "real-world exposures."
"The general population wouldn't experience" the exposures that the participants in the human exposure studies did, Lange said in an April 13 interview.
TCEQ included in its analysis studies of children and asthmatics -- groups that are considered particularly susceptible to exposure to airborne pollutants. The Clean Air Act, which provides EPA's NAAQS authority, requires the agency to set a NAAQS standard that is protective of sensitive groups as well as the general population.
"The importance of this is, sensitive people can't do that" level of exercise seen in the chamber studies, said Michael Honeycutt, director of TCEQ's toxicology division in an April 13 interview. "EPA and we have demonstrated that asthmatics and people with [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] aren't any more responsive to ozone than these people" in the chamber studies.
The analysis explains that TCEQ scientists plotted data of adult asthmatics against the dose response curve of healthy adult data "and found that for both exposures, the asthmatic responses were similar to those of healthy young adults. Overall, this suggests that adult asthmatics do not demonstrate increased spirometric responses to ozone."
Further, the analysis indicates that "healthy children and asthmatics have similar FEV1 responses to ozone as healthy young adults."
Next, TCEQ used "reasonable, real-world exposure duration and ventilation rates, and combined them with actual ozone concentrations to determine whether the resultant doses would be expected to cause significant FEV1 decrements." EPA uses a 10 percent decrement in FEV1 as its benchmark to protect sensitive populations. TCEQ included studies of adults and children performing various activities.
NAAQS Level
"We found that all of these activities are associated with doses below any of the [FEV1 decrement] thresholds, regardless of which NAAQS level was used," TCEQ's paper says. "Changing the standard made very little difference in the expected dose." TCEQ included the existing ozone standard, 75 ppb, as well as two stricter alternatives, 70 ppb and 65 ppb. The agency last updated its ozone standard in 2008, when it set the 75 ppb standard, stricter than the 1997 limit expressed as 84 ppb, and recently proposed to tighten the limit again to between 65 and 70 ppb.
"We're pretty sure you're not going to see a benefit from going from 75 [ppb] to 60 [ppb]. You're in the noise," Honeycutt says. "We've shown this is going to be a very difficult standard, very expensive to meet. We've gotten all the low- and medium-hanging fruit. 60 to 65 ppb [ozone] is background in the mountain west and mid-west."
Lange and Honeycutt compared their analysis with EPA's approach, which uses a model called APEX to estimate exposures to a random sampling of people. EPA explains that APEX "stochastically generates simulated individuals using census derived probability distributions for demographic characteristics . . ." from Census data.
Lange calls EPA's model approach both complicated and opaque. "Ours is an alternative to that model . . . an analysis that people can understand," she says.
Honeycutt said they submitted the analysis to EPA's docket so EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy can consider it. To enhance its credibility, TCEQ hosted a three-day workshop on the ozone NAAQS and its analysis April 7-9 at the University of Texas at Austin, with both economic and scientific discussions. A panel of ozone experts discussed the analysis, and their recommendations will be adopted, Lange and Honeycutt said. Once the changes are complete, Lange said she will submit the paper for publication.
"We'll also write up the proceedings of the workshop and send it to [McCarthy]," Honeycutt said. "Hopefully, she'll take it to heart."
-
House Panel Takes on Science Behind Obama Carbon Pledge
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick
A House committee hearing on President Obama's international climate commitment today veered heavily into the science of warming, as panel members argued about the role of human emissions.
Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) kicked off his panel's hearing by blasting the Obama administration for seeking to accomplish internationally what he said it has done domestically -- circumventing Congress to act on climate through executive fiat.
The president doesn't have the legal tools to make good on his pledge last month that the United States will cut greenhouse gas emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025, and Congress is unlikely to grant him more, Smith said.
"He is attempting to write large checks we simply cannot cash," he said.
But in his questions to witnesses, most of whom are not experts on the United Nations' climate negotiations process, Smith focused more on the science of warming than the path to an international climate agreement.
The chairman reiterated his concern that the administration made too much of January's joint announcement by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that last year was the hottest on record (Greenwire, Jan. 16).
Judith Curry, a professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has parted ways with the vast majority of climate scientists on the degree to which human emissions are driving warming, likewise noted that most analyses show that two other years are in a "statistical tie" for hottest year.
Environmentalists and scientists note that those other candidates for hottest year are 2005 and 2010 -- and that 13 of the hottest 15 years on record have occurred since 2000. This indicates that warming is accelerating, they say.
Smith also took aim at the president's repeated assertions that human-driven warming is contributing to more frequent and severe weather events. The administration points to reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other research bodies to support that claim.
But Smith said the statements were a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. "It's regrettable that we have the political leader of our country saying statements that we have reason to believe he must know are not accurate," he said.
Democrats on the committee, meanwhile, said the science of man-made warming has long been solid. Panel ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) said Obama's target would spur innovation from the U.S. private sector. "I think the target put forward by the president is justified. It appears to strike the right balance between ambition and achievability," she said in opening remarks.
The Medieval warming period, the role of non-anthropogenic potential causes of warming and the "hiatus" in the acceleration of warming in recent years also figured in questions and testimony. All are often raised by lawmakers and others who dispute that human emissions are the major driver of warming.
While science was the hearing's major theme, the panel did weigh the domestic policies that would underlie the president's 2025 pledge that will form the core of the U.S. negotiating position when the world meets in Paris this December to hash out a climate agreement.
Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, noted that the administration has not released specifics about what policies will lead to what reductions. The document it published last month refers generally to policies under the Clean Air Act and other laws, but proposed and pending regulations do not amount to the 26 to 28 percent, she said.
"The administration's math just doesn't add up," she said.
And Harbert noted that many of those policies are in flux -- especially U.S. EPA's proposal to curb existing power plant carbon dioxide, which is not yet final and which she characterized as legally vulnerable.
Harbert said an analysis by the U.S. Chamber indicated that there might be a gap of 500 million or 600 million tons -- or more -- between reductions that will be achieved through policies the administration now has underway and the president's reductions pledge.
She and economist Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation said the administration's policies would be "all pain and no gain" for the U.S. economy, weakening the recovery and driving industry overseas in search of laxer rules and cheaper energy.
Harbert argued that last year's commitment by China to peak its emissions no later than 2030 was neither new nor spurred by promises of U.S. action. Previous analyses showed that was the likely date at which the world's largest emitter would stop growing its greenhouse gas emissions anyway, she said.
"Everything they agreed to in that agreement, they'd already put down on paper before," she said.
But Jake Schmidt, who directs the international climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that past assessments pointed to a peak date for Chinese emissions of 2040 or later. And its promise to draw at least 20 percent of its power from non-fossil sources by 2030 is also significant and additional, he said.
He said U.S. action is key to spurring other countries to do their part.
"Our actions at home show other countries that the world's largest economy is prepared to rise to the challenge to address climate change," he said.
-
Quebec Energy Minister Arcand Discusses Province's Role in EPA Power Plan
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - TV
Should international renewables be considered as part of Clean Power Plan compliance? Is the Clean Power Plan an avenue for growth for existing international collaborations on emissions reduction and trading? During today's OnPoint, Pierre Arcand, Quebec's minister for energy and natural resources, who is in Washington, D.C., for his first official visit, discusses his meetings with a wide range of U.S. government officials this week on the power plan and cross-border energy flows.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Pierre Arcand, Quebec's minister for energy and natural resources. Minister Arcand, thank you for joining me.
Pierre Arcand: It's a pleasure to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: Mr. Minister, this is your first official visit to Washington, D.C., and you're meeting with a wide range of U.S. government officials, from senior staff at the White House to the Department of Energy, the State Department Energy Bureau. With regards to your conversations on the Clean Power Plan, what are you pushing for on international renewables?
Pierre Arcand: Well, one of the things that I am saying here in the United States is, of course, we are there to help. We are partners. We are part of this what I call North American agenda on -- we are the epicenter of energy. So we are there to, of course, make sure that, in terms of working with the United States, of course, it is something that we want to work on, and basically what we're talking about is the fact that we have a huge utility that has a lot of clean, renewable sources of energy called Hydro-Quebec, and the -- we can help mainly, I would say, New York state, northeastern United States, and also we are now, within the next five years, we're going to get our natural gas that we used to get mainly from Alberta, we will get it from the United States. So it's a two-way street. I think it's -- we have to talk like good partners, and this is what I intend to do in this trip.
Monica Trauzzi: So are you seeking for a specific role for Quebec to be written into the Clean Power Plan?
Pierre Arcand: We would like. For years, you know, people have distinguished small hydro, big hydro. I always said, well, you know, big hydro is not exactly as good as small hydro. We think that now we have policies that really -- and I can challenge anybody on this to say that what we call the big hydro, the huge hydro, in terms of an environmental standpoint, is as good as a small hydro basically. So this is a kind of message also that we would like to see, of course, included in the future policies.
Monica Trauzzi: So what is the potential impact of the Clean Power Plan on Quebec's collaboration with California?
Pierre Arcand: Well, I think that one of the things that is interesting is that we all have to work on in the future to make sure that we have, I would say, climate initiatives, and of course, yesterday, for example, I was in Quebec City, and we were able now to have a new agreement with the Western Climate Initiative with California, and now Ontario and Quebec are working together on that issue. So now you have, I think, Washington state, you have Ontario, you have Quebec. You start to have a pretty good sizable amount of people who are now involved in what we call this market, this new market, and we hope that this will continue because I've been told that many states also are looking at this. So I think it's very, very positive in that regard.
Monica Trauzzi: So you think we could see more states jumping in and joining the WCI.
Pierre Arcand: Well, many people we have talked to seem to be interested. I think it's the way to go because it gives a lot of flexibility to companies. We -- it's working very well right now in the province of Quebec, and I think it will be the same in Ontario and other parts.
Monica Trauzzi: And how could Quebec's current relationship with the United States on energy serve as an example for states as they start crafting their compliance mechanisms for the Clean Power Plan?
Pierre Arcand: Well, I think that, you know, we have to live, of course, with oil for a certain period of time. We have energy policy. We work with the United States in trying to make sure that our energy policy is close to what's going on in the United States. And basically what we are doing is saying two things. First, we need to fight to make sure that, you know, we have a cleaner planet. I think that someone said, you know, there's no Plan B because there's no Planet B, so I think we need to work on that. That's very important on one hand. And second, we have to use our resources together. So we have the chance of having hydroelectricity. The United States has gas, a lot. We're working together on this. Even many years ago, we used to get our oil from the Middle East. Now most of the oil we get are from Texas. So, you know, there's certainly a good rapport that we need to have, and I think that we have all the tools in North America to work closer together.
Monica Trauzzi: So most of the hydro that you're exporting is to New England and New York. What do you see as the outlook for that relationship on hydro?
Pierre Arcand: Well, we are -- we got a presidential permit for what we call the Champlain Hudson Express. This is something that we are negotiating at this current moment. And there's also a project where we can work with Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and it's called the Northern Pass Project. This is a project that is possible. We have to work with the communities in order to make sure that this project is acceptable to communities, but these are the two main areas where I think we can join forces.
Monica Trauzzi: And you have meetings with Senators Shaheen and King about the cross-border energy flows. Is there something you're seeking specifically from Congress?
Pierre Arcand: Well, we would like Congress, of course, to support what we are doing. We think that it is very important. We feel that, you know, gas is not something bad. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions if you compare gas to fuel, for example. But at the same time, hydroelectricity is a clean, renewable resources. It's 100 percent clean. It's -- clearly we're going to be present in Paris where there's going to be this conference on climate change. We will have specific goals. So I think we all need to work together in order to achieve those goals.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it there. I thank you for your time.
Pierre Arcand: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
BLM Crafting Guidance on Social Cost of Carbon -- Internal Memo
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Phil Taylor
The Bureau of Land Management is developing comprehensive guidance on calculating the climate change impacts of mining oil, gas and coal from public lands, according to an internal memo obtained by Greenwire.
The memo, sent this month by Ed Roberson, BLM's assistant director of resources and planning, says the rapid warming of the planet is primarily caused by humans and that BLM should acknowledge this as it weighs the trade-offs of extracting more carbon-intensive minerals from the earth.
"Anthropogenic climate change is a reality," Roberson wrote in an email to BLM senior managers across the country. "Please ensure that all discussions of climate change in BLM's [National Environmental Policy Act] documents are consistent with this conclusion."
Roberson's name does not appear in the document, but the agency confirmed he was the author and that it was sent earlier this month.
The memo says BLM will be issuing "a comprehensive instruction memorandum" addressing climate change and the social cost of carbon in the next few months.
While the impact of that guidance remains unclear, environmentalists said Roberson's memo is a sign that the agency intends to take better stock of how its land management decisions affect the climate.
"This is the most authoritative statement from BLM on the reality of climate change," said Jeremy Nichols, who oversees climate and energy programs at WildEarth Guardians. "With the Obama administration putting its weight behind climate action, leasing more coal and oil and gas is definitely a liability."
A BLM official today said the memo is consistent with new draft guidance issued last December by the White House Council on Environmental Quality that addressed how federal agencies should consider greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change when conducting NEPA reviews (E&ENews PM, Dec. 18, 2014).
"That guidance emphasizes that agency analyses should be commensurate with projected greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts and should employ appropriate qualitative and quantitative analytical methods to ensure useful information is available to the public and the decisionmaking process," the BLM official said.
The memo comes one month after an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress found that the burning of oil, gas and coal from public lands and waters accounts for more than one-fifth of domestic greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, March 19). BLM manages roughly 250 million acres of public lands and is in charge of deciding which publicly owned minerals are leased to private industry and at what cost.
Roberson's memo may be a response to a decision last September by a federal district judge in Colorado that faulted BLM for failing to account for greenhouse gas emissions when it approved an Arch Coal Inc. mine expansion in a roadless area of the Gunnison National Forest (Greenwire, Sept. 17, 2014).
Environmentalists said that ruling will force BLM and the Forest Service to pay more attention to climate concerns when reviewing coal lease decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Roberson's memo seems to acknowledge the need for a consistent approach to gauging mining's impacts on the climate.
In particular, it promises national guidance on how to use a controversial Obama administration tool known as the social cost of carbon (SCC).
The SCC, which the Obama administration first developed in 2010, seeks to estimate the incremental cost of releasing a ton of man-made carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when it comes to property damage, health care costs, lost agricultural output and other factors. The administration sparked a controversy in 2013 when it increased its SCC estimate to $38 per metric ton, up from a 2010 estimate that would have set it at $24.
While it is not a rule itself, the SCC has figured in numerous rulemakings, including U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan for existing power plants. Opponents of SCC, namely congressional Republicans, have argued that the administration uses the figure to justify the cost of its rules and claim it is the product of a flawed and nontransparent process.
In the Colorado coal leasing case, Judge R. Brooke Jackson said regulators had to at least explain why they were opting against using the SCC calculation.
According to Roberson's memo, some BLM field offices have included estimates of the SCC in project-level NEPA documents.
"We are working on additional guidance for the field," he said.
But until then, if BLM field managers want to include the SCC in NEPA decisions, they are to contact BLM's headquarters in Washington, D.C., "for technical assistance," Roberson wrote.
Nichols, of WildEarth Guardians, said BLM field offices have inconsistently accounted for climate change in their land management decisions. For example, BLM's Idaho office included a SCC for oil and gas leasing, finding in its environment assessment that burning those minerals would result in $3.7 million annually in carbon costs. But other BLM offices appear to be dismissing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from public lands, he said.
According to Roberson's memo, BLM in August 2014 sent an email to state directors with informal interim guidance on treatment of climate change and the social cost of carbon. That email has not been made public.
BLM in 2011 also circulated draft direction to the field on the use of quantitative greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration estimates and qualitative discussions of climate change impacts in NEPA documents. Roberson's memo indicates that that direction remains in effect.
Last month, former Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes and former White House Council of Economic Advisers member James Stock penned an op-ed in The New York Times calling on the Obama administration to boost its scrutiny of federal coal leases, plus add the social cost of burning coal to the price of allowing mining companies to extract the fuel from public land.
Reporters Manuel Quiñones and Jean Chemnick contributed.
-
House Panel Approves $35B Energy, Water Spending Bill
Apr 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Energy and Water appropriators easily passed their $35.4 billion funding bill on Wednesday.
The bill spends $1.2 billion more in 2016 than the current fiscal year, $633 million less than President Obama requested in his budget.It contains a handful of riders — on gun policies and restrictions to Clean Water Act standards — that ranking Democrat Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) called “unnecessarily and controversial," but subcommittee members were generally congenial and congratulatory on Wednesday nonetheless.
The bill, which passed unanimously, is the first 2016 spending measure to go to the full appropriations committee.
Despite the bill's easy passage Wednesday, subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) acknowledged that Congress and the White House could still spar over amendments as the legislative process continues.
In the past, GOP efforts to attach provisions about EPA greenhouse gas standards to energy and water funding bills have drawn Democrats' ire.
"I don't know where it will come, but it will come, whether it's on Interior, or the EPA or on this bill," Simpson said. "People are going to offer amendments, and they're either passed or not passed, and then the administration has to do what the administration's going to do."
The underlying bill increases funding for nuclear weapons security programs, the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy programs and scientific research, among other things. It cuts funding for renewable energy programs by $279 million while increasing funding for research into fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The bill, Simpson said, would "refocus the portfolio on the energy that we actually use." -
House Panel Advances Bill to Kill Obama Water Rule
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider and Ariel Wittenberg
After vigorous debate, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee cleared legislation this morning that would deal a death blow to the Obama administration's controversial water proposal.
On a nearly party-line vote of 36-22, the committee advanced a slightly amended version of H.R. 1732, from Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio). The measure would give U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 30 days to withdraw their "Waters of the United States" rule and three months to then consult with state and local officials on how to deal with the long-running confusion over which wetlands and streams fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Two Democrats -- Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York and Cheri Bustos of Illinois -- voted with Republicans for the measure.
"This is scaring the hell out of people, this rule that's coming down," Shuster said. "I think we need to move forward with this and show this administration that this is not positive. There is a tremendous amount of opposition out in the real world, and we need to listen to people who have to deal with this day in and day out."
The committee considered two Democratic amendments.
The first, from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), would have exempted from the bill waters that feed into public drinking-water supplies. It was aimed at drawing attention to the statistic often cited by supporters of the rule that 1 in 3 Americans gets his or her drinking water from systems that are fed by the intermittent and ephemeral streams at issue in the rule.
But Gibbs argued that the amendment would make the bill "irrelevant," and the move failed on a vote of 33-23 in opposition.
A second amendment, from Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), adding language to the measure supporting states' authority over water rights, was supported by Republicans and passed on a voice vote. Shuster said he believed it strengthened the bill.
Huffman, who is the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee, offered the amendment to draw attention to what he argues is an inconsistency between Republicans' support for states' rights and California drought legislation passed out of the GOP-controlled House in recent years that the state has opposed.
Huffman and other Northern California Democrats have complained that they have been shut out of negotiations between House Republicans and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) over drought legislation that could amend Endangered Species Act restrictions in favor of pumping more water to Central Valley farmers and Southern California communities.Bill's future uncertain
The overarching legislation is backed by some of the chief opponents of the Obama administration rule, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Counties, and is opposed by sportsmen's and environmental groups that support the rule.
It could be taken up on the House floor soon, and is expected to easily pass. A similar measure was approved by the House by a vote of 262-152 last year with the support of 35 Democrats.
Moving a stand-alone bill to block the rule through the Senate and to a presidential signature is still an unlikely prospect, though. Opponents in the upper chamber aren't sure they have the 60 votes necessary to prevent a filibuster and are still far from having the two-thirds majority needed to override an all-but-certain presidential veto.
Even as they continue to look for opportunities to kill the water rule outright, congressional opponents are moving forward with efforts to block the rule through the appropriations process. The House energy and water development spending bill, which funds the Army Corps of Engineers, was introduced yesterday with a policy rider to block funding for implementing the rule in fiscal 2016.
That measure was advanced to the full committee this morning, and House Republican leadership has said it will hit the floor in the coming weeks.
Also approved during today's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup wasH.R. 944, from Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), to reauthorize EPA's National Estuary Program at $27 million a year through fiscal 2020. That's an $8 million cut from current levels.
The bipartisan measure was approved on a voice vote.
-
EPA's Top Water Official Sees CWA Jurisdiction Rule, Utility ELG As Priorities
Apr 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Ken Kopocis, de facto head of EPA's Office of Water (OW), says his policy priorities in the coming months include finalizing the agency's controversial rule to define Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction and meeting a court-ordered deadline to issue power plant effluent standards, as well as steps to tackle algal blooms and stormwater.
But the priorities could face push-back from Congress, some states and industry groups -- particularly the rule to define the scope of the water law, which has prompted criticism that it would expand the CWA's scope beyond what lawmakers originally intended. GOP House and Senate members are expected to try to use EPA's upcoming fiscal year 2016 appropriations legislation as a vehicle to attach riders to block agency policies they oppose.
Nevertheless, Kopocis' planned agenda that he outlined in an exclusive, wide-ranging March 31 interview withInside EPA, signals EPA's intent to push ahead with several significant OW rulemakings.
For example, the agency April 6 sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication reviewthe final version of its CWA jurisdiction rule. Kopocis said the rule is his "highest priority."
OMB's website says the final rule is planned for release sometime this month and EPA's "Rulemaking Gateway" of pending regulations says the rule is slated for issuance in April. Agency officials have also suggested a potentially later date of issuing the rule sometime during spring, and Kopocis echoed the later timeline in the interview. "I still think spring is the best way to characterize" the time frame for a final rule, he said.
Kopocis said the heightened scrutiny from Congress on the rule shows the urgent need for the agency to issue a final version of the rule to provide long-sought clarity on CWA jurisdiction. "Everybody's looking for us to do a better job as to what are and are not [covered] under the Clean Water Act."
Kopocis also reiterated previous agency statements indicating EPA is on pace to issue its effluent limitation guideline (ELG) for power plants, saying, "we're on track to do that," and "it's very important to adequately address those discharges" because the sector contributes a significant amount of pollution.
EPA's ELG proposal would update the 1982 effluent guideline for the power sector to include liquid discharges that have become more toxic in recent years as plants are installing equipment, such as scrubbers, to meet new air regulations including the agency's utility maximum achievable control technology air toxics rule. EPA and environmentalists agreed to a consent decree giving the agency until Sept. 30, 2015, to issue the final effluent rule.
Kopocis said the agency is also hoping to have its health advisory to assist drinking water utilities in protecting customers from the toxins that can be produced from nutrient-fueled harmful algal blooms.
Senate Republicans are pushing to quickly approve a bipartisan bill that would require EPA to quickly develop a strategy for managing the risks of cyanotoxins in drinking water. EPA has not taken a position on the legislation, but Kopocis said of the advisory, "we hope to have that out before summer -- relatively soon."
Addressing cyanotoxins in drinking water has taken on a heightened urgency in both the administration and Congress after high levels of cyanotoxins in Lake Erie prompted Toledo, OH, officials last year to issue a drinking water advisory that left 500,000 residents without clean drinking water for three days.
Peter Grevatt, director of OW's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, has previously stressed the need to address the issue before algal bloom season begins in Lake Erie and elsewhere. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and other officials have also emphasized the issue extends far beyond the Lake Erie region.
Stormwater Runoff
During the interview, Kopocis also pointed to EPA's continuing efforts to address pollution from stormwater runoff, noting states are continuing to list waterbodies as impaired under the CWA section 303(d) from stormwater, and that the agency "wants to work with states within existing programs" to address the issue.
Industry has argued that EPA and states lack the ability to control the volume of stormwater flow through CWA permits, and the industry source says retention mandates, like those crafted by Washington, D.C. in its novel trading program, could be too similar to such "flow" controls to survive a court challenge.
The agency's power to directly regulate "flow" through discharge permits has been seen as defunct since a 2013 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Virginia in Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. EPA. There, the court held that the agency could not regulate stormwater flow in the Accotink River through a total maximum daily load, because the CWA only allows regulation of "pollutants."
VDOT was never appealed, but EPA has since amended a controversial 2010 memorandum on stormwater to remove references to flow regulation, focusing instead on management practices -- including stormwater retention. However, the agency has also indefinitely shelved a planned rule that would have imposed national retention mandates for newly constructed facilities.
Kopocis did, however, tout the benefits D.C.'s program as a model to spur stormwater retention retrofits of already-developed properties, although industry and state sources say more widespread adoption of the policy is far off and that it could face legal challenges.
Kopocis listed Washington, D.C., alongside Philadelphia as models of incorporating "green infrastructure" technologies for runoff retention into their stormwater control plans. Since 2012, Philadelphia has used fees and regulatory incentives to spur property owners to incorporate green infrastructure into new and existing facilities, and EPA has often held up the city's program as a model for other jurisdictions.
"We've seen real growth and interest in combining gray" or traditional storm sewers with so-called green infrastructure, techniques to retain stormwater after rainfall, such as green roofs, bioswails, permeable pavements and retention ponds, Kopocis said.
While administration officials and others have touted green infrastructure as an important and less costly means of controlling stormwater runoff than "gray" options, Kopocis said the agency recognizes it is "not the sole answer to stormwater, but that there "are a lot of really positive aspects."
The "co-benefits" of opting for green infrastructure techniques include more open spaces, greater community attractiveness and less costly operation and maintenance costs in some cases, he said.
Nutrient Pollution
In addition to the specific policy initiatives that Kopocis outlined, he said OW is continuing to work "really hard" with states to find ways to curb nutrient pollution -- over which EPA has little CWA authority -- including looking at how nutrient runoff "intersects with point sources" under the water law.
OW is also working with utilities in particular on climate change resiliency, including its recently unveiled Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT), a software tool to assist drinking water and wastewater utility owners and operators in understanding potential climate change threats and assessing risks at their facilities.
Following the interview, Inside EPA by email asked Kopocis about the agency's long term infrastructure spending plans for balancing the state revolving funds (SRF) with its novel Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) pilot program to fund infrastructure projects. In an April 7 email, an agency spokesman says the agency in fiscal year 2016 is proposing to increase water infrastructure investments.
Those resource requests include $2.3 billion for the SRFs: $1.186 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $1.116 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which EPA says will result in more than 1,000 projects and creation of between 30,000 and 64,000 jobs.
"The budget supports the higher documented needs for drinking water infrastructure, the greater needs for smaller communities, and its significantly smaller share of assistance compared to the Clean Water SRF," the spokesman says. Additionally, the agency is requesting $39 million to build local utilities' capacity, $7 million for the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center and $5 million related to WIFIA.
-
House Democrats Introduce Crude-By-Rail Bill
Apr 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Kathryn A. Wolfe
Five House Democrats are out today with a bill intended to improve the safety of oil transported by rail, essentially a companion bill to a measure introduced in the Senate last month.
The bill — by Reps. Jim McDermott, Doris Matsui, Ron Kind, Nita Lowey and Mike Thompson — would phase out DOT-111 tank cars, create stronger standards for tank cars in use, and establish a new standard for volatility of crude oil being transported by rail.
The bill would require the Transportation Department to create an interim volatility standard based on vapor pressure, pending a study on how best to measure crude volatility. Once the study is completed, the bill would require the agency to issue a final volatility rule within 90 days.
It also would require DOT to immediately prohibit use of DOT-111 and unjacketed CPC-1232 cars for transporting oil, and phase out the same two types of cars for carrying ethanol within two years.
Read a section-by-section of the bill here.
The bill is similar to one by Sens. Maria Cantwell, Tammy Baldwin and Dianne Feinstein.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested