Preview Newsletter
ACC AM ap 16
-
(ACC Mentioned) What Types of Companies Are in the Automotive Sector Besides Auto Manufacturers?
Apr 16, 2015 | Investopedia
A:The automotive sector includes several types of companies besides auto manufacturers. Some of these companies focus on the component parts that go into cars and trucks. Other companies are responsible for vehicle sales, rentals or repairs.Three kinds of companies manufacture parts used in automotive manufacturing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Big Movers: The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG), SFX Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ:SFXE), Synaptics Inc. (NASDAQ:SYNA), Hansen Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNSN), Highway Holdings (NASDAQ:HIHO)
Apr 15, 2015 | Stock Transcript
By Shawn Miller
The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) belongs to Consumer Goods sector. Its net profit margin is 11.50% and weekly performance is 1.47%. On last trading day company shares ended up $83.60. The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) distance from 50-day simple moving average (SMA50) is -0.57%. On 13 April, The Procter & Gamble ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Investors Alert: The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG), Kayne Anderson Energy Developme (NYSE:KED), Mattel (NASDAQ:MAT), Netlist Inc. (NASDAQ:NLST), The Macerich (NYSE:MAC)
Apr 15, 2015 | Property Mentor Group
By John Beal
On Tuesday shares of The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) closed at $83.60. Company’s sales growth for last 5 years was 1.60% and EPS growth for next 5 years is recorded as 6.40%. The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) has joined the Flexible Film Recycling Group, an American Chemistry Council project that aims to drive recovery of ... -
Democrats Say Republican Bills Would Hamper Effective Rulemaking
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voiced strong opposition to two bills that were ultimately approved by the Republican majority on the panel that would make it harder for federal regulations to take effect. Both pieces of legislation (H.R. 427, H.R. 1759) passed in the House in the 113th session of Congress. Neither bill has been taken... -
Committee Approves Bills To Keep Check On Federal Rules
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
The House Judiciary Committee marked up legislation today that would tamp down on federal regulations. On a 15-10 vote, the panel passed H.R. 427, the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," or REINS Act. The bill would require federal agencies to win approval from Congress for major regulations that could have an... -
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Eye Fixes For House TSCA Bill As Gap Widens On Senate Bid
Apr 15, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA, advocates and other stakeholders are suggesting fixes for a House Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) draft bill on a host of issues -- including funding for the measure -- that observers say could be surmountable and help to ensure the bill's approval, while a gap widens between groups over two divisive Senate TSCA reform bills. -
(ACC Mentioned) Another View: Foam Insulation Doesn’t Get a Free Pass From Safety Law
Apr 16, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By Meredith William
California has long been a leader in both energy efficiency and public health protection. But a recent column by a senior director of the American Chemistry Council, the nation’s largest chemical industry trade association, would have your readers believe that we have to choose between the two (“‘Green chemistry’ is hampering goals on... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC's Dooley Remains Confident On US Shale Advantage and TSCA Reform Prospects
Apr 15, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Rebecca Coons
The US chemical industry is poised to capitalize on the increased supply of energy and feedstocks that will allow it to reestablish itself as a leading global supplier, ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley told attendees of ACC’s Responsible Care conference, currently underway in Miami. This investment boom also gives the chemical industry an opportunity... -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Expresses Support For House TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 15, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
Industry groups welcomed House draft legislation aimed at reforming US chemical management, with both ACC and Socma testifying on 14 April before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy in support of the bipartisan discussion draft of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015. “The discussion draft... -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform: House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on TSCA Modernization Act
Apr 15, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
On April 14, 2015, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy held a hearing on the discussion draft of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (TMA DD) introduced by Subcommittee Chair John Shimkus (R-IL) on April 7, 2015. As noted in our April 9, 2015, memorandum, "Shimkus Releases Discussion Draft of ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Responsible Care Conference
Apr 15, 2015 | ZDNet
Since 1988, Responsible Care has helped American Chemistry Council (ACC) member companies significantly enhance their performance, discover new business opportunities, and improve employee safety, the health of the communities in which they operate and the environment as a whole, moving us toward a safer, more sustainable future. -
List of Chemicals to Be Evaluated Under IRIS Expected by Summer, Draft Handbook Later
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A list of chemicals that will have their health effects analyzed through the Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program should be released before summer, Vincent Cogliano, director of that program, told Bloomberg BNA April 15. -
EPA's Benzo[a]pyrene Analysis Could Impact Air Toxics Rules, Hazardous Waste Cleanups
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency's air office will use risk values, health effects conclusions and other information in a toxicological review of benzo[a]pyrene to make at least a dozen decisions, an agency toxicologist said April 15. Ines Pagan, a toxicologist working on air toxics in the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, briefly summarized reasons the air office is interested in the benzo[a]pyrene assessment that is being... -
Bill to Phase Out Toxic Chemicals In Children's Products Offered in New York
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Legislation has been introduced in New York with bipartisan support to identify and phase out the use of certain toxic chemicals in children's products by Jan. 1, 2018 (S. 4102, A. 5612). The bill, known as the Child Safe Products Act, is on the floor in the state Assembly and in the Environmental Conservation Committee of the Senate. -
What Would It Take for the EPA to Test Every Major Chemical for Safety?
Apr 15, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
As the Congressional debate over how to fix the failed Toxic Substances Control Act heats up, we have to ask: What would it take for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess the safety of every major chemical on the market? If the market froze today and makers of consumer goods stuck to their present formulations, the agency... -
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. 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 ... -
Electronics: Growth and Compliance
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The global consumer electronics market is expected to grow at around 6.7% during 2014-18, according to a report by business consulting service firm, RNCOS. Thanks to the fast pace of technological development and a growing global middle class, the sector is set for steady expansion. Growth at this scale, however, is likely to mean that more ... -
Green Chemistry: the Role of EU Regulation
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Tatiana Santos
Exposure to synthetic chemical substances is an increasing global problem. Chemical production is growing faster than gross domestic product (GDP) and population. Production levels of chemicals have increased from one tonne in the 1930s to well over 500 million tonnes today. This production trend is a problem because the toxicity levels... -
Criminal Charges Could Follow Former CSB Chairman's Congressional Testimony
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Former Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso could face criminal charges related to his testimony before a congressional oversight panel, a government investigator said April 14. The Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General has told the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of... -
Murkowski, Mccain, Corker Pen Op-Ed On Ending Crude Export Ban
Apr 15, 2015 | Politico
Sens. Lisa Murkowski, John McCain and Bob Corker have written an op-ed calling for an end to the country's ban on crude oil exports. The three argue that exporting oil to allies could help those countries that are now relying on "incredibly unappealing sources for oil." The senators point to the European Union's Russian imports... -
GOP Criticizes Obama’s ‘Restrictive’ Offshore Drilling Plan
Apr 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans chastised the Obama administration Wednesday for putting forth a “restrictive” plan for offshore oil and natural gas drilling. Republicans in the House Natural Resources Committee’s subcommittee on energy and mineral resources said the 2017-2022 plan would have the lowest number of sales since the 1980s while taking... -
BOEM Director Takes 2nd Round of GOP Heat on Leasing Plan
Apr 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Abigail Hopper yesterday faced a fresh round of Republican criticism over the Obama administration's proposal to expand offshore leasing opportunities in federal waters. Hopper testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources about BOEM's plan... -
Denton City Council in Texas Votes To Extend Moratorium on Gas Well Drilling
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Denton City Council voted unanimously April 14 to extend the moratorium on gas well drilling in the Denton, Texas, city limits while it monitors two bills in the state legislature that could curb local government ability to regulate the oil and gas industry. “Given the current state of debate in the Texas Legislature, we felt it prudent to... -
Wyoming Increases Setback Distance To 500 Feet for Drilling Oil, Gas Wells
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wyoming has increased its minimum distance requirement between oil and natural gas wells and homes to 500 feet (Chapters 1, 3 and 4). The five-member Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, chaired by Gov. Matt Mead (R), voted unanimously April 14 to increase the setback requirement for drilling wells and other oil and gas ... -
Natural Gas Dominates U.S. Energy Projections
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
Growth in its domestic production will cause natural gas to replace naphtha feedstocks in coming decades while sparking significant expansion of bulk chemical manufacturing, the Department of Energy predicts in its annual outlook report. Consumption of natural gas and hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGLs) is expected to increase by more... -
Minnesota Judge Recommends PUC Grant Certificate of Need for Proposed Oil Pipeline
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
An administrative law judge in Minnesota recommended April 13 that the state public utilities commission grant a certificate of need to Enbridge Energy for its proposed 616-mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from North Dakota to terminals in both Minnesota and Wisconsin (In the Matter of the Application of North Dakota Pipeline Company... -
Greens, Oil And Gas Industry Spar Over What EPA's Inventory Means For Regulation
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The greenhouse gas inventory U.S. EPA finalized today showed that oil-and-gas-sector methane emissions increased between 2012 and 2013, and that the sector remained the largest industrial source of methane. Natural gas systems specifically were estimated to produce 37.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, up from 34.8 MMT of CO2... -
Clean Power Plan Deadlines May Discourage Adoption of Trading Programs, States Say
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Tight deadlines for states to submit compliance plans and meet interim greenhouse gas reduction targets would make it difficult to set up an interstate emissions trading program to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, state environmental regulators said April 15. -
Senate OKs Nonbinding Budget Language Calling For Action On Climate, Security
Apr 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
The Senate yesterday evening approved language that would call on its budget conferees to address the causes and effects of climate change when negotiating the fiscal 2016 budget resolution. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) introduced the language, which was approved on a voice vote. The motion asked Senate members of the fiscal 2016... -
Power Grids in U.S. See Smooth Transition To New EPA Rules, Coal-to-Gas Generation
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan N. Crawford
PJM Interconnection LLC expects a smooth transition to natural gas from coal at its mid-Atlantic electricity network as new clean-air rules take effect. The Environmental Protection Agency's $9.6 billion mercury and air toxics standards, or MATS, scheduled to kick in April 16, will limit emissions of mercury and other toxics. -
House Panel Advances Coal Ash Bill Allowing States Flexibility in Regulating Material
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced legislation April 15 that would give states more leeway on how to regulate coal ash and that would permanently bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating the material as a hazardous waste. The Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act (H.R. 1734), sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), passed on a 32-19 vote. Two Democrats—Reps. Mike Doyle (Pa.) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.)... -
House Coal Ash Bill Clears Energy Panel With 'Compromise' Input From EPA
Apr 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House legislation to overhaul parts of EPA's coal ash disposal rule cleared the energy panel April 15 after lawmakers backing the ball said they amended it to include “compromises” based on the agency's request for changes to the bill, including more-stringent reporting requirements and mandates for corrective actions in the event of ash facility leaks. -
Chamber, Other Groups Dispute U.S. Ability To Make Good on 2025 Emissions Pledge
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce representative and other critics of President Barack Obama's climate agenda told a House panel they're skeptical the U.S. can make good on its pledge to cut greenhouse gases up to 28 percent over the next decade. “The math just doesn't add up,” Karen Harbert, who heads the chamber's Institute for 21st ... -
U.S. Financial Regulation of Climate Change Lacking, Former Government Officials Say
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Financial regulation of climate change is one area where the U.S. government needs to do more, a former White House official told Bloomberg BNA. “For all of the tremendous leadership shown by the Obama administration on climate in various fields, certainly the financial regulation piece is one that needs more focus and where the voice... -
Bill Introduced to Address Crude-by-Rail Security
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill introduced April 14 by Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) would require federal transportation offices to address certain security issues and model requirements for tank cars transporting crude oil. The bill, H.R. 1763, would require the Transportation Security Administration to issue rules within one year of the bill's enactment to ensure... -
Bill Would Set Minimum-Crew Freight Train Standard
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) would require all freight trains to use two-person crews, a standard similar to one the Federal Railroad Administration is expected to propose following a significant crude oil train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Young's bill, (H.R. 1763) would also apply to any “light engine used in ...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) What Types of Companies Are in the Automotive Sector Besides Auto Manufacturers?
Apr 16, 2015 | Investopedia
A:The automotive sector includes several types of companies besides auto manufacturers. Some of these companies focus on the component parts that go into cars and trucks. Other companies are responsible for vehicle sales, rentals or repairs.
Three kinds of companies manufacture parts used in automotive manufacturing. Although auto makers produce some of their own parts, they also buy auto parts from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). These OEMs put together items such as seats and door handles. Companies in the rubber fabrication business, on the other hand, specialize in items such as tires, belts, hoses, wiper blades and seals. About 75% of the world's natural rubber production goes into making tires.
Companies in the third area, replacement parts, produce and distribute aftermarket replacement components such as parking lights, brakes, clutches, air filters and oil filters. The manufactured parts are distributed through parts wholesalers, parts stores such as Pep Boys and AutoZone, online auto parts warehouses, car dealerships and auto repair shops. Many smaller auto repair shops also run gas stations on their premises to service the fuel needs of auto customers.
OEMs, replacement parts makers and auto manufacturers, in turn, obtain materials from manufacturers of stainless steel, glass, and increasingly, lighter-weight aluminum and plastic. According to the American Chemical Council, plastic comprises about 50% of the construction of a new car. Items made out of plastic include door handles, dashboards, seat belts, air conditioner vents and some engine parts.
The advent of electric cars has given rise to new types of car components. These include electric motors, lithium batteries, chargers and controllers, a type of mechanism that serves as a floodgate between the motor and the batteries. The electric car components are used by auto manufacturers as well as by a smattering of consumer enthusiasts who are converting their existing vehicles to run on electricity. Electric car components are distributed through specialists such as EV West.
New and used vehicles are sold at retail through car dealerships. Dealerships also help consumers obtain auto loans ]through financial institutions. Dealers typically accept trade-ins of preowned vehicles toward the purchase of new cars. Like auto repair shops, dealerships also diagnose and fix mechanical problems, perform emissions inspections, do body work and conduct routine maintenance services. When vehicles have been damaged in accidents, mechanical repairs and body work are often covered by auto insurance firms.
Rental car agencies buy fleets of vehicles from auto manufacturers at discount and then rent or lease the cars and trucks to consumers and businesses. Sometimes, they make arrangements to return the vehicles to manufacturers after a specified time period, although this practice has become less frequent in light of the more-careful market planning that has accompanied auto industry recovery since the financial crisis.
Traditionally, the vehicles bought back by auto manufacturers are then resold through used car dealerships. Alternatively, they are recycled through wholesale car auctions. When a vehicle reaches the end of its life cycle, its components are sometimes resold by used parts suppliers.
-
Apr 15, 2015 | Stock Transcript
By Shawn Miller
The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) belongs to Consumer Goods sector. Its net profit margin is 11.50% and weekly performance is 1.47%. On last trading day company shares ended up $83.60. The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) distance from 50-day simple moving average (SMA50) is -0.57%. On 13 April, The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) has joined the Flexible Film Recycling Group in an effort to further the recycling of flexible plastic wraps and bags, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
SFX Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ:SFXE) shares advanced 7.49% in last trading session and ended the day at $4.45. SFXE Gross Margin is 25.40% and its return on assets is -27.40%. SFX Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ:SFXE) quarterly performance is 7.75%. Equities researchers at Jefferies Group dropped their price target on shares of SFX Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ:SFXE) from $9.00 to $7.00 in a research report issued on Monday. The firm currently has a “buy” rating on the stock. Jefferies Group’s target price would indicate a potential upside of 67.46% from the company’s previous close.
On 14 April, Synaptics Inc. (NASDAQ:SYNA) shares advanced 0.79% and was closed at $88.23. SYNA EPS growth in last 5 year was -1.40%. Synaptics Inc. (NASDAQ:SYNA) year to date (YTD) performance is 28.17%. Synaptics Inc. (NASDAQ:SYNA) announced that it will report financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2015 on Thursday, April 23, 2015, after the close of market.
Hansen Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNSN) ended the last trading day at $0.84. Company weekly volatility is calculated as 5.87% and price to cash ratio as 4.25. Hansen Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNSN) showed a weekly performance of 3.70%. Hansen Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNSN) announced the Company’s Magellan(TM) 10Fr Robotic Catheter has received European Conformity (CE) Marking for use in the peripheral vasculature. Achieving this milestone allows the company to market the Magellan 10Fr Robotic Catheter in Europe and other countries that require the CE Mark.
Highway Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:HIHO) shares fell -3.34% in last trading session and ended the day at $3.18. HIHO Gross Margin is 24.70% and its return on assets is 5.60%. Highway Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:HIHO) quarterly performance is 4.95% Highway Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:HIHO) announced its board of directors has declared a cash dividend of $0.10 per share on the Company’s common stock. The dividend will be paid on April 16, 2015 to shareholders of record on March 9, 2015.
-
Apr 15, 2015 | Property Mentor Group
By John Beal
On Tuesday shares of The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) closed at $83.60. Company’s sales growth for last 5 years was 1.60% and EPS growth for next 5 years is recorded as 6.40%. The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) has joined the Flexible Film Recycling Group, an American Chemistry Council project that aims to drive recovery of flexible polyethylene (PE) film, wraps and bags.
Kayne Anderson Energy Developme (NYSE:KED) in last trading activity increased 6.24% to close at $30.82. Company weekly performance is 3.84% while its quarterly performance stands at -3.54%. Kayne Anderson Energy Developme (NYSE:KED) is -18.69% away from its 52 week high. Kayne Anderson Energy Developme (NYSE:KED) announced a cash dividend, payment of $0.53 per share is scheduled to be paid on April 24, 2015. Shareholders who purchased KED prior to the ex-dividend date are eligible for the cash dividend payment. This represents an 0.95% increase over the prior quarter. At the current stock price of $29.01, the dividend yield is 7.31%.
On last trading day Mattel, Inc. (NASDAQ:MAT) increased 1.03% to close at $24.56. Its volatility for the week is 2.04% while volatility for the month is 2.40%. MAT’s sales growth for past 5 years was 2.10% and its EPS growth for past 5 years was 0.00%. Mattel, Inc. (NASDAQ:MAT) monthly performance is -1.92%. Mattel, Inc. (NASDAQ:MAT) said that, it features those cars at the Star Wars Celebration in Anaheim, from April 16 to 19, as well as a special limited character car, known as R2-KT, that will only be sold as a fundraising item at the biggest gathering of “Star Wars” fans.
Netlist Inc. (NASDAQ:NLST) has 15.22% insider ownership while its institutional ownership stands at 9.70%. In last trading activity company’s stock closed at $0.60. Netlist Inc. (NASDAQ:NLST)said that, it has enhanced its NVAult product portfolio with the release of its EXPRESSvault EV3 PCI Express 3.0 non-volatile RAM.
On last trading day The Macerich Company (NYSE:MAC) moved down -0.96% to close at $81.12. Its volatility for the week is 2.42% while volatility for the month is 2.56%. MAC’s sales growth for past 5 years was 6.90% and its EPS growth for past 5 years was 39.80%. The Macerich Company (NYSE:MAC) monthly performance is -14.06%. Research analysts at Goldman Sachs started coverage on shares of The Macerich Company (NYSE:MAC) in a report released on Monday. The firm set a “neutral” rating on the stock.
-
Democrats Say Republican Bills Would Hamper Effective Rulemaking
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voiced strong opposition to two bills that were ultimately approved by the Republican majority on the panel that would make it harder for federal regulations to take effect.
Both pieces of legislation (H.R. 427, H.R. 1759) passed in the House in the 113th session of Congress. Neither bill has been taken up by the Senate. And both have received veto threats in the past from President Barack Obama.
Still, with Republicans now in control of both chambers of Congress, longtime supporters are hopeful that the legislation can advance further this year.
REINS Act Approved
First, the committee approved by a party-line vote of 15-10 an amended bill (H.R. 427) that would require Congress to vote on major regulations before they could take effect. The Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.), would prevent any major rule—defined as a one with an economic impact of $100 million or more—from taking effect without the approval of Congress.
“The REINS Act is one of the simplest, clearest and most powerful measures we can adopt to achieve better accountability and cost-effectiveness in federal regulation,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
Inaction Means Death
Katie Weatherford, a regulatory policy analyst at the Center for Effective Government, said the bill would require that Congress approve major rules within 70 legislative days. If both chambers fail to meet the deadline, the rules in question would be tabled, essentially killing them, she said.
Taking congressional gridlock into account, it is unlikely that both the House and the Senate would find time to approve major rules, Weatherford said in January, after the bill was introduced.
During markup of the bill, numerous amendments offered by Democrats to exempt specific categories of regulations from the bill were defeated.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the committee, said his amendment to the “ill-conceived” bill would exempt all regulations that protect public health and safety.
“Unfortunately, the REINS Act would delay, and worse yet, possibly stop major rules from going into effect, including those that are needed to protect public health and safety,” Conyers said.
Constitutional Prerogative
“Once again, there is no reason to shield any given set of regulations from the congressional accountability protections the REINS Act provides,” Goodlatte said.
The bill doesn't prevent federal agencies from taking action in the public interest or promulgating regulations, Goodlatte said. “It merely gives Congress the chance to fulfill its constitutional role before the regulation becomes law,” he said.
The Constitution provides that all legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress, which isn't a legal formality, Goodlatte said. It is a rule that provides substantive protections and ensures that major decisions affecting the public are made by an entity directly accountable to the public, he said.
“That does not happen when un-elected agency officials are making the decisions,” Goodlatte said. The more important the rule, the more important it is that Congress and not an agency impose it, he said.
The REINS Act would provide a vital check on “bad agency decision making” and that check should not be eroded, Goodlatte said.
ALERT Act Approved
Next, the committee approved by a party-line vote of 14-9 just-introduced legislation (H.R. 1759) that would require information about upcoming regulations to be posted publicly for at least six months before a rule could take effect.
The All Economic Regulations are Transparent (ALERT) Act was last passed by the House in February 2014 as part of a broader regulatory reform package.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), would require federal agencies to submit monthly updates to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on each rule they expect to propose and release in the upcoming year. OIRA would then have to make that information publicly available.
The updates would have to include a summary, the objective of each rule and its legal basis. The updates also would have to include a schedule for completing the rulemaking, a cost estimate of the rule and the economic effects considered, including jobs. Lastly, a rule would have to be noticed for a least six months before it could become effective.
“If explaining the regulations to the American people is too difficult, that only underscores the fact that federal agencies are implementing too many confusing, unnecessary regulations,” Ratcliffe said.
Conyers Sees Deregulation, Delay
Conyers noted that the committee had never considered the bill in a hearing, either in this session of Congress or the last.
There is neither a record to demonstrate the need for this bill nor any testimony that would illuminate what its practical consequences might be, Conyers said. “The truth is that this legislation does raise serious and significant concerns,” he said.
First, it would impose an arbitrary six-month delay before implementing any new rule, even those that are time-sensitive, Conyers said.
The bill also would specifically prohibit OIRA from taking into account the benefits of regulations when providing the total cost estimate for proposed and final rules, Conyers said. “Such a misleading, unbalanced report could hardly promote transparency,” he said.
The bill's other requirements are to some degree redundant of current law, as federal agencies already are required to provide status updates twice a year on their plans for proposing and finalizing rules, Conyers said.
“Without question, it is yet another anti-regulatory measure intended to further slow down the rulemaking process,” Conyers said.
-
Committee Approves Bills To Keep Check On Federal Rules
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
The House Judiciary Committee marked up legislation today that would tamp down on federal regulations.
On a 15-10 vote, the panel passed H.R. 427, the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," or REINS Act. The bill would require federal agencies to win approval from Congress for major regulations that could have an impact of $100 million or more on the economy.
Introduced by Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.), the bill is popular among House Republicans, having passed the House in 2013, though it failed to move in the Senate (Greenwire, Aug. 2, 2013).
2016 presidential contender Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate this year (E&ENews PM, Jan. 23).
"Americans simply cannot afford to pick up the tab of federal bureaucrats. Americans deserve an accountable regulatory system," Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "The REINS Act frees Americans from unnecessary regulation and offers much-needed relief to the deep economic pain still being experienced by American workers and families."
Democrats have opposed the legislation, arguing that it would endanger key protections for the environment and public health.
Also on a 15-10 vote, the Judiciary panel approved H.R. 1759, known as the "All Economic Regulations Are Transparent Act," or ALERT Act. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) and would require agencies to disclose more frequent and detailed updates on proposed federal rules.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Eye Fixes For House TSCA Bill As Gap Widens On Senate Bid
Apr 15, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA, advocates and other stakeholders are suggesting fixes for a House Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) draft bill on a host of issues -- including funding for the measure -- that observers say could be surmountable and help to ensure the bill's approval, while a gap widens between groups over two divisive Senate TSCA reform bills.
Observers agree that the lower chamber's measure could be much more likely to win broad bipartisan backing than either Senate bill because it is significantly limited in scope compared to the upper chamber versions. More than 100 pages shorter than either Senate bill, the House legislation sidesteps a suite of potentially controversial policy provisions that have stymied the Senate's efforts and also helped kill a broader House bill in the 113th Congress.
For example, the draft House bill debated at an April 14 House Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel hearing limits preemption of state chemicals programs compared to the Senate legislation.
The House bill would allow states to “co-enforce” the toxics law and appears to “address the biggest controversies that have emerged in discussions over the years on preemption,” Beth Bosley, president of Boron Specialties, said on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates during the hearing.
Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said during the hearing that while the advocacy group does not support the bill in its current form, there is “merit” in the approach of a more narrow bill that focuses on fundamental issues, and that he thinks the concerns over the bill can be resolved.
During the hearing, EPA toxics chief Jim Jones also did not voice outright opposition to the House bill but instead outlined various aspects of the draft legislation that the agency would like to see clarified.
Jones notably did not raise any concerns over the House bill's approach to preemption, in contrast to comments he made last month suggesting that the bipartisan Senate bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) has problematic preemption language. Jones said that most environmental laws allow states to be co-enforcers, and that he does not believe that such an approach “creates problems.”
A competing Senate bill introduced by Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) would not preempt state chemicals programs, and has the backing of several states who oppose the broad preemption language in the Vitter-Udall legislation, S. 697.
The gap between the two bills in the upper chamber appears to be widening, with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) adding to opposition to S. 697.
In an April 13 letter to EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Boxer, AFL-CIO highlights “serious flaws and deficiencies in the bill “In our view, the most significant flaws in the proposed legislation are the preemption provisions which would greatly restrict the ability of states to take action to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals,” the letter says.
House Legislation
Divisions in the Senate could be insurmountable, which might shift focus to the House bill that some observers suggest might have a better chance of winning broad support given its narrower scope -- potentially resulting in bipartisan backing to approve a bill to overhaul the 1976 TSCA that many say is out of date. Supporters of TSCA reform say that it is necessary to address thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace.
Opponents of the Vitter-Udall bill say it would restrict states from enacting identical chemical management rules, and that it would block existing state chemicals rules when EPA launches a safety assessment for a chemical it deems “high-priority” under the prioritization scheme that the bill would establish.
Critics say that the language would block states' ability to be “co-enforcers” of the law and would leave a potential seven-year regulatory gap until EPA issues a final rule during which no chemical restrictions would apply, and those critics favor a Democratic Senate bill that would not allow any preemption.
The House bill allows state preemption once EPA issues a requirement to ensure a chemical meets the bill's safety standard. But it retains provisions in current law that would allow states to “co-enforce” identical laws. “I hope the Senate will look at what [the House] has done here,” Igrejas told Inside EPA after the hearing.
One industry source says that while there are issues still to resolve with the House bill, “there seemed a desire on the part of the subcommittee [members] not to make it a cause célèbre and a partisan issue.”
But the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Mike Walls at the hearing urged lawmakers to clarify the degree to which states could adopt regulations identical to EPA rules, and any limitations on enforcement of those rules.
The industry source cautions that while environmentalists seem to be moving closer to consensus on a compromise bill, lawmakers must make sure to retain support from major industry groups. Some industry groups may be “preemption hawks” that will withdraw support from a measure that does not bar state programs, the source says.
The House bill already appears to have won some Democratic support, with Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), ranking member on the energy panel's environment subcommittee, calling it a “great start.”
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member on the full energy committee, said that the draft will “give EPA the tools to reduce risk now, in a package that I think has the potential to become law.”
Chemicals Assessment
Despite the early tentative support for the House bill, stakeholders including EPA's Jones, Igrejas and others highlighted parts of the draft legislation they say must be clarified, including how the agency should consider cost as a factor in developing a risk management rule under section 6 of TSCA; the bill's funding mechanisms and deadlines for EPA to assess the safety of chemicals.
The draft House legislation maintains that the agency should include in its assessment of whether chemicals meet the safety standard information on potentially exposed sub-populations -- but not cost or other factors not directly related to the environment. The language is aimed at replacing the requirement that EPA consider the “least burdensome” regulatory option seen as a major failing of the current federal toxics law.
S. 697 would eliminate the "least burdensome" requirement but order EPA to craft a rule establishing restrictions necessary to ensure a substance meets the standard. Cost would be a factor only in determining the form of the rulemaking, an approach one environmentalist says “threads the needle correctly on cost.”
In contrast, the House draft says that in promulgating any section 6 action EPA must examine among other factors the “reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, including consideration of the likely effect of the rule on the national economy, small business, technological innovation, the environment and public health.”
Jones said the bill's draft language to amend section 6(a) of TSCA, which says EPA in crafting a TSCA rule must examine a host of factors including benefits and “reasonable ascertainable economic consequences” of the rule is “ambiguous. . . . This is one of the most important observations we have around the discussion draft.” He added that it is “not clear how EPA is to consider cost” in determining whether to promulgate a 6(a) rule.
The concerns over the degree to which EPA may consider cost stem from a ruling in 1991 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down EPA's attempt to ban asbestos -- a known carcinogen -- under section 6, finding in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that the agency had not met its burden of proof to establish the chemical's risk could not be reduced by any other regulatory means.
Similarly, Igrejas testified in response to a question from Tonko on whether cost should be a factor in a risk management rule that, “A rule should be required to adequately protect risk -- cost considerations should be behind that line” and be a factor in how EPA guards against that risk, or how quickly to restrict a substance.
Moreover, Jones raised concerns about language that would appear to require EPA to find a “reasonable basis” to conclude that the combination of hazard and exposure to a chemical has the potential to present an unreasonable risk in order to launch a risk evaluation, calling it a “Catch-22” situation.
Responding to a question from Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chair of the House energy panel's environment subcommittee, on the whether the draft bill gives EPA ample authority on risk evaluations, Jones said, the “language creates an additional step we don't have today,” calling it, “somewhat of a barrier.”
EPA Deadlines
Also during the hearing, Jones raised concerns about the deadlines in the House discussion draft, which would establish an expedited review process of 180 days for risk evaluations initiated by manufacturers. In response to a question from Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) on whether the deadlines are appropriate, Jones said they are “really short.”
Jones said that EPA could likely meet the three-year deadline in the draft bill for conducting risk screenings that the agency initiates on its own, but that “six months is unrealistically optimistic.”
On funding, the House draft would establish a fee system that would allow manufacturers to request expedited reviews for specific substances in exchange for fees of up to $2,500 or $100 for small businesses. Jones said that those fees would likely go directly to the treasury rather than the EPA toxics program, but said in response to a question from Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) that it should be a “relatively straightforward funding fix.”
ACC's Walls also said in his written testimony that the fee revenue should be returned to EPA to support implementation of the program rather than be deposited in the general treasury. The Environmental Working Group,which has expressed support for the Boxer-Markey legislation, in an April 14 letter to Shimkus and Tonko opposes the House draft, saying it “would fail to ensure that chemicals are safe,” though the group acknowledges some improvements such as expanded EPA testing authority.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Another View: Foam Insulation Doesn’t Get a Free Pass From Safety Law
Apr 16, 2015 | The Sacramento Bee
By Meredith William
California has long been a leader in both energy efficiency and public health protection. But a recent column by a senior director of the American Chemistry Council, the nation’s largest chemical industry trade association, would have your readers believe that we have to choose between the two (“‘Green chemistry’ is hampering goals on energy efficiency, climate change,” Viewpoints, April 7).
While his argument might be good for the chemical industry, it is bad for public health.
Under California’s landmark Green Chemistry law, the Department of Toxic Substances Control is requiring companies to take a preventive approach to chemicals that pose risks to public health – including those that cause cancer, harm development and damage the reproductive process – and requiring companies to investigate using safer and equally effective alternatives.
DTSC is working with other state agencies to ensure that the foam insulation in people’s homes is both energy efficient and safe to install. Studies have shown that methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, one of the main ingredients in spray polyurethane foam insulation, has inherent health risks. It is known to damage lungs, cause asthma and trigger asthma attacks in workers who install the foam. That’s why under the Green Chemistry law, DTSC is asking manufacturers to conduct an analysis of alternative insulation ingredients.
Unfortunately, foam insulation installers often work under conditions that don’t provide the greatest protections. A thorough analysis of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and its alternatives could make workers safer by reducing or eliminating the dangerous ingredients and lessening the need for protective gear. It would also reduce the risks to homeowners who install foam insulation on their own, without proper training or adequate protective measures.
To be sure, spray polyurethane foam increases the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it’s a false choice to argue that consumers must choose between this and a safer product.
If safer alternatives exist, we reserve the right to require them. If they don’t exist, we will do what it takes to ensure workers and the public are safe until safer chemicals are available. The state is counting on chemical manufacturers to play an important role in developing safer consumer products for everyone.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC's Dooley Remains Confident On US Shale Advantage and TSCA Reform Prospects
Apr 15, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
By Rebecca Coons
The US chemical industry is poised to capitalize on the increased supply of energy and feedstocks that will allow it to reestablish itself as a leading global supplier, ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley told attendees of ACC’s Responsible Care conference, currently underway in Miami. This investment boom also gives the chemical industry an opportunity to build broader public image support. Dooley also discussed recent developments in industry’s push to pass reform of the outdated Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA). Dooley began his keynote address...
Subscription needed for full article: http://www.chemweek.com/home/top_of_the_news/ACCs-Dooley-remains-confident-on-US-shale-advantage-and-TSCA-reform-prospects_69459.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Expresses Support For House TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 15, 2015 | IHS Chemical Week
Industry groups welcomed House draft legislation aimed at reforming US chemical management, with both ACC and Socma testifying on 14 April before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy in support of the bipartisan discussion draft of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015. “The discussion draft, like [reform legislation] under consideration in the Senate, represents significant progress toward the objective of TSCA reform the year,” Mike Walls, v.p./regulatory and technical affairs at ACC, testified. “We are 6.5 years into...
Subscription needed for full article: http://www.chemweek.com/newsletters/cbd/69445.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform: House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on TSCA Modernization Act
Apr 15, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
On April 14, 2015, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy held a hearing on the discussion draft of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (TMA DD) introduced by Subcommittee Chair John Shimkus (R-IL) on April 7, 2015. As noted in our April 9, 2015, memorandum, "Shimkus Releases Discussion Draft of TSCA Reform Legislation," in the previous Congress, Shimkus introduced first a discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA1), and then a revised discussion draft of the bill, CICA2. In addition, Shimkus held "countless" hearings concerning reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In his opening statement, Shimkus laid out an ambitious plan for proceeding with TMA DD. Shimkus plans to hold a markup in Subcommittee on TMA DD around May 14, 2015. Once the Subcommittee has completed its work, he will ask Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) to schedule a full Committee hearing as soon as practicable. Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY) expressed his appreciation for Shimkus' tone, friendship, and partnership. Tonko stated that TMA DD is a significant departure from the Udall-Vitter bill in the Senate (S. 697) and is different from CICA1 and CICA2. Upton noted that TMA DD is more focused than last year's bill, and commented that this is the year for meaningful TSCA reform. Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) stated that TMA DD takes a thoughtful and innovative approach and has the potential to move chemical regulation forward. According to Pallone, while TMA DD does not attempt to reach the goal of a fully reformed TSCA, it will improve the current statute in several ways.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses: The Honorable Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Michael P. Walls, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council (ACC); Dr. Beth Bosley, President, Boron Specialties, LLC (on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates); Jennifer Thomas, Senior Director, Federal Government Affairs, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; and Andy Igrejas, Director, Safer Chemical, Healthy Families.
Jones testified that, while the Obama Administration does not have a position on TMA DD, he would like to offer several observations. As stated in EPA's September 2009 Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation, any TSCA reform bill should include improvements that would provide EPA the ability to make timely decisions if a chemical poses a risk and the ability to take action, as appropriate, to address that risk. Jones described a possible "catch-22" in TMA DD, which would require EPA to make a finding regarding the potential for risk prior to beginning the risk evaluation process. Jones also described the deadlines in TMA DD as "unreasonably short" in many cases, and expressed his willingness to discuss more realistic timelines. According to Jones, while TMA DD removes the least burdensome requirement under TSCA and appears to be consistent with the Obama Administration's principle that TSCA should reflect risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment, it is ambiguous how EPA is to incorporate manufacturer and other costs into a risk management rule. In addition, TMA DD lacks a source of sustained funding.
During questioning, Jones described in more detail more specific issues with TMA DD. TMA DD would allow for manufacturers to request risk evaluations of specific chemicals, provided that the manufacturers pay for EPA's costs of conducting risk evaluation. TMA DD does not direct that these payments go to EPA, however. In addition, while Shimkus may have envisioned that manufacturers would provide all available data to EPA when requesting risk evaluations of specific chemicals, TMA DD does not include such language. Shimkus stated that the intent is for EPA to have access to information in conducting the risk evaluation and that he was open to revising the bill to allow that to happen. According to Jones, the issue of cost/benefit analysis is still unclear under TMA DD. Under the current unreasonable risk standard, EPA has to demonstrate that health benefits literally outweigh costs, but it is unclear whether TMA DD would require this. From EPA's perspective, there is a clarity issue. Tonko asked Jones whether requiring a minimum number of chemicals be reviewed would be helpful. Jones responded that if Congress wants EPA to maintain a certain pace, then that needs to be clear in the legislation. Tonko also addressed the issue of costs in assessment and management of risk. TMA DD includes explicit language intended to ensure costs are not considered in the unreasonable risk determination, but they are included in EPA's analysis of options available. When Tonko asked if Jones had any suggested changes that would make that change clearer, Jones stated that the Administration believes costs are an important consideration in risk management, but that it can be difficult to monetize benefits.
Jones identified several other areas needing clarification, including the definition of "weight of the scientific evidence," which might unduly lock EPA in. He also agreed that the draft gave EPA more effective testing authority by including order authority and by allowing EPA to require testing needed for Section 6 risk evaluations.
Walls testified that TMA DD addresses key TSCA reform issues. Areas that require clarification include the manufacturer-initiated risk evaluation process, where it is important that Congress clearly articulate its expectations; risk management rules; providing EPA access to appropriate resources, including directing TSCA fee revenue to EPA rather than the general treasury; and the ways states may depart from EPA regulations, if at all.
According to Bosley, the TMA DD safety standard corrects the fundamental flaw under TSCA that requires EPA to take costs into account. Bosley expressed support for EPA's current new chemicals program, which she stated works well. TMA DD does not include a prioritization scheme, which would allow EPA to go forward with its review of TSCA Work Plan chemicals. Bosley suggested that Congress consider adding language concerning processor reporting, which would improve EPA's understanding of actual exposures.
Thomas testified that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers supports TMA DD's regulation of articles and believes it is consistent with existing EPA policy. According to Thomas, article manufacturers face unique challenges and the Alliance supports an exemption of vehicle replacement parts. Vehicles are lasting longer, with a current average age of 11 years, and replacement part demand is small, declining over time. This would be a small universe of automobile parts.
Igrejas testified that the more targeted approach of TMA DD holds promise. The absence of a complicated prioritization scheme is wise, and EPA has already developed a prioritization scheme for TSCA Work Plan chemicals. TMA DD would preserve more of TSCA's preemption, make it easier for EPA to require testing, remove the least burdensome requirement, and protect vulnerable populations. TMA DD directs EPA to use weight of the evidence, which is a concept that the National Academies of Science have specifically rejected. Igrejas suggested that if Congress is going to address scientific policy, it should follow recommendations offered by the National Academies of Science.
Commentary
We note the irony that the House hearing on a possible TSCA compromise proposal was much more calm and civilized than the most recent Senate hearing covering the same ground. While the Senate hearing would have one believe that support for the bipartisan compromise would result in great harm to children and state governments, at least according to some witnesses, the House hearing was replete with bipartisan acknowledgement of the attempt to find middle ground. Though members and witnesses commented that some issues needed more work, the tone was generally positive, friendly, and at one point during a salute to bipartisan cooperation, a Democratic member of the panel asked the Chair (in jest) not to let others know they were making progress towards compromise.
Given the discussion at the House hearing, it is not yet clear why certain elements of the Senate bills are missing. Some witness testimony did suggest further modifications (for example, regarding deadlines, dedication of any fees to EPA, and clarification of the safety standard and risk assessment procedures). Various interest groups will stake out positions and make further suggestions, but the most striking element of the House hearing was calm rhetoric and generally genteel interaction among members and witnesses.
This generally bodes well for the possibility that there may yet be time and energy left among interested parties to move legislation successfully. At the same time, if today's hearing represents a significant increase in the chances of success, then we would urge a closer reading of the Shimkus draft since we find it to have significant elements missing or unclearly drafted as compared to both Senate bills on the same subjects. In our analysis of the Shimkus bill, we discussed how the various elements were either absent or unclear about how they would operationally address the current shortcomings of TSCA. These include: The lack of any requirement for or guidance regarding EPA prioritization; The requirement for an EPA "finding" in identifying chemicals for risk evaluation; and The continued requirement for EPA to make "findings" under Section 4 to require testing.
Regarding the last, while TMA DD would give EPA authority to issue testing orders and to require testing needed to conduct a risk evaluation under Section 6, EPA would still have to satisfy the current TSCA findings to require testing for other purposes, such as for screening and identifying chemicals needing such an evaluation. In our view, the findings requirement has been one of the main reasons for the difficulties EPA has had in implementing the TSCA testing program and why EPA has required testing on only 200 chemicals. We would like to see this issue get more attention and note that one way to deal with this concern would be to require EPA, as is the case for new chemical actions under TSCA Section 5(e), to make determinations rather than to require legal findings. Such a change would retain the spirit of these requirements while lessening the burdens on EPA and thereby allowing it to obtain the testing needed to screen and sort through the many existing chemicals on the Inventory.
It was also surprising that the "hard" reset of the Inventory as proposed in TMA DD did not get more attention. While this point came up in written testimony from ACC, the issue was not identified during the hearing, which was somewhat surprising given the significance of the change being proposed.
Overall, however, the more genteel nature of the House hearing indicates there could be a real possibility of enactment. If the House Committee leadership has bipartisan sponsorship that carries over to any floor vote, it would increase the odds of most, if not all, of the Republican members of the Senate to support similar legislation. That, coupled with the Democratic Senators already on record as supporting compromise legislation, should provide a sufficiently large number of votes to overcome a possible filibuster threat on the Senate floor. Some would find such a scenario ironic with the Republican House majority leading the way for enhanced EPA regulatory authority and increased budgets for any kind of regulatory activity.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Responsible Care Conference
Apr 15, 2015 | ZDNet
Since 1988, Responsible Care has helped American Chemistry Council (ACC) member companies significantly enhance their performance, discover new business opportunities, and improve employee safety, the health of the communities in which they operate and the environment as a whole, moving us toward a safer, more sustainable future. The Responsible Care Conference & Expo prides itself on being the leading industry event where ACC members and Partners come together to learn best practices to significantly enhance their performance and advance the core values of the RC program. New business opportunities and networking are also key highlights of the Responsible Care Conference. The annual conference continually raises the bar by challenging our members and Partners to strive for exemplary excellence. This app will allow you to view the latest conference information and offers an opportunity to better engage with your industry peers, vendors and service providers.Recent changes:New Content UpdatedContent rating: Medium Maturity
-
List of Chemicals to Be Evaluated Under IRIS Expected by Summer, Draft Handbook Later
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A list of chemicals that will have their health effects analyzed through the Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program should be released before summer, Vincent Cogliano, director of that program, told Bloomberg BNA April 15.
Cogliano updated Bloomberg BNA regarding the status of two documents: 1) the commonly called IRIS Agenda, which is a list of chemicals the agency will review over the next few years; and 2) a draft handbook, which will provide detailed guidance for developing IRIS assessments.
The IRIS program assesses the human health hazards of chemicals and the doses at which those hazards manifest. That information is supplemented with exposure and other information. State agencies; the EPA's air, water, waste and other rulemaking offices; and other regulators then use the combined information to determine cleanup levels, water quality standards, air pollution standards and to make other decisions.
The IRIS Agenda has taken longer to develop than anticipated because it has been prepared with the participation of the agency's scientists, regulatory and regional offices to represent the agency's highest priorities, Cogliano previously said.
The agenda is going through its final review with the expectation it will be published before summer, Cogliano told BNA April 15 on the sidelines of a Science Advisory Board meeting.
Systematic Review Among Issues in Handbook
The draft handbook will be released by the end of the year, Cogliano told the Science Advisory Board, which met to peer review a draft IRIS assessment of benzo[a]pyrene.
Ways the IRIS program plans to conduct systematic review are among the issues the draft handbook will address, Cogliano said.
Systematic review involves methodical procedures through which analysts:
• select the questions they will seek to answer before they start an analysis;
• select search terms, databases and other tools to identify relevant studies;
• develop criteria for including or excluding studies;
• assess the quality of and potential for bias in selected studies; and
• analyze and synthesize the scientific information.
The IRIS program faces a particular challenge as it makes greater use of systematic review, he said. Tens of thousands of cellular and other in vitro studies may have been conducted with a chemical, he said. That IRIS program is developing a strategy to deal with that potential volume of studies while continuing to work on the chemicals it already is assessing.
The draft handbook will discuss the agency's current thinking on systematic review, Cogliano said. The approach the IRIS program uses will evolve over many years, he said.
When released, the draft IRIS handbook will be open for public comment and reviewed by a scientific panel, he told BNA.
-
EPA's Benzo[a]pyrene Analysis Could Impact Air Toxics Rules, Hazardous Waste Cleanups
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency's air office will use risk values, health effects conclusions and other information in a toxicological review of benzo[a]pyrene to make at least a dozen decisions, an agency toxicologist said April 15.
Ines Pagan, a toxicologist working on air toxics in the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, briefly summarized reasons the air office is interested in the benzo[a]pyrene assessment that is being completed by the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.
“Benzo[a]pyrene is emitted by many of the source categories we regulate,” Pagan said as she telephoned in to a Science Advisory Board meeting. The board's Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee is peer-reviewing the IRIS program's draft 2014 assessment of benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) (193 DEN A-6, 10/6/14).
The chemical, which is the most studied compound within the family of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), will be addressed through about a dozen regulatory and non-regulatory risk management actions the air office expects to release in a year or so, Pagan said.
Sources Include Combustion, Barbecues, Medicine
PAHs occur in more than 100 different combinations. They are produced when materials such as coal, oil, gas, wood and garbage are burned but the combustion process is not complete. Natural sources include forest fires and volcanos. People also can be exposed by eating barbecued or smoked foods or by applying coal tar-based medications used for skin problems such as eczema.
Because BaP is the most studied of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, information about it is used to predict the toxicity of other PAHs.
The air toxics program needs the information the IRIS assessment will provide about ways, other than cancer, that benzo[a]pyrene may affect human health, Pagan said. The office also needs the IRIS program's conclusions about the chemical's carcinogenicity, she said.
Christopher Saranko, a toxicologist working for Geosyntec Consultants on behalf of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, told the board the IRIS assessment also will be important for hazardous waste cleanup decisions. Saranko spoke during a public comment portion of the board's meeting.
Many of the superfund sites the solid waste group's members are involved with have benzo[a]pyrene and other PAHs as key pollutants, he said.
Key Conclusions Under Reviewing
Key conclusions in the draft assessment EPA released in 2014 include:
• benzo[a]pyrene is a human carcinogen;
• its dermal slope factor is 0.006 micrograms per day (µg/d), making it a potent skin carcinogen;
• people who ingest less than the proposed overall reference dose (RfD) of 0.003 milligram benzo[a]pyrene per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg-day) over their lifetime would not be harmed by the chemical (the agency's draft included additional RfDs for risk analysts focusing on specific adverse effects); and
• people who inhale a reference concentration (RfC) of 0.00002 milligram benzo[a]pyrene per cubic meter air (mg/m3) over their lifetime also would not be harmed.
Several committee members urged the agency to better explain how it reached the conclusion that benzo[a]pyrene is a human carcinogen.
There is clear evidence that the chemical causes cancer in animals, committee members said.
The agency needs to better explain how the biological changes that occur in animals would predict human cancers, several committee members said.
First-Ever Dermal Slope Factor
Saranko and analysts representing other trade associations focused their public comments on the dermal slope factor the agency has drafted.
The dermal slope factor would be the first one the agency has ever calculated in an IRIS assessment of any chemical. Slope factors are used to calculate a compound's cancer potency.
The EPA does not have guidance directing its scientists as to how dermal slope factors are to be calculated, said Anne LeHuray, executive director of Pavement Coatings Technology Council.
“Until such guidance is available, the dermal dose-response assessment of benzo[a]pyrene should not be finalized,” LeHuray said.
Saranko; Annette Rohr, principal technical leader of air quality and health at the Electric Power Research Institute; and Brian Magee, a consultant speaking on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, Asphalt Institute and pavement council, said the draft dermal slope factor greatly exaggerates BaP's cancer potency.
The slope factor would imply that more than 100 percent of skin cancers on people's hands result from touching BaP-containing soil or barbecued or smoked foods, Magee said.
“That contradicts the conclusion that ultraviolet light is the leading cause of skin cancer,” he said.
Scoring Rhetorical Points?
Committee member John Kissel, an environmental engineer teaching at the University of Washington, questioned that argument. “Do you seriously believe your own arguments or are you trying to score rhetorical points with your arguments?”
The calculations Magee and others presented to the board were based on multiple worst-case assumptions or “compounded conservatism,” Kissel said.
Magee said even if the percentage of cancers he predicted using the draft dermal slope factor were not precisely accurate, they still show that EPA's draft factor exaggerates the risk.
The draft slope factor would make hazardous cleanups more complex and expensive, Saranko said.
The Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee will discuss the dermal slope factor and many other aspects of the agency's draft BaP assessment as its meeting continues on April 16 and 17.
-
Bill to Phase Out Toxic Chemicals In Children's Products Offered in New York
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Legislation has been introduced in New York with bipartisan support to identify and phase out the use of certain toxic chemicals in children's products by Jan. 1, 2018 (S. 4102, A. 5612).
The bill, known as the Child Safe Products Act, is on the floor in the state Assembly and in the Environmental Conservation Committee of the Senate.
The bill would require the Department of Environmental Conservation to publish a list of “priority chemicals and chemicals of high concern” and periodically review the list in consultation with the Department of Health.
Under the bill, manufacturers would have one year after a chemical is posted on the list to disclose its use in their products. They then would have three years to phase out use of the chemical.
‘Common Sense.'
“Protecting children from toxic chemicals is just common sense,” state Sen. Phil Boyle (R), the chief sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. “Despite market advancements and announcements by major retailers, voluntary measures just don't get us there.”
The bill expressly bans the sale of certain chemicals in children's products by Jan. 1, 2018, including benzene, mercury and mercury compounds, arsenic and arsenic compounds, cadmium and cobalt and cobalt compounds.
The bill is modeled after similar measures that have been enacted in Washington, California, Vermont and Maine, according to a memo from Boyle, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business Committee, and Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D), the chief Assembly sponsor and chairman of the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee.
The bill is opposed by the Business Council of New York State. “New York would have to undertake an expensive, highly scientific review to make concrete determinations about the toxicity of chemicals and their potential harm to the public,” the Council said in a memo opposing the legislation. “New York does not have the financial resources or expertise to execute such a review.”
“The Business Council strongly believes that independent, well-financed national and/or international regulatory bodies dedicated to the protection of human health, including a focus on sensitive populations, should review suspected health hazards when legitimate concerns are raised.”
The bill is supported by a coalition of health, environmental and other groups called the JustGreen Partnership.
Dr. Phillip J. Landrigan, director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai Hospital, said children's diseases of environmental origin cost New York an estimated $4.3 billion annually.
-
What Would It Take for the EPA to Test Every Major Chemical for Safety?
Apr 15, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
As the Congressional debate over how to fix the failed Toxic Substances Control Act heats up, we have to ask:
What would it take for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess the safety of every major chemical on the market?
If the market froze today and makers of consumer goods stuck to their present formulations, the agency would need to review 320 chemicals each year for 25 years to sanction the safety of the 8,000 chemicals now in production of 25,000 pounds and more.
But the reality is, the market is not static. Our analysis has determined that about 116 chemicals fall off this “significant production” list annually, and another 116 chemicals come onto the list.
We estimate that the EPA would have to conduct more than 435 reviews annually to ensure that all chemicals manufactured or imported in significant volume have been evaluated for safety within the next generation.
Right now, the EPA completes about three reviews of chemicals per year.
As we calculate it, the agency is far behind the curve. And it would fall behind even further if the chemical industry-backed bill introduced by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M, and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., were to pass.
The Udall-Vitter bill would require that the EPA complete safety assessments of 25 chemicals in the first 12 years after passage – which works out to two reviews a year. The rate would marginally increase to about three reviews a year after the initial period.
A rival bill introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., would require the EPA to conduct fast-track reviews of persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT) substances and to conduct 15 additional chemical reviews within six years. For each additional review completed, three more chemicals would be added to the queue. Over the next 20 to 30 years, the EPA would be required to review about 1,000 chemicals – averaging 33 to 50 reviews a year. These numbers are well short of the 435 annual reviews necessary to assess all chemicals in common use, but EPA reviews would probably capture the chemicals of greatest concern for health hazards. This situation would certainly beat two or three reviews a year.
Another difference between the two bills concerns deadlines for action.
Under the Udall-Vitter bill, if EPA regulators decided that a substance was dangerous and should be banned, restricted or phased out, they would not have to meet a deadline for taking action. The stuff could linger on the market for years or decades.
Under the Boxer-Markey bill, if agency scientists concluded that human exposures to persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic substances should be reduced, the law would require final regulations within four years of passing the bill. For non-PBT chemicals, EPA would be required complete safety assessments and then take action to reduce exposure within two years of these reviews.
EPA officials have flagged 1,000 chemicals, both PBT and non-PBT chemicals, for fast-track review, on grounds that they appear to be particularly dangerous.
Under the Udall-Vitter bill, reviews of 1,000 chemicals would take literally centuries.
It is inconceivable that the United States, the world’s most productive economy and beacon of innovation, will risk the health of future generations by tolerating this laggard performance.
If we want to protect the health of Americans, we have to find a way to assess the safety of chemicals at a rate that keeps up with the dynamic marketplace. The Boxer-Markey bill would take on this challenge. The Udall-Vitter bill would kick the can to the next generation.
-
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.
-
Electronics: Growth and Compliance
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The global consumer electronics market is expected to grow at around 6.7% during 2014-18, according to a report by business consulting service firm, RNCOS. Thanks to the fast pace of technological development and a growing global middle class, the sector is set for steady expansion. Growth at this scale, however, is likely to mean that more resources and time are required to comply with regulations, as well as in meeting the demands of consumers who are becoming more aware of the human health and environmental impacts of the products they buy.
Over the last 12 years, manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of consumer electronics have seen more and more chemical regulation introduced across the globe. Since the adoption of the EU Directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment, in 2003, several countries in Latin America and Asia, as well as some US states, have introduced similar frameworks.
Like the electronics sector, chemical regulation looks to be expanding further, and keeping up with this ever changing landscape can be a challenge. But as compliance becomes more important in developing or maintaining market share, many companies in the sector are upping their game to ensure non-compliance is not an issue.
Some of the industry’s biggest players have taken matters into their own hands, with the likes of Apple, Philips and Sony dedicating teams to the upkeep of their now well established restricted substances lists (RSLs).
Leading the way
Apple, the world’s largest electronics company, has a policy that requires suppliers to adhere to its regulated substances specifications list (RSS). This describes the company’s global restrictions on the use of certain chemical substances or materials in its products, accessories, manufacturing processes and packaging.
Like many restricted substances lists, it derives restrictions from international laws or directives, eco-label requirements, as well as its own policies – but, it says, “in many cases, they go beyond the minimum required by law.” Apple says it holds its suppliers accountable by conducting factory audits, testing components with independent laboratories, and verifying the results at its own lab located at its headquarters in Cupertino, California.
Taking precautions against or screening out chemicals of concern, listed in this specification, should merely be a first step, it says. “We expect our suppliers to take their own actions to understand the human health and environmental impacts of all chemicals that are used in the manufacturing process and present in materials supplied to Apple,” the company says in its specification document. Its RSS includes restrictions on manufacturing processes, substances that must be reported by the supplier and restricted substances in products.
Its release has been commended by environmental groups for moving the company towards greater transparency of its operations. The company appeared to take the lead on chemicals behind the scenes too, when it was praised for banning the use of benzene and n-hexane in cleaning agents and degreasers from its final assembly process (CW 27 August 2014). This was hailed as a bold move because the industry has largely focused on chemicals in products and little on substances used in manufacturing processes.
Another electronics giant, Philips, also maintains an RSL for products. This includes substances banned by law or by the company; those for which uses need to be monitored due to regulatory requirements, or the use of which Philips wants to monitor from a precautionary point of view.
Through its RSL, Philips has made various commitments to phasing out chemicals of concern, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and phthalates, which it says it is continuing to work on.
Like Apple, all of Philips’ suppliers are required to comply with its RSL. But for a company with such an extensive supply chain, it needed a better solution for collecting supplier data on chemicals. In 2010, Philips, along with Siemens, GE, Osram, Sony Mobile, Toshiba, Agfa, Texas Instruments, TE Connectivity and FUJIFILM, developed a centralised web database called BOMcheck to collect compliance data from its suppliers to “avoid the unmanageable paper trail” resulting from the requirements of the EU’s REACH Regulation (GBB December 2010).
Meanwhile, Sony has established its own global standards for the management of chemical substances. These standards are known as “Management regulations for the environment-related substances to be controlled which are included in parts and materials” and classify chemical substances as those that must be banned immediately, those for which a period for phase-out is individually set and those for which no deadline is set for ban of use but phasing out is planned. It also takes into account the related laws and regulations around the world and simultaneously the opinions of various stakeholders.
According to a report last year by Greenpeace, Green gadgets: designing the future, 15 of the 20 commitments from the big electronics firms to phase out PVCs and BFRs were considered credible, with reasonable timelines. The report also highlighted the work of Nokia, Sony and Apple, which, it said, were the first to implement their commitments, with the introduction of PVC and BFR-free products. It also singled out Philips’ achievement of introducing the only completely PVC/BFR-free TV in 2010.
A changing market
However, the industry is in transition with China overtaking the US as the top consumer electronics market. Together the two countries account for 37% of the global industry, according to the RNCOS’ report, Global Consumer Electronics Market Forecast 2018. And with new markets, come new businesses keen to take a percentage. While the Apples and Sonys of the industry continue to progress in growing economies, China’s relatively new consumer electronics companies, such as Huawei and the recently founded Xiaomi, have taken the country by storm, and are now venturing out globally. Yet, as well-known companies which have dominated the market for decades begin to progress with their chemical management strategies, policies on hazardous substances from the newcomers are harder to access. Some critics are concerned that effective chemicals management could be left behind by companies in these growing economies, ultimately offsetting the recent progress made by others.
Greenpeace’s report says recent market changes could threaten the significant progress made so far on mobile phones. “Manufacturers of low cost smartphones – such as Huawei, Xiaomi and Micromax – that are taking an increasing share of the market, urgently need to adopt plans to eliminate hazardous substances to ensure that the environmental progress made over the past five years is not lost.”
Hauwei and Xiaomi did not respond to Chemical Watch’s request for further information on their chemicals management strategies by the time of publishing. Co-author of the Greenpeace report, Tom Dowdall, told Chemical Watch that since the release of the report little progress had been made by the Chinese consumer electronics companies. “If there is no information available via their websites it is highly unlikely they have made any improvements,” said Mr Dowdall.
-
Green Chemistry: the Role of EU Regulation
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Tatiana Santos
Exposure to synthetic chemical substances is an increasing global problem. Chemical production is growing faster than gross domestic product (GDP) and population. Production levels of chemicals have increased from one tonne in the 1930s to well over 500 million tonnes today.
This production trend is a problem because the toxicity levels of these chemicals are increasing too. New formulations for pesticides, for instance, are from ten to 100 times more toxic than those from 1975. Especially worrying is the increase in production of carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxicants (CMRs) and other chronic toxicants – the most toxic categories of chemicals classified by the EU.
This is where green chemistry offers a heartening opportunity to shift the most toxic categories of chemicals to the least harmful ones.
There are several factors that contribute to the uptake and development of green chemistry: supply chain requirements, workers and environmental protection costs, pressure from the public and workers, among others. Large companies also aim to avoid incidents or criticism that might affect their public reputation.
However, laws on chemicals management and environmental protection are acknowledged by all as the main driver to bring safer chemicals to the market.
The principal European chemicals legislation, REACH, is seen as a very powerful promoter of sustainable innovation and green chemistry. REACH grants potential exemptions from registration for five years for substances used in research and development, which favours new innovative materials on the EU market.
REACH notification and registration processes are increasing the information on toxicological and ecotoxicological properties of substances. Although the information provided by companies through these processes is far from being complete and reliable, it is an important step that allows downstream users to better understand the properties of the substances they handle and also gives some information on possible alternative substances and processes.
But the main instrument provided by REACH to spike green chemistry and sustainable innovation is undoubtedly the authorisation process, which facilitates the phasing out of hazardous chemicals and substituting them with safer alternatives.
The goal of authorisation is that substances of very high concern (SVHCs) are progressively replaced by safer suitable alternative substances or technologies.
SVHCs include substances that may cause cancer (carcinogens); may induce heritable genetic damage (mutagens); may impair fertility or cause irreversible harm to the offspring itself (reprotoxicants); do not break down easily in the environment but accumulate and persist in fatty tissues of animals and end up in the food chain and are also toxic in some cases (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic or very persistent and very accumulative, so called PBT/vPvB substances); can interfere with animal and human hormone systems, causing several adverse effects on exposed individuals and/or their offspring, so-called endocrine disruptors.
The first step of authorisation is the identification of a SVHC to be included in the so called candidate list. The candidate list works as an early warning of the priority substances that would be phased out and substituted with safer alternatives as they would not be allowed onto the European market unless specific-use permission is granted.
The candidate listing is having a real impact on innovation as it incentivises greener chemicals (and technologies). The study ‘driving innovation’ by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), showed how patented inventions were spectacularly boosted when the REACH Regulation was adopted in 2006. REACH already has an even earlier warning on unwanted chemicals through the listing of properties of very high concern in its Article 57. When SVHCs are included in the candidate list officially, the ‘invention’ trend is intensified.
Once those SVHCs are further prioritised in the ‘authorisation list’, they will require use-specific permission before they can be employed and substitution will have priority. To this end, all manufacturers, importers and downstream users that apply for a use-specific permission through authorisation analyse the availability of alternatives and consider their risks, as well as the technical and economic feasibility of substitution.
Where suitable alternatives are available and the substance cannot be adequately controlled, an application for authorisation should not be granted. Even if it is granted, its use will be allocated a timeframe and may be reviewed if new information on possible substitutes becomes available. This is a very strong incentive for companies using SVHCs to look for intrinsically safer alternatives. However, despite substitution being a priority for substances of very high concern, it should never be applied without careful thought of (1) hazards, (2) use patterns and (3) the environmental fate of alternatives. To guarantee this, the regulation requires applicants for authorisation to document it with a thorough analysis of alternatives (so called alternatives assessment in the US) that strengthens a robust (and wise) substitution decision by companies, avoiding any regrettable substitutes.
REACH substantially encourages the transition to safer alternatives, while increasing market opportunities for “green” companies and incentives for sustainable innovation. REACH is, therefore, a golden opportunity to promote the transition to more sustainable chemistry and create new green jobs through innovation. This can be done by developing an economy based on clean technologies, where substitution of the most hazardous chemicals by safer alternatives is key. The European chemical industry should not miss the opportunity to become forerunners worldwide.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
-
Criminal Charges Could Follow Former CSB Chairman's Congressional Testimony
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Former Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso could face criminal charges related to his testimony before a congressional oversight panel, a government investigator said April 14.
The Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General has told the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia that Moure-Eraso may have perjured himself and committed “certain other crimes” during a March 4 hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins Jr. said.
Elkins told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works—which has oversight authority over the Chemical Safety Board—that the agency's former chief information officer provided a sworn statement alleging discrepancies in Moure-Eraso's testimony and communications with Elkins.
The announcement of potential criminal charges comes on the heels of Moure-Eraso's April 10 departure from the CSB. Moure-Eraso stepped down as chairman under White House pressure March 26 but remained at the agency as a board member for an additional 16 days.
The possible criminal prosecution of the CSB's outgoing chairman highlights Moure-Eraso's central role in the leadership tumult that has roiled the agency for nearly a year, after a board member resigned in protest in May 2014.
Illegal E-Mail Use
The possible criminal charges apparently stem from Moure-Eraso's testimony about alleged illegal use of private e-mail to conduct agency business.
The EPA OIG found that Moure-Eraso and his two top lieutenants, Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb, violated federal law by using private e-mail accounts for official business. The EPA OIG alerted the White House of its findings, but didn't refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution (26 DEN B-1, 2/9/15).
But Moure-Eraso may have lied to Congress about how he responded to inquiries related to the private e-mail accounts. For example, the former CSB chief information officer disputed Moure-Eraso's testimony claiming the information officer had conducted or overseen searches of Horowitz and Loeb's private e-mail accounts, Elkins said in his written testimony to the Senate Environment Committee.
At the March 4 House Government Oversight hearing, Moure-Eraso testified that he refused to sign—on the advice of a private lawyer—an EPA OIG compliance statement affirming that he provided the e-mail records the oversight investigators sought, he used a certain methodology and he didn't destroy any records. He did address the substance of the compliance statement under lawmakers' questioning.
“The answer to that question is that's correct. I absolutely never took intentional action to destroy, delete or remove any official CSB communications in my possession,” Moure-Eraso said at the hearing.
Investigators from the EPA OIG searched the CSB's offices March 26—the day of Moure-Eraso's resignation as chairman—for signs of possible destruction of evidence, a CSB staffer told Bloomberg BNA March 26.
Filling the Leadership Vacuum
While Moure-Eraso's resignation left the CSB without a chairman, the three sitting board members are working toward an agreement to share the various executive and administrative authorities. The board has the opportunity to reach a power-sharing arrangement after the White House backed off from its plan to appoint board member Manuel Ehrlich Jr. as interim chair.
Board member Richard Engler declined to comment on the board's deliberations when asked by Bloomberg BNA April 14.
Following Moure-Eraso's official exit from the CSB, Engler and board member Mark Griffon appear to have the votes to rescind a controversial measure that moved power over the agency from the board as a whole and consolidated it in the chairman's office.
“Nothing should delay the three board members from immediately reconsidering that overthrow of board governance,” Gerald Poje, who served on the board during the Clinton and Bush administrations, told Bloomberg BNA April 10.
The White House has named Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, as its choice to become CSB chairwoman. Sutherland and Kristen Kulinowski, a research staff member at the Science and Technology Policy Institute nominated to join the board, await hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
-
Murkowski, Mccain, Corker Pen Op-Ed On Ending Crude Export Ban
Apr 15, 2015 | Politico
Sens. Lisa Murkowski, John McCain and Bob Corker have written an op-ed calling for an end to the country's ban on crude oil exports. The three argue that exporting oil to allies could help those countries that are now relying on "incredibly unappealing sources for oil." The senators point to the European Union's Russian imports; Italy's shipments from Libya; and Indian, Japanese and South Korean imports from Middle Eastern nations including Iran. They write they would give their full support to President Barack Obama should he use executive action to allow crude oil sales to "friends and allies." The full op-ed: http://atfp.co/1EBEJ5h [article is by subscription only to Foreign Policy magazine]
-
GOP Criticizes Obama’s ‘Restrictive’ Offshore Drilling Plan
Apr 16, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans chastised the Obama administration Wednesday for putting forth a “restrictive” plan for offshore oil and natural gas drilling.
Republicans in the House Natural Resources Committee’s subcommittee on energy and mineral resources said the 2017-2022 plan would have the lowest number of sales since the 1980s while taking substantial areas of the continental shelf off the table.
Since the number of lease sales can not increase, lawmakers asked the Abigail Hopper, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to finalize a plan that is much more inclusive.
“This is not a demonstration of commitment to more oil and gas production,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), who was chairing the hearing.
“An aggressive offshore leasing strategy would truly demonstrate a true commitment to [outer continental shelf] oil and gas production in the U.S. It would also demonstrate a commitment to our nation’s long-term energy security and to American jobs,” he continued. Energy & Environment Best Sellers:Sustainable Energy - Wit…David JC MacKay (Paperba…$28.68Climate Change: What th…Charles Fletcher (Paperbac…$80.94Energy, Environment, an…Richard Wolfson (Paperback…$92.6312>Privacy
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) was particularly concerned with a plan to hold only one lease sale for the Atlantic Ocean.
“Industry’s expressed an interest in participating in more lease sales than you propose, including in the Atlantic,” Lummis said. “Wouldn’t it make more sense to err on the side of more?”
Hopper defended the plan and said it reflects Obama’s commitment to domestic oil and gas production.
“Includes nearly 80 percent of estimated undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources on the outer continental shelf,” she told the panel.
She said the low number of lease sales is only because the agency chose to consolidate sales in the Gulf of Mexico that previously would have been separated.
“So, if you broke them in the way we break them out now, they would add up to 30 instead of 10,” she said.
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) said the oil industry is always going to want more area opened, and lawmakers should push back.
“Most in the industry wouldn’t, quite frankly, be satisfied until every acre of the outer continental shelf is open for drilling,” he said. “They always want more.”
Lowenthal also urged BOEM to account for the entire greenhouse gas impact of the oil and gas that comes from offshore drilling.
“BOEM’s draft program does have not a lot to say about climate change,” he said.
Hopper said she and Interior officials are still figuring out how to account for the climate impact of the lease sales.
Lawmakers also heard from North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), who was supportive of offshore drilling in his state’s section of the outer continental shelf.
“Harnessing America’s offshore energy reserves in an environmentally safe and responsible manner will lead to greater energy independence and more prosperity for North Carolina and the entire nation,” he said.
McCrory estimated that drilling off North Carolina’s shores could bring 55,000 jobs and $3 billion to the state’s economy over 10 years.
-
BOEM Director Takes 2nd Round of GOP Heat on Leasing Plan
Apr 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Abigail Hopper yesterday faced a fresh round of Republican criticism over the Obama administration's proposal to expand offshore leasing opportunities in federal waters.
Hopper testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources about BOEM's plan to offer oil and gas lease sales in 2017-2022 in the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic Ocean and open new waters off the East Coast.
Republican committee leaders and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) said the plan leaves too many energy-rich waters off the table and provides little incentive for industry and coastal communities to invest in new domestic drilling.
But Democrats and an elected official from a North Carolina coastal town warned that new Atlantic drilling could spoil East Coast beaches and emit more global warming gases.
It was a familiar seat for Hopper, who last month faced similar bipartisan criticism from the panel while defending the agency's 2016 budget request (E&E Daily, March 18).
BOEM's leasing plan potentially opens 317 million acres along the nation's coastline to oil and gas drilling -- 97 million acres more than the 2012-2017 leasing plan. A major feature in the new plan is a potential lease sale in 2021 in waters from Virginia to Georgia. But waters within 50 miles of the Atlantic shore have been placed off-limits.
The plan "unnecessarily puts much of North Carolina's resources, frankly, under lock and key," McCrory said. Specifically, the buffer could put 40 percent of North Carolina's offshore resources off-limits, he said.
A single lease sale also does not provide adequate incentive for coastal states to invest in the roads, ports and infrastructure to support an offshore drilling industry, he said.
BOEM is unable to add additional waters to its plan at this point in its environmental review.
McCrory also said North Carolina can't support offshore development unless Congress passes legislation to share a portion of bonus bids and royalties with East Coast states, as is already the case for Gulf Coast states.
Such legislation faces an uphill battle this Congress given the past opposition of the Obama administration, which is asking Congress to roll back revenue sharing with Gulf states.
Hopper said she could make no guarantees about whether the Atlantic lease sale would remain in the final leasing plan. She said lease sales in Alaska's Chukchi and Beaufort seas that are slated for 2016 and 2017, respectively, "remain on schedule," though a final leasing decision will be made by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, she said.
Committee Republicans also highlighted a new report this month from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that found the percentage of domestic oil that is produced from federal lands and waters compared to non-federal tracts has declined steadily from 36 percent in 2010 to 21 percent in 2014. The percentage of natural gas coming from federal tracts dropped from 23 percent to 13 percent over that time period, according to the report.
Production of oil on non-federal lands has increased rapidly due in part to "favorable geology and the ease of leasing," the report said.
"Crude oil production on federal lands, particularly offshore, however, is likely to continue to make a significant contribution to the U.S. energy supply picture and could remain consistently higher than previous decades, but still fall as a percent of total U.S. production, if production on non-federal lands continues to rise at a faster rate," the CRS report said.
Hopper said it is the federal government's responsibility to make waters available for drilling, while industry decides if the tracts are developed.
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), the panel's ranking member, said he is "not persuaded by claims of how much safer offshore drilling has become in the past few years."
"All it's going to take is one instance of human error to unleash a catastrophic oil spill along the East Coast," he said, "threatening the tourism, the economies, the fishing economies and the environment of every state along the Eastern Seaboard."
Even if the Interior Department can ensure that another Deepwater Horizon-like spill does not occur in the Atlantic, drilling there will still require many pipelines, refineries and supply yards that would industrialize parts of the shoreline, he said.
Lowenthal urged Hopper to conduct a more robust analysis of the impacts of greenhouse gases that could be released as a result of the new leasing plan and to consider analyzing the "social cost of carbon," an Obama administration evaluation tool that has garnered scrutiny from Republican lawmakers.
Hopper said BOEM is looking at the greenhouse gas impacts of extracting oil and gas in the outer continental shelf. "It is a conversation that we're still having with the secretary about how much further beyond that we take it," she said.
Emilie Swearingen, a member of the Kure Beach, N.C., Town Council, a small community located on an island between the Atlantic and the Cape Fear River with 2,000 year-round residents, told Hopper, "There is no place for such [oil and gas] industrialization on North Carolina's coast."
"Listen to the people in this country who are begging you not to destroy their quality of life," she said in written remarks.
But Mark Shuster, executive vice president for Shell Exploration, said BOEM should include more leases in frontier areas like the Atlantic and should support the sharing of revenues with coastal states.
The company also supports BOEM's proposal to offer all Gulf of Mexico tracts twice a year, he said.
The proposal would break from BOEM's earlier practice of offering sales in single planning areas -- the eastern, central and western Gulf.
"Such a proposal will provide flexibility for both government and private industry to respond to rapidly changing market conditions," he said.
-
Denton City Council in Texas Votes To Extend Moratorium on Gas Well Drilling
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
The Denton City Council voted unanimously April 14 to extend the moratorium on gas well drilling in the Denton, Texas, city limits while it monitors two bills in the state legislature that could curb local government ability to regulate the oil and gas industry.
“Given the current state of debate in the Texas Legislature, we felt it prudent to continue to monitor the legislative proceedings on House Bill 40 and Senate Bill 1165,” Denton Mayor Chris Watts said in a statement. “These bills could impact our regulatory authority as it relates to oil and gas well operations, thereby affecting any pending revisions to Denton's Gas Well Drilling and Production Ordinance. We will continue to work with the various stakeholders in the interest of preserving cities' right to regulate surface activities that impact the everyday lives of our residents.”
The moratorium on gas drilling was extended to August 18, Lindsey Baker, public information officer for Denton, told Bloomberg BNA. The city placed a moratorium on drilling in May 2014 while the city revised its regulations relating to existing wells. The proposed revisions were issued in December 2014.
SB 1165 and HB 40 would curb a local government's ability to regulate the oil and gas industry. HB 40 passed a House committee April 14 and SB 1165 passed a Senate committee March 25. As it relates to grandfathering current regulations, the bills refer to commercially reasonable ordinances, Baker said. House Bill 40 refers to a five-year standard, essentially, if an ordinance has been in place for more than five years, it would be considered commercially reasonable and would not be overturned in theory.
“If we did approve anything new now, it may or may not be considered commercially reasonable,” Baker said. “There is a lot of gray area and it may ultimately be something that has to be litigated in cities with existing ordinances for further clarification.”
Lawsuits Still Pending
The moratorium is separate from the ban on hydraulic fracturing that the city voted to establish during the November 2014 elections that went into effect Dec. 2, 2014 (235 DEN B-1, 12/8/14). When the referendum passed, the Texas Oil and Gas Association filed a lawsuit in state court stating that the ban was inconsistent with state law and violates the Texas Constitution (Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. City of Denton, Tex. Dist. Ct., No. 14-08933-431, 12/1/14; Patterson v. City of Denton, Tex. Dist. Ct., No. D-1-GN-14-004628, filed 12/1/14).
Both lawsuits are still pending with no updates. It is likely little will happen until the legislative session adjourns, Baker said.
-
Wyoming Increases Setback Distance To 500 Feet for Drilling Oil, Gas Wells
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wyoming has increased its minimum distance requirement between oil and natural gas wells and homes to 500 feet (Chapters 1, 3 and 4).
The five-member Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, chaired by Gov. Matt Mead (R), voted unanimously April 14 to increase the setback requirement for drilling wells and other oil and gas production facilities from the previous minimum of 350 feet.
Under the new rule, wellheads must be no closer than 500 feet to residences and other occupied structures such as schools, hospitals, offices and other workplaces. The rule also requires oil and gas producers to notify owners of occupied structures when they plan to drill a well within 1,000 feet of the structure.
Variances for Good Cause
The commission supervisor may grant a variance to increase or decrease the setback distance for good cause, the rule states.
The industry in Wyoming generally supported the rule, although oil and gas companies urged the commission not go beyond 500 feet for the setback requirement. By contrast, many landowners and environmental groups had been pushing the commission to adopt a quarter-mile, or 1,320-foot, minimum.
The commission said in an April 14 statement that the setback rule was “focused on resolving conflicts between often competing interests—the owners of mineral estates, surface estates and nearby homes—and by those private parties best positioned to resolve those conflicts.”
The new notification requirement will not result in “undue economic restrictions on energy exploration and production activities,” the commission said.
‘Reasonable Compromise.’
In comments submitted to the commission prior to the decision, many oil and gas companies operating in Wyoming said they saw the rule change as a reasonable compromise.
The 500-foot setback balances “the interests of landowners” while allowing the oil and gas industry “to move forward on the development so vital to our state's economy,” said Peter I. Wold, partner in Wold Companies, an oil company in Casper, Wyo.
“Excessive setback distances from occupied structures can impinge upon legally protected mineral rights; result in the waste of oil and gas resources; and negatively impact public and stakeholder values, including tax and royalty receipts, jobs and employee wages,” said Peter Dea, president and chief executive officer of Cirque Resources LP, which is based in Denver.
Field workers and drilling managers with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Kirkwood Resources, Ballard Petroleum, Parson Oil and others similarly urged the commission not to go beyond the 500-foot setback.
‘Some Difficulties.'
John Robitaille, vice president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming in Cheyenne, told Bloomberg BNA April 15 that the statewide industry association supported the rule, although it would cause some difficulties for energy producers.
“There's certainly an amount of minerals that will not be obtainable, but it's minimized” by not increasing the setback beyond the 500 feet minimum, he said. “The technology is limited” to allow for producers to drill directionally or horizontal for resources that are farther away from the wellhead, he said.
Several environmental groups commented that the 500-foot setback was a “failure” to recognize the importance of the health and safety of people living and working near the ever-increasing number of large, multiwell drilling facilities.
Decision ‘Came Up Short.’
“Wyoming had the chance to become a national leader in its recognition of the need to protect the health and safety of residents living near oil and gas development while promoting the rational development of its oil and gas resources, but came up short,” Alex Bowler, president of the Cheyenne Area Landowner's Coalition, said in a statement.
Bowler told Bloomberg BNA April 15 that the group will work with the Wyoming legislature and county governments to enact measures requiring greater setbacks.
Wayne Lax, a Cheyenne homeowner and a member of the coalition's board, told Bloomberg BNA that many landowners feel the commission does not care about people living near wells.
“One hundred and fifty feet more is absolutely worthless,” Lax said. “These things should be no closer than a half mile away, given the health risks” associated with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
‘Not Over.’
“This is not over,” he added. “Gov. Matt Mead said the goal of his rule change was to reduce the potential for conflicts between the local areas and the oil and gas industry. If he thinks 150 feet is going to make a damn bit of difference, he's very wrong.”
The Powder River Basin Resource Council issued a statement saying the setback rule is a “missed opportunity for the state to be a national leader in protecting the health and safety of residents living near oil and gas development.”
But the commission said after reviewing comments submitted on the setback rules, it concluded “there is no definitive science or data with regard to energy development effects on human health which provides any clear guidance in setting setback requirements.”
-
Natural Gas Dominates U.S. Energy Projections
Apr 15, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
Growth in its domestic production will cause natural gas to replace naphtha feedstocks in coming decades while sparking significant expansion of bulk chemical manufacturing, the Department of Energy predicts in its annual outlook report.
Consumption of natural gas and hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGLs) is expected to increase by more than 50% from 2013 levels by 2040, according to the government’s most likely forecasts for the next quarter-century. A main driver of this trend would be growth in U.S. production capacity for methanol and ammonia for fertilizers and in ethylene catalytic crackers, the report says.
“With sustained low HGL prices, the feedstock slate continues to favor HGL at unprecedented levels” over heavy petroleum-based naphtha feedstocks, it adds. DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) released the report on April 14.
“DOE’s projection for continued growth in domestic natural gas production is terrific news for U.S. chemical industry investment,” says the American Chemistry Council, a trade association.
EIA predicts that the U.S. will become a net exporter of natural gas as soon as 2017. The combination of growth in U.S. energy production and only modest increases in demand means reduced reliance on imported energy.
Without considering the impact of a pending Environmental Protection Agency regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, EIA anticipates prices for electricity to grow 18% by 2040. But improved energy efficiency and a shift away from more carbon-intensive fuels to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar will help stabilize U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions, it adds. Domestic CO2 emissions are expected to remain below their 2005 level through 2040, the report says.
In a related development, EPA announced on April 15 that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 increased 2% over 2012 levels but dropped 9% since 2005.
-
Minnesota Judge Recommends PUC Grant Certificate of Need for Proposed Oil Pipeline
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
An administrative law judge in Minnesota recommended April 13 that the state public utilities commission grant a certificate of need to Enbridge Energy for its proposed 616-mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from North Dakota to terminals in both Minnesota and Wisconsin (In the Matter of the Application of North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC for a Certificate of Need for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project in Minnesota, Minn. Office of Administrative Hearings, No. 8-2500-31260, 4/13/15).
Administrative law Judge Eric L. Lipman held that the proposed pipeline is the most socially beneficial method to transport oil across the Minnesota. He noted that while project opponents were displeased that the proposed pipeline would traverse sensitive environmental areas in the state, none of them was able to show that any of the proposed alternatives offered lower risks to the environment.
Leigh Currie, staff attorney for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said while the ALJ's recommendation cannot be challenged, those opposed to the proposed pipeline will soon be filing exceptions to the judge's findings. Once those have been filed, she said, the PUC will schedule a hearing on the findings. A hearing will likely be held in June, she said.
Bottlenecks Cited as Problem
North Dakota Pipeline Co., which is comprised of Enbridge Energy and a subsidiary of marathon Petroleum Corp., has proposed building a pipeline from its operations south of Tioga, N.D. to Clearbrook, Minn., and from Clearbrook to Superior, Wis. The company maintains that the pipeline is necessary because of increased oil production in North Dakota. The pipeline, it said, would reduce bottlenecks at its Clearbrook terminal and provide flexible routing for crude oil to refineries.
Lipman's findings noted that crude oil production has increased dramatically in North Dakota, from about 138,000 barrels produced a day in 2008 to more than 800,000 barrels a day in 2013. At the same time, he wrote, the number of tanker cars shipped out of North Dakota also has increased dramatically.
Denying NDPC's application, he wrote, would probably adversely affect the future adequacy, reliability and efficiency of the energy supply to the company and its customers, as well as to the people of Minnesota and neighboring states.
He added that while alternative pipeline routes were proposed by others, including the Friends of the Headwaters and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, NDPC's was the shortest route and offered lower greenhouse gas emissions than other routes. In addition, Lipman wrote, the NDPC route was more cost-effective and likely to have fewer environmental impacts.
The judge also noted that the alternatives to the NDPC route contained more cities, counties and populated areas.
Richard Smith, president of the Friends of the Headwaters, a citizens' group focused on protecting natural resources, said in a statement that he was disappointed in the ALJ's decision. He said he was confident the Minnesota PUC would find the pipeline was not in the state's best interest as it puts too many of the state's natural resources at risk.
Dave Benke, spokesman for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, told Bloomberg BNA April 15 that the agency is still studying the decision. He said it will determine in the coming weeks whether it will play any role when the PUC meets to examine the recommendations.
-
Greens, Oil And Gas Industry Spar Over What EPA's Inventory Means For Regulation
Apr 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
The greenhouse gas inventory U.S. EPA finalized today showed that oil-and-gas-sector methane emissions increased between 2012 and 2013, and that the sector remained the largest industrial source of methane.
Natural gas systems specifically were estimated to produce 37.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, up from 34.8 MMT of CO2 in 2012. And petroleum systems were responsible for 6 MMT, up from 5.1.
The methane footprint of natural gas systems was 157 MMT of CO2 equivalent, up 3 MMT from the previous year. For petroleum systems, it rose from 23.3 MMT in 2012 to 25.2 MMT in 2013.
The finding differed little from the draft version of the 20th Inventory of Greenhouse Gases and Sinks released earlier this year, but it nonetheless sparked a minor tug-of-war between the natural gas industry and environmentalists who are on opposite sides of the question of whether EPA and the Interior Department should directly regulate methane.
The American Gas Association pointed out that the inventory showed a decadeslong trend of emissions reductions from the gas distribution sector specifically. That subsector cut its emissions by 16 percent between 1990 and 2013.
"The EPA Inventory and other more comprehensive studies continue to show a declining trend in emissions from natural gas distribution systems," Kathryn Clay, AGA's vice president for policy, said in a statement. "This consistent reduction is due to a concerted effort by natural gas utilities to upgrade and modernize our nation's pipeline network to enhance safety."
The American Petroleum Institute also pointed to the inventory's long-term estimates to make the case that oil and gas is doing its part.
"U.S. producers continue to make dramatic improvements, with net methane emissions from natural gas production falling 38 percent since 2005," said Howard Feldman, API regulatory chief, in a statement. "These voluntary efforts will continue, as operators work to capture more gas and deliver it to consumers. Another layer of burdensome regulations will only interfere with that progress."
But Mark Brownstein of the Environmental Defense Fund said the inventory supported calls from environmentalists for new administration policies, including EPA's bid to regulate new oil and gas operations for methane under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA inventory showed that the oil and gas sector released more than 7.3 MMT of methane in 2013 -- an amount Brownstein said was equivalent to the climate-forcing output of 160 coal-fired power plants over 20 years.
"The oil and gas industry has been quick to tout their small victories in minimizing methane pollution, but there's always a catch," he said in a statement.
Brownstein noted that many of the improvements in greenhouse gas output came from newly hydraulically fractured wellheads, which EPA is already regulating. "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," he said
-
Clean Power Plan Deadlines May Discourage Adoption of Trading Programs, States Say
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Tight deadlines for states to submit compliance plans and meet interim greenhouse gas reduction targets would make it difficult to set up an interstate emissions trading program to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, state environmental regulators said April 15.
Officials from Virginia, Rhode Island and Colorado, speaking at a Center for Climate and Energy Solutions event, identified the compliance timeline proposed by the EPA as an obstacle to state adoption of a regional cap-and-trade or other market-based program to comply with the standards for existing power plant emissions.
The EPA Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which is expected to be finalized this summer, would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for each state, including interim goals in 2020 and final emissions targets in 2030. The proposal would require states to submit compliance plans describing how they will meet their emissions targets by summer 2016, although the EPA will make one-year extensions available for individual plans and two-year extensions for multistate compliance plans, according to an agency fact sheet.
Janet Coit, director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, said the proposal's time frame could have the unintended consequence of discouraging states from exploring regional, market-based solutions to comply with the power plant rule. Although states would have a long time to meet their the final emissions targets, they would not have very much time to submit their plan to the EPA, Coit said.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters after the proposed Clean Power Plan was released that interstate emissions trading programs will likely be the most cost-effective way for states to achieve the carbon dioxide emissions targets (107 DEN A-11, 6/4/14).
Joining RGGI May Pose Timing Issue
Coit said Rhode Island and the other eight states that participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative would be able to meet the EPA's proposed timeline for submitting state plans and meeting interim emissions goals, but she said it would be difficult to add additional states to RGGI in that short period.
Some states might be able to declare their intentions to join RGGI in time to include emissions trading in their state plans, Coit said, but she questioned whether the current RGGI states would be able to work out how to bring those new states into the program.
RGGI in March developed a set of principles to guide future discussions with other states, in preparation for the possibility that other states could be interested in joining the cap-and-trade program once the Clean Power Plan is finalized (56 DEN A-3, 3/24/15).
David Paylor, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, agreed the short time frame for submitting a state plan under the EPA proposal is “a real problem” for joining an interstate trading program. Paylor said joining RGGI is one of many options that Virginia will consider and acknowledged that some members of the Virginia legislature want the state to join RGGI as an “off-the-shelf” solution to the Clean Power Plan.
An April 2015 analysis the Acadia Center prepared found that if Virginia joined RGGI, then the state would meet all its obligations under the proposed Clean Power Plan and earn $2.8 billion during the next 15 years (68 DEN A-12, 4/9/15).
Paylor said the proposed time frames would make it difficult to use an interstate emissions trading approach to comply with the Clean Power Plan, but he said there could be an option to use some sort of intrastate trading program that eventually could be expanded into an interstate program.
New Program ‘Nearly Impossible.'
Martha Rudolph, director of environmental programs at the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, said it would be “nearly impossible” for Colorado and other states to set up a cap-and-trade program similar to the RGGI under the EPA's proposed compliance time frame.
Rudolph also mentioned a smaller, state-only trading program as something that could be possible as part of a compliance plan.
“Going beyond that would be really complicated,” she said.
Coit agreed with the timing concerns, noting that it took several years to get the RGGI program running.
Both Paylor and Rudolph said their states would rapidly begin working on their compliance plans once the Clean Power Plan is finalized. Rudolph said Colorado really hasn't started working to develop its plan with the state's mix of energy sources and utilities and won't do so until the rule is finalized.
-
Senate OKs Nonbinding Budget Language Calling For Action On Climate, Security
Apr 16, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
The Senate yesterday evening approved language that would call on its budget conferees to address the causes and effects of climate change when negotiating the fiscal 2016 budget resolution.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) introduced the language, which was approved on a voice vote.
The motion asked Senate members of the fiscal 2016 budget conference to press for language in the nonbinding budget blueprint that expresses the need to address "the economic and national security threats posed by human-induced climate change," including Defense Department efforts to harden infrastructure.
The Bennet language also asks Senate conferees to strike an existing budget provision opposing administration efforts to control emissions, including U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Bennet's motion was one of 13 the Senate voted on last night in an echo of the so-called vote-a-rama that dominated last month's discussion of the budget resolution.
Bennet attached language to the budget that likewise dealt with the national security threats posed by climate change.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who sponsored a budget amendment of his own that would give states federal cover to opt out of the Clean Power Plan for a wide variety of reasons, told reporters on the way to yesterday's votes that he has "no plans" to reintroduce that language as a stand-alone bill. Portman was discussed as a possible Senate sponsor for House legislation Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) is preparing to introduce.
-
Power Grids in U.S. See Smooth Transition To New EPA Rules, Coal-to-Gas Generation
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan N. Crawford
PJM Interconnection LLC expects a smooth transition to natural gas from coal at its mid-Atlantic electricity network as new clean-air rules take effect.
The Environmental Protection Agency's $9.6 billion mercury and air toxics standards, or MATS, scheduled to kick in April 16, will limit emissions of mercury and other toxics. The bulk of the coal plant shutdowns will occur in the 13-state PJM grid, the nation's biggest, where about a fifth of the network's coal generation is scheduled to shut by June.
The impact on power markets will be blunted as the plants being shut in the U.S. this summer were running at about 26 percent of capacity, according to Genscape Inc., a Louisville, Ky.-based market analytics firm. Gas traded in New York has dropped 44 percent from a year ago while coal is down 19 percent, encouraging the move to the cleaner-burning fuel.
“This is going to look like any other day-ahead scheduling day for us, without a whole lot of noticeable stuff changing,” Stu Bresler, vice president for market operations for Valley Forge, Pa.-based PJM, said in an April 7 phone interview. “These plants have been running less and less; their marginal costs have been getting higher and higher.”
Twenty-three gigawatts of mostly older, less-efficient U.S. coal-fired power plants, representing about 7 percent of capacity, will shut in 2015, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report. Coal will generate about 36 percent of U.S. electricity in 2015, down from about 50 percent in 2007, Energy Information Administration data show.
Winter Demand to Test Impact on Power Prices
The real test for the impact the retirements will have on power prices will be in the winter, Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power Co. Inc., said in an April 13 e-mail.
“Winter weather extremes typically result in more significant price spikes and reliability issues as gas infrastructure must serve both winter heating and power-generation demand,” McHenry said. “That was the situation during the polar vortex” in 2014.
PJM will have sufficient power to meet peak electricity demand because of the new natural gas-fired generation and power curtailment services, in which some consumers agree to limit their electricity use during times of peak demand in exchange for lower rates, Bresler said. Nuclear generation capacity increases also helps, he said.
“The coal units that are going offline have not been very heavily utilized in recent years,” Rick Margolin, senior natural gas analyst at Genscape, said in a March 25 Web conference. “So in effect, most of the capacity has already been idled.”
Supreme Court Weighs Authority to Set Caps
PJM said 10 to 13 gigawatts of coal generation will retire by June 1 from a total of about 68 gigawatts at the end of 2014, while 8 gigawatts of new gas-fired plants are set to come on line by June 2016. The EIA said April 14 that coal will account for 34 percent of output in 2040, compared with 39 percent in 2013.
The Supreme Court is weighing whether President Barack Obama's administration went too far with the new pollution caps. If the justices rule to scrap the regulation, which may come before the court's summer recess at the end of June, operators of plants that obtained a one-year extension to comply with the rules may still decide to shut them (71 DEN A-1, 4/14/15).
The Supreme Court must decide whether the EPA unreasonably chose not to consider costs in determining it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate air toxics emissions from power plants, a finding that ultimately led to the 2012 promulgation of emissions limits for mercury, filterable particulate matter as a surrogate for toxic metals and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gases.
“Even if MATS disappears, the reality of difficult market economics looks likely to persist,” Christine Tezak, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners LLC in Washington, said in a March 25 note to clients. “Asset owners may still have motivation to remove these plants from the market on economic factors alone.”
-
House Panel Advances Coal Ash Bill Allowing States Flexibility in Regulating Material
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced legislation April 15 that would give states more leeway on how to regulate coal ash and that would permanently bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating the material as a hazardous waste.
The Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act (H.R. 1734), sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), passed on a 32-19 vote. Two Democrats—Reps. Mike Doyle (Pa.) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.)—backed the measure.
Utilities, states and coal ash recyclers have voiced support for McKinley's bill, which would enable states to draft, implement and enforce their own permitting programs for coal ash management and disposal using minimum federal technical requirements set out in an EPA rule. Environmental advocates say the legislation would undermine human health and environmental protections.
“This bill, which will protect hundreds of thousands of jobs, is a model of thoughtful collaboration to protect human health and the environment,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the panel's chairman, said.
The EPA announced the first national standards for coal ash management under the nonhazardous waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in December but has not formally published the rule in the Federal Register. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said at the markup that the final rule would be published this week.
House Democrats offered no amendments to the measure, because they said they had already sought to improve the bill during the subcommittee process.
“I don't think the bill can be fixed,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the full committee, said.
Vote Expected This Summer
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the head of the subpanel overseeing the bill, previously told Bloomberg BNA the House intended to pass the legislation before it recesses for the month of August. House members have advanced similar coal ash bills multiple times before.
The bill's real challenge may be in the Senate, where it would have to garner 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are working on their own coal ash management and disposal package, but have yet to introduce it.
President Barack Obama's administration has not threatened vetoes of previous coal ash bills, but the EPA's top waste official said during the subcommittee markup that McKinley's legislation lacks “additional essential elements of transparency, prevention and response” that were crucial parts of the final rule.
House members made several technical changes to the legislation prior to its introduction to address some of those concerns—such as requiring data to be posted on the Internet—but the administration has declined to take an official position on the revised bill.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy advanced the McKinley bill to the full committee on March 25(58 DEN A-5, 3/26/15).
-
House Coal Ash Bill Clears Energy Panel With 'Compromise' Input From EPA
Apr 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House legislation to overhaul parts of EPA's coal ash disposal rule cleared the energy panel April 15 after lawmakers backing the ball said they amended it to include “compromises” based on the agency's request for changes to the bill, including more-stringent reporting requirements and mandates for corrective actions in the event of ash facility leaks.
Despite accepting some of the changes sought by EPA and winning the backing of two Democrats, however, other Democrats in the House continue to object to the bill. And the revised measure does not make all the changes sought by the agency, which could prompt a White House veto threat should the legislation clear the House and Senate.
The revised measure, H.R. 1734, won the support of all Republicans and Democratic Reps. Kurt Schrader (OR) and Michael Doyle (PA) at the House Energy & Commerce Committee's markup, clearing the panel in a 32-19 vote with no amendments offered.
The bill's approval won the praise of consumer-owned electric cooperatives organization the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), which thanked House energy panel Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and David McKinley (R-WV) for their work on the bill.
Shimkus, chair of the energy panel's environmental subcommittee, said the bill reflect negotiations with EPA on bringing the legislation more in line with the agency's final ash rule issued in December.
In his opening statement for the markup, which started April 14 and concluded the following day, Shimkus described the newest version of the bill as “a carefully crafted compromise.”
Compared to earlier drafts, the version of the bill advanced out of the committee would require facilities, rather than state regulators, to post groundwater monitoring data on the Internet.
It would also allow states to impose alternate corrective action plans on ash facilities that leak only when the leaks do not affect groundwater and the new plans “will result in the same level of protection” as EPA's rule, which is slated for publication in the Federal Register by April 17.
'Health Protections'
But Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member on the full House energy panel, argued at the markup that despite the revisions from an earlier version, H.R. 1734 would “undermine the health protections” established in EPA's regulation, and said, “No one should be fooled into thinking that this bill embodies the requirements of EPA's rule.”
The House bill would codify much of EPA's final coal ash disposal rule issued last year but make some significant changes including giving states primary authority to craft and implement coal waste disposal programs, rather than EPA's approach setting nationwide standards enforced through citizen suits.
It is similar to legislation Congress tried unsuccessfully to move in the 113th Congress, when EPA's rule was not yet final. The White House never threatened to veto that bill, instead offering suggestions for changes that could win the administration's support.
During an House energy panel environment subcommittee hearing in March, EPA again pitched changes to win the administration's backing, though it is unclear if the new additions will be enough to satisfy the agency.
At the March 24 hearing, EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus faulted the earlier version of H.R. 1734 for lacking a a "clear" minimum disposal safety standard that state programs would have to meet, as well as setting what he described as more lenient requirements for “transparency, prevention and response” -- echoing concerns from House Democrats and environmentalists at prior hearings on the bill.
While no amendments were offered at the full committee markup, the subcommittee March 25 voted down by 12-6 an amendment from Pallone that would have required states to duplicate all substantive requirements of the EPA disposal rule in their regulatory programs.
Speaking at the April 15 markup, Pallone said the Democrats are not offering amendments because “at this point I don't think the bill can be fixed.”
While Republicans are still practically assured of being able to move H.R. 1734 through the House, a Senate companion will need support from at least 8 Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to defeat a filibuster threat from Democrats who might oppose the measure.
Disposal Rule
EPA signed its ash disposal rule in December, and an agency spokesman confirms to Inside EPA that publication in the Register -- a necessary step for the rule to take effect -- is expected on April 17.
State and industry concerns over EPA's rule have mainly focused on enforcement. Prior to the rule's finalization, they had urged the agency to apply a regime where states would have primary authority to craft and implement Resource Conservation & Recovery Act subtitle D coal ash standards subject to federal review and approval of their policies.
EPA instead opted for a system of national standards enforced through citizen suits in federal courts. Industry and state critics of the rule have argued that the agency's plan will lead to conflicting or redundant federal and state requirements, while environmentalists have faulted it for not going far enough to regulate disused “legacy” sites.
But environmentalists have generally said the rule is preferable to the House bill, because of the lack of a minimum disposal standard and less stringent siting requirements for the facilities, as well as the reporting differences that were amended in the latest legislation.
One environmentalist source told Inside EPA that along with opening the possibility of states enacting disposal rules that fall short of EPA's standards, reporting provisions in the House bill could also make it more difficult to file citizen suits over discharges to protected waters, because such suits depend on water quality monitoring data to show harms.
In addition to establishing a state-led system for crafting and enforcing coal ash disposal standards, the House bill would also underscore EPA's decision to regulate ash as a RCRA subtitle D solid waste by barring any future agency regulation of ash as a subtitle C hazardous waste.
Following the markup, NRECA CEO Jo Ann Emerson in a statement said, “We appreciate the leadership shown by Representatives Upton, Shimkus and McKinley on a bill that will minimize litigation while giving states the authority to enforce EPA’s recent non-hazardous coal ash management rules. Electric co-ops believe this bipartisan bill appropriately balances public health, the environment and the economy.”
Enforcement Case
Meanwhile, enforcement proceedings are ongoing over an incident advocates say shows the need for a stronger ash rule in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) criminal enforcement case against Duke Energy, over the 2014 spill from one of its North Carolina facilities into the state's Dan River.
As first reported by Law360, Judge Malcolm J. Howard, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, deferred sentencing in the consolidated CWA cases against Duke until May 14 to allow the company to seek a waiver from a federal CWA process that Law360 writes “could disrupt business at five power facilities,” although the briefs supporting that claim are under seal by the district court.
The facility is also defending against environmentalists' citizen suits alleging failures at other impoundments in the states, and many of the same groups, including Sierra Club, have launched suits against coal ash facilities in other states, most recently a complaint filed March 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's Norfolk Division that alleges CWA violations by Dominion Virginia Power. Advocates say the violations at existing facilities highlight inadequate management of the sector by state regulators and make the case for strong federal oversight of any coal ash program.
-
Chamber, Other Groups Dispute U.S. Ability To Make Good on 2025 Emissions Pledge
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce representative and other critics of President Barack Obama's climate agenda told a House panel they're skeptical the U.S. can make good on its pledge to cut greenhouse gases up to 28 percent over the next decade.
“The math just doesn't add up,” Karen Harbert, who heads the chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee April 15, noting that just-released U.S. figures show emissions increased in 2013.
Judith Curry, professor of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, also took issue with what she called “rather extreme statements” from the Obama administration linking rising temperatures to severe weather events across the U.S.
But Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said the hearing demonstrated Republicans are continuing to ignore mounting scientific evidence that rising global emissions pose a significant threat.
“Welcome to the Science Committee—the last place on the planet where we question whether climate change is being caused by human activity,” she said.
Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) held the hearing largely to dispute whether Obama's 2014 pledge—offered to spur global action toward getting a final climate deal at an end-of-year summit in Paris—is justified given what Republicans argue is significant uncertainty in climate science.
But it also coincided with the most recent tally of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, which showed U.S. emissions increasing, up 2 percent in 2013 from the year before. In its April 15 release, the EPA attributed the increase to multiple factors, including an uptick in emissions from electricity generation; increased vehicle miles; and increased emissions from the industrial sector.
A Decline From 2005 Levels
The EPA also noted that total emissions are still down 9 percent since 2005.
The U.S. pledge toward the international climate accord—announced in November 2014 and formally submitted to the United Nations on March 31—is to cut its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent from that 2005 baseline, by 2025.
The U.S. in its formal submission also said it would make its “best efforts” to hit the higher end of that range (62 DEN A-1, 4/1/15).
EPA's final 2013 figures are essentially unchanged from its draft emissions inventory estimates released in February (40 DEN A-1, 3/2/15).
But Jake Schmidt, the Natural Resources Defense Council's international program director, said Obama actions including carbon pollution limits and increased vehicle and appliance efficiency standards are putting the U.S. on a path to meet the 26-28 percent reduction level. “New acts of Congress may be needed in the long-term, but the U.S. can take a big bite out of its climate pollution using the laws already on the books,” Schmidt told the committee. He noted that groups including the World Resources Institute have found that cuts that deep are in fact “achievable under existing laws.”
Multiple U.S. and international studies predict that increased emissions linked to rising temperatures will bring increasingly severe weather events, storm surges, drought, and reduced crop yields in the U.S., Schmidt said.
-
U.S. Financial Regulation of Climate Change Lacking, Former Government Officials Say
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Financial regulation of climate change is one area where the U.S. government needs to do more, a former White House official told Bloomberg BNA.
“For all of the tremendous leadership shown by the Obama administration on climate in various fields, certainly the financial regulation piece is one that needs more focus and where the voice of the federal government is not being heard,” Paul Bodnar, a senior adviser at the World Resources Institute who previously directed climate change efforts at the White House National Security Council, said April 15.
Climate change could pose a financial risk as the majority of known oil, gas and coal deposits are forced to stay underground, and thus become uneconomical, under future regulations to hold global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Researchers have dubbed this idea the “carbon bubble.”
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has tried to regulate climate disclosure by asking publicly traded companies to report on material climate-related risks in regular financial filings. But since issuing its climate guidance in 2010, the commission has done little to enforce it, according to a recent analysis by Ceres.
States Could Step Up
Bevis Longstreth, who served as a SEC commissioner from 1981 to 1984, called the guidance “a dead letter.”
“It has not been enforced or monitored and that's too bad,” Longstreth said at an event held during the spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
While it's unlikely the SEC will do anything more on climate change in the near future, Longstreth said state attorneys general could step up. He said states could leverage the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, which sets certain standards of prudence for investment and endowment decisions among nonprofit and charitable organizations.
“It is perfectly feasible for every attorney general in this country to interpret the meaning of prudence to involve questions about climate change,” Longstreth said, adding that if the New York attorney general—who pressured the SEC to issue its climate guidance in the first place—were to do this, then other states and perhaps the commission itself would follow.
Regulators Starting to Act
Anthony Hobley, the chief executive officer of Carbon Tracker, a London-based think tank that has pioneered research on the “carbon bubble,” said some regulators are starting to understand that this is an issue that matters to them.
“It no longer makes sense to have a group of people over here doing the financial stability and the people doing the greatest threat to financial stability that our economics have faced over here, and no connection between those two worlds,” Hobley said at the event.
He said the Bank of England has come to realize that these two groups cannot be isolated.
Mark Carney, the bank's governor, has been vocal on climate change, saying the vast majority of proven oil, gas and coal reserves are unburnable. In 2014, Carney instructed his staff to consider whether stranded assets posed a threat to banks, investors and the financial system.
-
Bill Introduced to Address Crude-by-Rail Security
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill introduced April 14 by Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) would require federal transportation offices to address certain security issues and model requirements for tank cars transporting crude oil. The bill, H.R. 1763, would require the Transportation Security Administration to issue rules within one year of the bill's enactment to ensure tank cars carrying crude oil are not left unattended when being transferred between rail carriers or between rail carriers and shippers. The bill would require the Transportation Department to issue within one year revised tank car standards for DOT-111 cars and newer CPC-1232 cars that carry oil and to submit to Congress within a year a phaseout plan for use of older DOT-111 in flammable liquid service. Payne's improvements for tank cars standards are similar to the least stringent option proposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in a rule that is expected to be finalized soon. The rule on enhanced tank car and operation control standards also is expected to finalize a phaseout schedule. The bill is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9vlk8l. -
Bill Would Set Minimum-Crew Freight Train Standard
Apr 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bill introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) would require all freight trains to use two-person crews, a standard similar to one the Federal Railroad Administration is expected to propose following a significant crude oil train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. Young's bill, (H.R. 1763) would also apply to any “light engine used in connection with the movement of freight.” The bill, introduced April 13, would also require one of the crew members to be a locomotive engineer and the other to be a conductor. The federal rail agency announced it would propose its similar rule on this issue following the July 2013 derailment of an unattended train carrying crude oil in Lac-Mégantic that resulted in 47 deaths. Some railroads have expressed opposition to adding the railroad administration's requirement into law based on lack of data, on certain safe operation records and on pending technology upgrades, such as positive train control systems, that could make two-person crews less necessary. Young's bill has been referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The bill is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=rlen-9vlp2z.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested