Preview Newsletter

ACC AM ap 20

Congressional Hearings

Nomination hearing for Vanessa Sutherland to be a Member and Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building, EPW Hearing Room/ 9:30 AM
Oversight Hearing on "Innovations in Safety Since the 2010 Macondo Incident."
Apr 22, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources

Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 9:30 AM
Hearing on the reauthorization and potential reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources

Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM
Full Committee Markup - FY 2016 Energy and Water Bill, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Bill, and Report on the Suballocation of Budget Allocations
Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations

Location: 2359 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:45 AM
Small Business, Big Threat: Protecting Small Businesses from Cyber Attacks
Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Location: Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2360 / 11:00 AM

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Unlike South Carolina Democrats, The Cowardly Lion Was Occasionally Brave
Apr 18, 2015 | Politicus USA
By Dennis S more from Dennis S

Golly, gee whiz, do tell…South Carolina, among many Southern and right-wing states, simply doesn’t have the money. Can’t finance aid programs for the poor. Gotta cut funds for public education, close down public schools, boot public school teachers out the door. No money. Just can’t afford to do anything with addicts but throw them in prison.
(ACC Mentioned) Mounting Logistical Issues Delaying US Polyethylene Exports: Sources
Apr 17, 2015 | Platts
By Chris Ferrell & Emmanuel Gallegos

A series of constraints throughout the logistical chain have slowed US polyethylene exports and made it increasingly difficult for traders to secure resin from producers, market sources said this week. The slowdowns -- the result of issues ranging from full warehouses in the Houston area to a shortage of trucks to ...
(ACC Mentioned) Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: BASF, Dow Chemical, DuPont, LyondellBasell Industries and Westlake Chemical - Press Releases
Apr 17, 2015 | Zacks

The chemicals industry -- a roughly $5 trillion global business -- has finally embarked on the road to recovery. The industry fared reasonably well last year amid an exigent global operating backdrop, exacerbated by lumpiness in Europe and a cooling Chinese economy. The December quarter elicited healthy demand trends for chemicals across...

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Draft Bill May Pave Path For Reform Of Federal Chemical Control Law
Apr 20, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson

New draft legislation in the House of Representatives could lead the way out of a political snarl that for years has stalled Congress’s efforts to modernize the federal law governing commercial chemicals. The chemical industry is backing the draft bill, and environmental groups say that with a few changes they too could support it.
(ACC Mentioned) California Releases Final Work Plan For Priority Items Under Safer Products Rule 
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has released the final version of the three-year work plan it will use to identify the next round of priority products under the state's Safer Consumer Products Regulations. The scope of the final plan is substantially the same as the draft released in September 2014, but it does include some changes...
(ACC Mentioned) Study Points to Chemicals’ Health Threats
Apr 17, 2015 | The Daily Sentenial
By Dennis Webb

A new study that was a focus of the last several years of a late Paonia scientist’s life raises concerns about health threats of four related chemicals that are pervasive in homes and also associated with vehicle emissions and oil and gas development. A paper published this week and authored by Theo Colborn and two other researchers...
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Stiffens Resistance to Toy-Regulation Bills
Apr 17, 2015 | Capital
By Scott Waldman

A business coalition intensified its fight this week against state legislative efforts to restrict chemicals in children's toys. A group called the Safe to Play Coalition, which is made up of hundreds of toy retailers, filed a lawsuit against Albany County's “toxic toys” ban on Thursday, claiming that it was unconstitutional and so restrictive it would cover ...
(ACC Mentioned) Experience 'The Human Experiment': Sean Penn Documentary Has Chemistry
Apr 17, 2015 | Parade
By Stephanie Stephens

Starting today, you can see The Human Experiment nationwide or via video on demand (VOD). The 92-minute documentary is narrated and executive produced by Sean Penn, and is also the brainchild of Emmy-winning journalists Dana Nachman and Don Hardy. The film’s thesis: “The Human Experiment lifts the veil on the shocking...
(ACC Mentioned) Wrap-Up of Federal and State Chemical Regulatory Developments April 2015
Apr 17, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor

EAB Reverses Epic Penalty In Elementis Case, But Affirms EPA's "Continuing" TSCA Section 8(e) Interpretation: On March 13, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) reversed the November 2013 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling that Elementis must pay a $2.5 million penalty for failing to ...
House Subcommittee To Evaluate Veterans' Chemical Exposures Bill
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson

Lawmakers are set to consider a bill that would streamline how the Department of Veterans Affairs researches and provides services to ex-service members exposed to toxic chemicals. The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health will look at H.R. 1769, or the "Toxic Exposure Research Act," this week.
Industry, Animal Rights Groups Question EPA's Proposed EDSP Tier 2 Tests
Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad

Industry and animal rights groups are raising concerns about three tests that EPA has proposed for use in the second tier of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), with both types of groups questioning the tests' suitability for use in the screening program, and multiple animal rights groups protesting the vast numbers of animals the tests ...
Liquor-Store Spirits Provide Green Alternative To HPLC Solvents
Apr 17, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Catherine M. Cooney

Long considered a lab workhorse, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) typically requires expensive chemicals that need to be disposed of as hazardous waste. A new study shows that rum, vodka, and other distilled alcohols combined with household products can serve as low-cost and sustainable alternative eluents for HPLC, and ...
There is Nano-WHAT in My Food?
Apr 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews

Are intentionally engineered nanoparticles being added to our food? We don’t know for sure – and federal food regulators aren’t helping us find out the truth. On April 6 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule to collect basic information on production, processing, exposure and available health and safety data for nanomaterials...

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

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Blog) Two New Reports Highlight U.S. Natural Gas Production Boom
Apr 17, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

Assessments released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Potential Gas Committee this month project robust growth in domestic natural gas, reinforcing prospects for continued chemical industry expansion and investment. EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015, issued on Tuesday, projects that U.S. energy... http://blog.americanchemistry.com/
House Lawmakers To Wade Into Fracking Science Debate
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Thursday will delve into the debate on hydraulic fracturing, taking up concerns over water pollution and local control of fracking wells. The committee will consider the scientific research that fracking opponents claim shows the drilling method causes underground water contamination...
Texas House Votes to Block Local Fracking Bans
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The Texas House of Representatives voted Friday to block cities and counties from banning hydraulic fracturing. The move comes after voters in the town of Denton, Texas, outlawed fracking there last year. Lawmakers in the Texas House, bolstered by arguments against a series of mismatching local laws against fracking, voted 122-18 to ban...
GOP, Drillers Blast BLM Move to Consider Fee Hike
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Phil Taylor

The Bureau of Land Management's move today to initiate a rulemaking that could hike fees to drill for oil and gas on public lands drew swift blowback from Republicans and the energy industry, but praise from conservation groups. BLM is seeking public input on a potentially sweeping new rule that would update oil and gas royalty rates, rental...
Feds Weigh Drilling Fee Hike
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The Obama administration has begun considering whether to increase rates and royalties imposed on oil and gas companies drilling on federal lands. The Bureau of Land Management announced Friday that it will seek public comment on rules making changes to royalty rates, rental payments, lease sale prices and other compensation ...
Interior Looking at Higher Royalties, Fees For Oil, Gas Work on Federal Onshore Lands
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski

The Interior Department opened the regulatory process April 17 on steps that could raise royalty rates, rental payments, minimum bid levels, bonding requirements and civil penalties on oil and gas companies working on federal onshore lands. The department released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to seek public comment...
Investors Urge SEC to Take Closer Look At Oil, Gas Companies' Climate Disclosures
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio

A global group of institutional investors representing nearly $2 trillion in assets is calling on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to place more scrutiny on oil and gas companies' disclosures of climate change-related risks. The investors, which include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the California Public Employees' Retirement System...
House Panel to Review Safety Innovations Since BP Spill
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Phil Taylor

The House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday will hold a hearing to review safety innovations since the BP PLC oil spill in April 2010. Committee members will hear from the Obama administration's top drilling regulator, as well as industry officials and a fisheries biologist from the University of South Florida.
U.S. Oil Companies Face Gloom, With a Silver Lining
Apr 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode

The U.S. oil industry has gone from boom to gloom. Oil prices have plunged to half the level they were a year ago, triggering a wave of layoffs and spending cuts even as the Obama administration tightens regulations over how and where the industry can drill. Headlines boasting record domestic oil and natural gas production have been replaced...
Governments, Companies Pledge to End Routine Flaring of Natural Gas by 2030
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski

Officials of nine national governments and 10 companies pledged April 17 to stop the routine flaring of natural gas by 2030, an initiative sponsored by the United Nations and the World Bank. The “Zero Routine Flaring by 2030” initiative also was endorsed by six development institutions, including the World Bank.
Greens Face Divide Over Hillary and Keystone
Apr 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor

Hillary Clinton is maintaining her years of silence on the Keystone XL pipeline — and environmental groups are increasingly divided on how hard they should push her to take a stand. It’s a further sign that the never-ending pipeline drama will remain one of the biggest policy minefields facing Clinton’s White House campaign, even if...
Inhofe Seeks Details About EPA Meetings With Advocacy Groups on Power Plant Rules
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is seeking detailed records from the Environmental Protection Agency's meetings with environmental groups while it was developing its proposed carbon dioxide rules for power plants. Inhofe, chairman of the Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee, asked the EPA to provide e-mails, briefing materials...
Inhofe Wants to Know How much EPA Has Spent on Clean Power Plan
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick

Not only will U.S. EPA's utility-sector carbon rules cost the nation's economy dearly, they may already be draining EPA's own coffers, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) charged today. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman asked the federal agency this afternoon for a detailed accounting of the resources it has already spent...
EPA Seems Well Positioned To Weather Early Legal Challenge
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones

Federal judges wasted no time last week showing their skepticism about the first court challenge to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that seeks to block the draft rule before it's finalized. Coal company Murray Energy Corp., along with 15 predominantly Republican-led states and other potentially regulated parties are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for...
House, Senate Panels Plan Hearings To Get Input on Broad Energy Legislation
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

Lawmakers drafting broad energy legislation have scheduled the first in what is expected to be a series of hearings to gain input on the bills. In the House, an Energy and Commerce subcommittee has scheduled an April 23 hearing on “legislative language to create a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce.”
Manchin Staying in Senate, Backing Clinton
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin plans to finish his Senate term and seek re-election in 2018, giving up on returning to the Mountain State to run for governor next year, he announced yesterday. Manchin had been toying with a gubernatorial bid for several months, frustrated with the political gridlock in Washington, D.C. And a recent poll...
House Energy Bill Assembly Begins With An Olive Branch To Dems
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Visser

Work on bipartisan energy legislation begins in earnest this week as a House subcommittee plans to start deliberating a Democrat's bill to establish new worker training programs in energy and manufacturing. The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power this week will consider the "21st Century Workforce"...
Chief Executives of Dozens of Companies Urge Swift Action to Address Climate Change
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stefan Nicola

The heads of 43 companies, including Ikea, Dow Chemical Co. and HSBC Holdings Plc, have called for swift action on climate change, a sign that businesses are prepared for a United Nations deal this year on limiting fossil fuel emissions. The chief executive officers in an open letter promised to move their own businesses toward...
EPA Push for Carbon Capture Said To Jeopardize Development by DOE
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

The Environmental Protection Agency's push to mandate carbon capture systems for new power plants before the technology has been properly vetted could undermine the Energy Department's work to develop the technology, an organization that describes itself as a regulatory watchdog said.
House Lawmakers to Mark Up Energy and Water Spending Bill
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Daniel Bush

House appropriators Wednesday will mark up an energy and water spending bill that would block the Obama administration's water rule and boost funding for nuclear and fossil fuel research. The House Appropriations Committee is expected to easily pass the $35.4 billion spending bill after a subpanel approved it unanimously last...
Panel to Scrutinize Administration's Safety Agenda
Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones

The House Education and Workforce Committee is planning to scrutinize the Obama administration's mine safety agenda, including controversial new rules. Mine Safety and Health Administration chief Joe Main is scheduled to appear before the Workforce Protections subpanel this week, his first official testimony to lawmakers since 2012.

Transportation News

DOT Issues Emergency Order on Transport Of Flammable Liquid by Rail, With Advisories
Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven

The Transportation Department issued April 17 a package of speed limit requirements, along with inspection and response advisories and requests, for shippers and rail carriers of crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids. The requirements and advisories take effect immediately. An emergency order would require certain trains carrying...
Regulators Urge Railroads to Make Changes to Improve Oil-Train Safety
Apr 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold & Betsy Morris

U.S. regulators are urging railroads to make dramatic operating changes, including how they deal with wheel defects, saying a wheel problem may have caused the fiery oil-train derailment in Illinois last month. Despite multiple warning signs, a train carrying crude oil from North Dakota to Philadelphia continued to travel on a potentially faulty wheel...
Feds Order Speed Limits for Oil Trains
Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation
By Keith Laing

The Obama administration is requiring freight rail companies to impose a 40 mile per hour speed limit on oil trains that run near major cities that have large populations. The announcement, from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), comes in response to a series of high-profile accidents that have raised questions about the safety of...

Full Text of Stories Below

Congressional Hearings

Nomination hearing for Vanessa Sutherland to be a Member and Chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Location: 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building, EPW Hearing Room/ 9:30 AM

Return to headline | Return to top
Oversight Hearing on "Innovations in Safety Since the 2010 Macondo Incident."

Apr 22, 2015 | The House Committee on Natural Resources

Location: 1324 Longworth House Office Building/ 9:30 AM

Return to headline | Return to top
Hearing on the reauthorization and potential reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources

Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 366/ 10:00 AM

Return to headline | Return to top
Full Committee Markup - FY 2016 Energy and Water Bill, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Bill, and Report on the Suballocation of Budget Allocations

Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations

Location: 2359 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:45 AM

Return to headline | Return to top
Small Business, Big Threat: Protecting Small Businesses from Cyber Attacks

Apr 22, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Location: Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2360 / 11:00 AM

Return to headline | Return to top

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Unlike South Carolina Democrats, The Cowardly Lion Was Occasionally Brave

Apr 18, 2015 | Politicus USA

By Dennis S more from Dennis S

Golly, gee whiz, do tell…South Carolina, among many Southern and right-wing states, simply doesn’t have the money. Can’t finance aid programs for the poor. Gotta cut funds for public education, close down public schools, boot public school teachers out the door. No money. Just can’t afford to do anything with addicts but throw them in prison. Haven’t got the revenue. In short, any social program favored by progressives comes a cropper because of shortage of the green stuff.
There’s been great Republican resistance in South Carolina over the years to pleas to raise the gas tax so the state’s roads didn’t resemble a ride on a wooden roller coaster. The right screamed bloody murder whenever the subject was brought up by those “tax and spend” liberals. For the last decade, Republican legislators have shamed those who would dare recommend such a solution.
But, behold, the state legislature, including a passel of Republicans, just passed a bill that would raise the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon, thereby raising $400 million a year for roads and bridges. Why, just at the beginning of this year’s session, the Post and Courier newspaper ran a story on why raising the gas tax was already a dead issue. Here’s the exact wording: “Should there be an increase in the gas tax? Gov. Nikki Haley, while not revealing her own transportation plan, has said that’s dead on arrival, and Republican House leaders have said they don’t plan to buck her on that” So there!!!
So why the legislative 180? Why did the Republican General Assembly defy their own Republican governor?
Because the CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and BIG BUSINESS told them to, that’s why. And it took a whole three days to respond to that ORDER!!! Chamber President and CEO Ted Pitts issued a not so subtle warning in a letter to all legislators that it is “unacceptable” for the house and senate to adjourn without a deal. About the same time, Pitts’ counterpart at the South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance, co-signers of the letter, told the paper via his cell, that he had just dodged a huge pothole on Interstate 26. Now, it was getting personal.
The Chamber and SCMA are not to be trifled with. Through money and endorsements, the Chamber, as much as any organization, decides who gets elected to state and legislative offices. SCMA is comprised of the likes of multi-national giants Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BMW, Caterpillar, Honda, Bridgestone, General Electric, Johnson and Johnson, Timpken and a few dozen others. Duke Energy and the American Chemical Council sit at the SCMA table as well.
Jack Sander’s, President of Sunoco, calls state road conditions, “deplorable.” That’s not good for the 200 trucks the company has on South Carolina roads at any given time. Roger Schrum, Sunoco Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Affairs, just happens to be the SCMA board president.
The big boys actually wanted $600 million per year, so I can guarantee you, that extra 200 mil will show up from somewhere, undoubtedly at poor people and public education expense, before this session’s legislative journal is closed. And if the party in power wants to continue to be the party in power, that $600 million will be on the books for however many years the real power brokers in the state want it to be.
There’s an obvious point to be made here. The only voices heard in Columbia are the one’s sitting on a pile of money. In a Republican legislature, they’ll always get their way. If it suits them, they’ll get the roads fixed. They’ll get an obscene bill passed that won’t let private entities sue them for polluting the land, air and water. Whatever they want, they get.
Conversely, the South Carolina Department of Social Services is an underfunded and understaffed mess and children are suffering tremendously and dying as a result. The Department of Health and “Environmental Control” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) is an embarrassing joke. and you can include many other state agencies, similarly worthless.
But, when aerospace giant, Boeing, brushing off a union attempt in North Charleston, says jump, Republican office holders ask, how high. And you know what’s truly most sad? Democrats cower in the corner. Incidentally, Boeing just successfully forced the Machinist union to withdraw a planned petition for a vote. Associated Press quoted Mike Evans, the lead organizer for the union as saying Boeing created “An atmosphere of threats, harassment and unprecedented political interference…” Evans said this intimidated the workers.
Prior to the union loss, the Democrats offered “supportive” union rhetoric. In mid-March party chairman, Jamie Harrison, supposedly stuck his neck out with a parsed and tepid quasi-endorsement of labor as reported by the Post Courier, “The union vote at Boeing shouldn’t be an opportunity to demonize the working class. Basic job protections that most Americans enjoy today are the results of the hard work that unions have done”
I missed the part where he said, without equivocation, that the Democratic Party fully and enthusiastically SUPPORTS THE EFFORTS of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, (IAM) to unionize the North Charleston Dreamliner assembly line production workers. As I’ve noted before on this site, Harrison is a lobbying principal with the Podesta Group, one of the 2 or 3 most powerful lobbying firms in all of DC. Is he overtly pushing for a union for the type of company that is a lobbyist’s bread and butter?
You absolutely know where South Carolina’s avowed enemy of the working man and woman, Governor Nikki Haley, stands. She used a key part of her January State of the State speech to rip IAM from stem to stern. She spread more of her own unique brand of union hatred in an April 2nd News Conference. Meanwhile, back at the plant, IAM is predicted to withdraw their efforts at organizing for the near term. The union has succumbed to the tactics featured in a book I recommended in an earlier submission this year, “Confessions of a Union Buster” by Martin Jay Levitt. I’m betting Boeing took full advantage of the contents of that tome.
A current Democratic legislator and former union head agreed with my assertion in a recent interview with the Post and Courier in referring to the unionizing effort at Boeing, “You’re just at that phase now where you have this hype because companies like Boeing, and I’m talking from experience, go out and hire big-time consultant groups that come in and take the supervisors to classes literally overnight and their attitudes change. They are being taught the rhetoric.” Still reluctant to offend a company with the business ethics of an alley cat, the legislator said “That’s not in their heart.” He later adds, somewhat disingenuously, “Everybody gets along.” Yeah, that’s why Boeing is spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars to destroy the futures of any number of their workers.
Unions in the private sector are dead. The Republicans killed them by gaining a majority in national and state legislatures. Seats that were incredibly won with the addition of votes of many union rank and file. Talk about a career death wish. And apparent indifference to family.
The Democrats, with few exceptions, sat back and let it happen. They’re still sitting back and letting it happen. The exceptions? Sanders, Warren, Grayson and a precious few others.
That’s it!!!

Image via IMDB
I like this article36 This is not for me1 Unlike South Carolina Democrats, The Cowardly Lion Was Occasionally Brave was written by Dennis S for PoliticusUSA. © PoliticusUSA, Sat, Apr 18th, 2015 — All Rights Reserved Ads by AdbladeTrending Articles & Offers4 Easy Tips to Get Free Money from Your Employer!EconomyZoom Surprising Facts About Fast Food Burgers. Did You Know?NewszoomThese 12 super foods speed up your weight loss and can potentially help melt fat!NewszoomThese Celebs Take Vacations to a Whole New Level! NewszoomLearn How to Save Hundreds Each Month on Your Grocery Bill! EconomyZoom Amazing facts you probably don't want to know about!NewszoomThese celebs will motivate you to want to work out! NewsZoomYou Won't Believe Who Tops the List as the Most Generous Celebrity!NewszoomYou won't believe what this airline did with his luggage!NewsZoom
Recent posts on PoliticusUSAObama White House Strongly Condemns The Murder Of Ethiopian Christians By ISIL TerroristsFor Corporate Profits Republicans Want President Obama To Skirt Congress’ AuthorityRepublican Ohio Gov. John Kasich Is Waiting For God To Tell Him To Run For PresidentMarco Rubio Melts Down Into A Puddle Of Science Denying Bigotry On Face The NationChris Christie Stabs Obama in the Back While Trying To Revive His Dead White House DreamDemocrats Mock the First 100 Days of Fail of the Boehner and McConnell Led CongressBernie Sanders Storms Sunday Morning And Drops A Liberal Bomb On Fox NewsScott Walker Talks Up GOP Common Sense While Proving He Has None in NH SpeechTraitor Mike Huckabee Is Trying To Undermine The Military While Obama Is PresidentEditorial Cartoon: Marked at Birth Amazing Celeb Bodies
These celebs will motivate you to want to work out!
Sponsored 8 Responses to Unlike South Carolina Democrats, The Cowardly Lion Was Occasionally Brave
KarenJ503 Reply to KarenJ503
Sat, Apr 18th, 2015 at 5:41 pm
Now you know why Boeing moved corporate offices out of Seattle to Chicago, and so much manufacturing out of Renton and Everett, WA. Washington isn’t a right-to-work (-for-less) state, and Nikki Haley’s regressive state South Carolina is.
nrtw.org/rtws.htm
(love how the right-to-work lobbyists call the RIGHT to form a bargaining unit for workers “forced unionism”, as if workers don’t benefit from sticking together) I Agree13 No Way0
Moongrim Reply to Moongrim
Sat, Apr 18th, 2015 at 7:49 pm
when South Carolina businesses say “Frog” they don’t even bother to ask how high, they just simply start jumping.
Oh for more dems with backbones… I Agree6 No Way0
SarahG Reply to SarahG
Sun, Apr 19th, 2015 at 2:21 pm
moongrim, I know this is off-topic (don’t [snip] me, bro!) but I absolutely cracked up at your icon. Where can I get that pic? I Agree0 No Way0
Dennis Hanson Reply to Dennis Hanson
Sat, Apr 18th, 2015 at 11:48 pm
Two words, plantation mentality! I Agree5 No Way0
Rastalari Reply to Rastalari
Sun, Apr 19th, 2015 at 1:56 am
It appears Miss Nikki was forced to bow to a higher power. Faith has been said to move mountains, but
repugs respond better to financial bottom lines much
quicker. Hang in there SC dems and please keep the
faith. Life as a dem one state to your north is the very
same. Dems here resist the bagger insanity, but it’s
like a shroom spore under a steamin’ cow pie. Rise up! I Agree4 No Way0
Susan Reply to Susan
Sun, Apr 19th, 2015 at 7:46 am
I am appalled at how they conduct business here in the south. All Gov. Haley wants is to cut taxes for her rich cronies. I am all for better roads, most people don’t even have a clue they are spending money on repairs to vehicles constantly due to pot holes etc.
Only solution Haley can come up with is to tie tax relief to a potential hike in gas tax.State income tax here in SC is very low unless you are the landed gentry.Fix the roads by all means but not on the backs of the working poor and the tourists.
So much for Right to Work for less state.Retirees have limited income resources as well. I Agree2 No Way0
PictouGene Reply to PictouGene
Sun, Apr 19th, 2015 at 8:10 am
I was born in south Carolina, However…
If the United State were a cow, one would have to lift the cow’s tail to find South Carolina I Agree3 No Way0
Kevin small Reply to Kevin small
Sun, Apr 19th, 2015 at 4:42 pm
And yet they’ll still keep on voting in conservatives down south, so let them reap what they sow down south. I Agree1 No Way0 Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email * (Must be a valid email address)
Comment characters remaining out of a maximum 1000
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <img src="">
You may add a "wink" smiley by using the code [WINK]

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Mounting Logistical Issues Delaying US Polyethylene Exports: Sources

Apr 17, 2015 | Platts

By Chris Ferrell & Emmanuel Gallegos

A series of constraints throughout the logistical chain have slowed US polyethylene exports and made it increasingly difficult for traders to secure resin from producers, market sources said this week.

The slowdowns -- the result of issues ranging from full warehouses in the Houston area to a shortage of trucks to transport bagged resin to the ports -- could persist through the end of May, sources said. They come at a time when rising global prices and limited supply in Asia and Europe have opened arbitrage windows for US polyethylene in several regions.

"It's a perfect storm," a trader source said.

The biggest issue has been a lack of available warehouse space in the Houston area, which sources said stems from a significant amount of buying by exporters in late March and early April. Preliminary data released this week by the American Chemistry Council showed a 32.6% uptick in export resin sales for March compared to February, which sources said was partially due to efforts to lower high US inventory levels before the end of Q1.

Bulk resin arrivals flowed into warehouses by rail car and storage levels quickly neared capacity, putting increased pressure on bagging operations to prepare the pellets for export. Some of those operations struggled to keep pace, sources said.

A shortage of trucks to transport the resin to the ports for loading onto ships has further slowed the process, sources said. And securing shipping containers has posed an additional challenge, according to several traders.

As a result, inventory levels continued to swell as new cars arrived at a faster pace than bags were leaving. Earlier this month, a number of warehouses stopped receiving new rail car shipments, sources said.

"I've been buying cars, but the warehouses are pushing it back," one trader source said. "Now you've got an embargo on six or seven warehouses."

Rail companies have now stopped delivering polyethylene shipments to some Houston area zip codes as a result of the rejected deliveries, sources said.

Longer unloading times have contributed to additional issues with rail car availability, sources said, noting that with some cars sitting longer at warehouses, the expected turnaround times have stretched out and they are not being returned to sellers on schedule.

While any one of those issues might not result in significant delays, sources said, the combination has made exports difficult.

"You can't get any new resin right now," another US-based trader source said.

Multiple industry sources said it could take another six weeks to work the resin through the system, meaning activity might not return to normal until the end of May.

The latest round of logistical issues comes on the heels of shipping delays in early March, which were the result of several lost days of activity due to heavy fog and a collision between two vessels. A dispatcher with the Houston Pilots said operations were normal Friday, and ships were being loaded and unloaded at regular rates.

Those issues in early March have played at least some part in the current situation, according to one trader, who noted that that the lost days and additional congestion from incoming ships caused delays to start before the heavy influx of resin later in the month.

All of this comes at a time when US-based exporters are working deals to send resin to Asia, with China leading the way, along with Europe and traditional landing spots in Latin America, sources said.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: BASF, Dow Chemical, DuPont, LyondellBasell Industries and Westlake Chemical - Press Releases

Apr 17, 2015 | Zacks

Chemicals Industry Stays on Course Amid Headwinds

The chemicals industry -- a roughly $5 trillion global business -- has finally embarked on the road to recovery. The industry fared reasonably well last year amid an exigent global operating backdrop, exacerbated by lumpiness in Europe and a cooling Chinese economy. The December quarter elicited healthy demand trends for chemicals across major markets and continued recovery in non-residential construction -- an end-market that has long been a weak link.

While some industry-specific challenges, concerns over China's future growth and sluggishness in Europe remain sources of near-term uncertainties, the chemical industry is expected to continue to recuperate in 2015, invigorated by strength in the automotive market and significant shale-linked capital investment. The upturn is also expected to be supported by healing across housing and commercial construction markets.

U.S. Outlook Rosy, Europe & China Smoggy

The U.S. chemical industry got off to a positive start in 2015. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, U.S. chemical production rose on a monthly basis in both Jan and Feb 2015, indicating that the recovery stays the course amid a few macro headwinds. The gain in February also marked the eleventh straight monthly production increase. Growth was witnessed across all chemical-producing regions for these months.

The outlook for the U.S. chemical industry paints an encouraging picture as the ACC envisions national chemical production to rise 3.7% in 2015 (up from a 2% increase in 2014) and 3.9% in 2016. Growth is expected to be backed by healthy demand from the light vehicles market and a recovery in the housing market.

The ACC expects strong capital spending in the coming years, stemming from new investments in petrochemicals and derivatives. The shale gas boom in the U.S. has been a huge driving factor for chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country over the last few years. According to a recent ACC report, domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as $138 billion, over 60% which are from firms outside of the U.S.

The shale revolution, which started in 2010, made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to invest billions of dollars to beef up capacity in the country. Chemical makers including BASF ( BASFY - Free Report ), Dow Chemical ( DOW - Free Report ), DuPont ( DD - Free Report ), LyondellBasell Industries ( LYB - Free Report ) and Westlake Chemical ( WLK - Free Report ) are ramping up investment on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies which is expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.

As per an ACC report, gross exports for chemical products are expected to surge from $60 billion in 2014 to $123 billion by 2030. Accelerated growth in U.S. chemical exports are expected to lead to continued generation of trade surplus. The ACC expects the U.S. chemical industry to rake in trade surplus of $77 billion by 2019, supported by significant shale gas-driven chemical investments. The trade group also sees domestic chemical sales to cross the $1 trillion milestone by 2019.

Major chemical makers are also increasingly switching their focus on lucrative markets to cut their exposure on businesses that are grappling with weak demand and input cost pressures. Agriculture and health and nutrition have emerged as attractive markets. Moreover, strategic measures including cost management and acquisitions/divestments remain the prime focus of chemical companies to stay afloat in a still difficult macro environment.

Outlook for Europe, however, still remains cloudy. According to the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), chemical output rose a mere 0.3% year over year in Europe in 2014, stymied by a decline in export and lower pricing. Chemical prices fell 1.8% in the European Union last year.

CEFIC expects European chemical output to rise 1% this year. Sluggishness in some of the region's major economies continues to deter recovery of the chemical industry in that region. The European chemical industry also remains hobbled by high energy costs and declining R&D investments.

Moreover, the slowdown in China -- further manifested by slowing economic growth in first-quarter 2015 -- may weigh on demand for chemicals in this key market. The country remains battered by its tepid property market and weak infrastructure investment growth, which is contributing to its decelerating economic growth.

Lower oil prices have also ignited concerns about U.S. petrochemical makers given the potential that it may dwindle the feedstock cost advantage that is so far enjoyed by these companies.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/zacks-industry-outlook-highlights-basf-dow-chemical-dupont-lyondellbasell-industries-and-westlake-chemical-press-releases-cm466427#ixzz3XqOnS2k9

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Draft Bill May Pave Path For Reform Of Federal Chemical Control Law

Apr 20, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Britt E. Erickson

New draft legislation in the House of Representatives could lead the way out of a political snarl that for years has stalled Congress’s efforts to modernize the federal law governing commercial chemicals. The chemical industry is backing the draft bill, and environmental groups say that with a few changes they too could support it.
Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), who on April 7 unveiled the draft measure to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), says, “I believe that this is the year we can finish the job.”
Shimkus’s draft bill omits controversial provisions—notably one that would override state chemical laws—found in Senate legislation (S. 697) to revise TSCA.
The American Chemistry Council and other chemical industry groups say the draft represents progress toward finding common ground on key issues in the long debate on TSCA reform.
The approach reflected in the draft bill “holds some promise,” says Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of environmental and public health organizations. But it “would allow a major risk—such as a chemical that causes cancer or birth defects—to remain unmitigated if it was deemed too expensive to do so.”
The draft measure would give EPA the authority to order manufacturers to conduct toxicity testing and exposure analyses for chemicals currently on the market and for which little data exist. But the draft bill contains what some see as a catch-22 provision that would require EPA to demonstrate potential risk or high exposure before it could order the studies.
At a House hearing last week, some witnesses raised concerns about a provision in the draft that would allow manufacturers to ask EPA to review the safety of a chemical on the market. The agency would have to conduct the review within six months if industry paid for it. “This could result in evaluations for the chemicals with the most potential for risk being put off indefinitely while EPA works on the evaluations requested by industry,” said James Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) California Releases Final Work Plan For Priority Items Under Safer Products Rule 

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has released the final version of the three-year work plan it will use to identify the next round of priority products under the state's Safer Consumer Products Regulations.
The scope of the final plan is substantially the same as the draft released in September 2014, but it does include some changes to reflect comments and suggestions from interested parties, the DTSC said in a notice posted on its website April 16.
In a written statement issued shortly after DTSC posted the document, the American Chemistry Council said the final plan still leaves businesses “in the dark” as to what scientific criteria the agency will use to select the product-chemical combinations from the agency's list of 1,200 candidate chemicals.
“DTSC has said the Work Plan and Candidate Chemicals are intended to ‘send a signal to the marketplace’ to look for alternatives,” the American Chemistry Council said. “But without a better understanding of the process by which products are selected from the thousands of potential chemical and product combinations, that is impossible.”
‘Just Darts on a Board.'
“No science, just darts on a board,” Maureen Gorsen, an attorney at Alston & Bird who represents the apparel industry, told Bloomberg BNA in an April 17 e-mail commenting on the final plan.
Required under the regulations adopted to implement California's Green Chemistry Initiative, the 2015-2017 Priority Product Work Plan identifies the seven consumer product categories the DTSC will use to select priority products, or product-chemical combinations, over the next three years to be regulated under the program.
The seven product categories are: beauty, personal care and hygiene products; building products; cleaning products; clothing; household and office furnishings and furniture; consumable office machinery products such as inks and toners; and fishing and angling equipment.
Hundreds of potential priority products are included the seven categories, the DTSC said in the plan.
In selecting the seven categories, the DTSC said it considered clear pathways to exposure to one or more of the candidate chemicals it identified under the regulations; whether the products contain chemicals detected in biomonitoring studies and those found in indoor air and dust studies; and whether the chemicals pose a potential threat to children, workers or water quality.
Manufacturers of products identified as a priority under the Safer Consumer Products Program's regulatory process could be required to conduct life cycle alternatives analyses to determine whether safer options are available.
Initial Priority Products Selected in 2014
In March 2014, the DTSC proposed the first three priority products: children's foam sleeping mats containing the flame retardant chlorinated tris, or TDCPP; spray polyurethane foam systems with unreacted diisocyanates (MDI); and paint strippers containing methylene chloride.
The agency has since revised to the list to add children's sleeping mats containing another flame retardant, Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate, or TCEP, as well as those with TDCCP, Palmer said.
DTSC also narrowed the initial definition of spray polyurethane foam systems to include only two-component systems with MDI, excluding roofing coating products. It also eliminated surface cleaners from the paint strippers product category.
Lengthy Regulatory Process
Entities regulated under the Safer Consumer Products program (product manufacturers, assemblers, importers and retailers) will have no compliance obligations in 2015 because the rulemaking to codify standards for the first three priority products will take at least a year to complete.
The program's lengthy regulatory process will limit the number of priority products that can identified each year, according to the DTSC.
In the final priority product work plan, the DTSC said it anticipates being able to select at least three priority products in 2015 and, potentially, more than five products each year in 2016 and 2017.
Key Changes to Final Plan
Most of the revisions to the plan provide additional detail about the seven product categories, the DTSC said.
For example, the DTSC has added carpet padding and insulation and wall coverings containing flame retardants as examples of the building products that could be become priority products. The agency also added curtains with flame retardants under the household/office furnishings category.
The final document also makes it clear that the “clothing” category does not apply to the protective gear used by workers.
To address concerns of recreational fisherman, the final plan specifies that as for “fishing and angling equipment,” the DTSC would focus on the lead fishing weights and gear, like the large weights used in salmon fishing, which might be consumed by water fowl.
“Our work for the next three years will be to move from these broad categories to specific product-chemical combinations that warrant consideration as potential priority products,” the DTSC said.
The agency said it “relied exclusively on publicly available information” in selecting the product categories, but pledged to “work with the people who design, manufacture and use the products” in implementing the plan and the regulations.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Study Points to Chemicals’ Health Threats

Apr 17, 2015 | The Daily Sentenial

By Dennis Webb

A new study that was a focus of the last several years of a late Paonia scientist’s life raises concerns about health threats of four related chemicals that are pervasive in homes and also associated with vehicle emissions and oil and gas development.
A paper published this week and authored by Theo Colborn and two other researchers with The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, or TEDX, found that “exposure to ambient levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (known together as BTEX) are linked to hormone-related health conditions in humans,” according to an announcement by the group.
The report was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology, and is based on a review of 42 existing studies. It found health effects from exposure levels commonly found indoors and outdoors in the United States, and deemed safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers say that due to the danger of even low-level exposure, the government needs to establish more protective air standards. It also should require air monitoring near oil and gas facilities and enforce adequate pollution limits, particularly as such development increasingly occurs in neighborhoods, the researchers say.
TEDX researchers Ashley Bolden and Carol Kwiatkowski joined Colborn in publishing the paper. Colborn died in December at the age of 87. She founded the Paonia-based TEDX, which focuses on possible health and environmental harms of chemicals that interfere with hormones important in the development of people and wildlife. She pioneered research into the issue, and co-authored “Our Stolen Future,” a widely lauded book on the subject.
“We’ve been working on this paper for years. She would say many times, if we could just get the BTEX paper out before she died, she’d be happy. We didn’t exactly pull it off but she knew we were close,” Kwiatkowski said.
The study says health effects from the chemicals, acting individually or in combination, “include sperm abnormalities, reduced fetal growth, low birth weight, cardiovascular disease, respiratory dysfunction, asthma, sensitization to common antigens, and more. Two-thirds of the 42 studies found effects in children, some of whom were exposed prenatally, when effects can be permanent.”
It says such effects might result from disruption of hormones such as estrogens, androgens, insulin and serotonin.
BTEX chemicals are frequently found together, and are a product of oil and gas development. Among their uses are as gasoline additives, and as solvents in consumer and industrial products.
Vehicle exhaust from combustion is a well-known major source of BTEX air pollution, and BTEX has drawn increasing attention recently as a pollutant related to oil and gas development as domestic drilling has boomed.
But Kwiatkowski said a big concern identified by the study is that BTEX levels in the air indoors tend to be much higher than levels outdoors. This is a result of the release of gases from household products. BTEX chemicals can be found in furniture, computers, paint, carpeting, toys and many other consumer products.
TEDX researchers are calling for more research to determine the biggest sources of indoor exposure so they can be reduced or eliminated.
“We don’t know, but definitely something is creating these higher levels,” Kwiatkowski said.
The researchers would like to see the development of safer substitutes for BTEX in household products.
Kwiatkowski said that ordinarily, one solution to reducing high BTEX levels in homes would be to open windows and let in fresh air.
“But if you live near gas wells or in a city with a lot of combustion-related pollution, then that might not be the best recommendation,” she said.
She said one reason TEDX got involved with issues surrounding oil and gas pollution was because of people living near drilling describing some of the same respiratory and other symptoms that are being linked to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
She said it isn’t really known what level of BTEX emissions occurs from wells, which is why monitoring at pads is important.
An ongoing study led by Colorado State University and funded by Garfield County and energy companies is aimed at helping shed light on such questions. Researchers have been measuring emissions of air pollutants at natural gas development sites in the county and how they disperse up to a few hundred meters away. The researchers also are doing modeling to predict dispersions at greater distances.
Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission last year passed landmark air emission standards for the oil and gas industry. While the rules made Colorado the first state to specifically target emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, during oil and gas development, they also are expected to significantly reduce the associated emissions of volatile organic compounds including BTEX. The rules address things such as leak detection and repair, and replacement of high-bleed valves with low- or no-bleed valves.
“I think Colorado’s done an incredible job in terms of having really the strongest rules in the country to limit these (oil and gas) emissions,” said Mike Van Dyke, chief of environmental epidemiology for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Teresa Coons, a scientist who is executive director of the John McConnell Math & Science Center in Grand Junction and served on the Air Quality Control Commission when the rules were passed, said the focus of those rules was reducing emissions of VOCs as ozone precursors, and methane as a greenhouse gas, and to comply with new national EPA regulations.
“The focus was not on these compounds as endocrine disrupters, but of course, reducing exposure in general should be helpful for any potential health effects. Full implementation of the new … rules should greatly reduce the percentage of VOCs in ambient air that can be attributed to oil and gas operations,” she said.
Cathy Milbourn, an EPA spokeswoman, said the agency will review the TEDX study “and incorporate the findings into our work as appropriate.
“EPA is screening thousands of chemicals for potential risk of endocrine disruption. As potential risk of endocrine disruption is identified, these chemicals are assessed further. In addition, EPA will consult the latest information on health effects assessments in determining remaining risks from sources emitting these pollutants.”
Kathryn St. John, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, said the industry supports the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program and has made recommendations on how to make it sound and science-based.
She added, “Many things can impact the endocrine system — stress, food, exercise, pollution. ACC is engaged with the scientific community and regulatory agencies to enhance the scientific understanding of chemicals that may interact with the endocrine system and to promote sound decisions to effectively manage risks that may exist from exposure to them.”
Van Dyke said endocrine disruption is a concern in the case of BTEX “as well as a lot of other chemicals not related to oil and gas.”
Indeed, TEDX has helped focus attention on endocrine-disruption concerns surrounding BPA, or bisphenol A, in water bottles, toys, consumer electronics and other products. And in a recent paper, Bolden and another TEDX researcher said some substitutes for BPA appear to have the same endocrine-disrupting effects.
Van Dyke said TEDX’s new literature review on BTEX “does a nice job of bringing together a lot of information” and summarizing findings to date, and advancing the science a little “in order to understand these issues better.”
Van Dyke said there hasn’t been enough research on endocrine disruptors, so it’s difficult to set regulations related to them.
“A lot of these things are just not that well understood yet,” he said.
He said the research is challenging in part because it “depends on exposures in short periods of time.”
“The human body’s a complex process, and by disrupting one thing it’s hard to predict what’s going to happen in another,” he said.
“The complexity of endocrine disruption makes it really difficult to study and to make huge advancements. It has to be a step at a time.”
Coons said she’s not an expert in the area of endocrine disruptions, but BTEX has been associated with a number of other human health effects — particularly benzene, which is considered a carcinogen.
“Dose is always the issue with the relationship between exposure to potentially toxic chemicals and health outcomes — thus the EPA’s action levels. It would appear from the research quoted, however, that lower limits for exposure to BTEX chemicals may be warranted,” she said.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Stiffens Resistance to Toy-Regulation Bills

Apr 17, 2015 | Capital

By Scott Waldman

A business coalition intensified its fight this week against state legislative efforts to restrict chemicals in children's toys.
A group called the Safe to Play Coalition, which is made up of hundreds of toy retailers, filed a lawsuit against Albany County's “toxic toys” ban on Thursday, claiming that it was unconstitutional and so restrictive it would cover virtually all of the toys sold in the county. Chemical restrictions on toys in New York State could have a ripple effect across the entire industry, since it such a significant market.
The lawsuit is the latest sign that the industry is concerned about the progress made this year by proponents of the Child Safe Products Act, a similar statewide bill, who have new financial help, local support and the backing of Governor Andrew Cuomo.
The Toy Industry Association also recently hired the consulting firm M Public Affairs in an effort to fight state and local efforts to ban certain chemicals in children's toys. And the American Chemistry Council hired Park Strategies to assist with its fight against the bill.
Both groups have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying Albany in the last few years.
Proponents of the bills say they could protect children from toxic chemicals such as mercury and arsenic contained in some toys and children's products. The industry contends that federal protections make toys safe and the bill would hurt dozens of small businesses across the state.
“The Albany County law does not make toys safer, it just makes it illegal to sell them,” said David Garriepy, director of state government affairs for the Toy Industry Association. “Toys already comply with strict federal safety standards and families deserve to be able to purchase the same safe, educational and beneficial toys in Albany County that are available across the country.”
The Albany County lawsuit, which was first reported by the Albany Times Union, comes just days before the county legislatures in Westchester and Suffolk are expected take up a similar bill. The Albany lawsuit is clearly a threat to other county legislatures not to pass similar legislation, said Christopher Goeken, director of public policy and government relations at the League of Conservation Voters.
“It's a bullying tactic on the part of the industry, they're trying to intimidate legislatures in other parts of the state and in Albany,” he said.
Westchester County legislator Catherine Borgia said the Albany County lawsuit was not daunting because passage of the Child Safe Products Act in the assembly shows that such restrictions are constitutional.
“Public opinion and the evolution of our consumer awareness is going to prevail in the end, people know these chemicals are dangerous and children are the most vulnerable part of our population,” she said Friday.
Child Safe Products Act proponents already have enough sponsors to pass a bill in the Senate. A total of 33 senators from both parties (including, most recently, Democrat David Carlucci of Westchester) are now behind the bill. The Assembly is expected to pass the Child Safe Products Act soon. The League of Conservation Voters has held press events across the state in the last few weeks, when lawmakers were in their home districts on recess. Favorable editorials and promises of legislative efforts in more counties have followed. Governor Andrew Cuomo pledged support for the bill earlier this year and the natural products company Seventh Generation has brought financial backing to the effort.
Opponents of the Child Safe Products Act exerted intensive lobbying pressure against Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos late in last year's session. Skelos kept the bill from ever reaching the floor for a vote even though more than two-thirds of the entire senate, from both parties, supported the legislation. It's unclear how this week's news of the federal probe into Skelos would affect the fate of the bill this year.
Closed-door negotiations between all of the stakeholders are ongoing. They will largely determine which chemicals would be on the final restrictions if a state measure passes.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Experience 'The Human Experiment': Sean Penn Documentary Has Chemistry

Apr 17, 2015 | Parade

By Stephanie Stephens

Starting today, you can see The Human Experiment nationwide or via video on demand (VOD). The 92-minute documentary is narrated and executive produced by Sean Penn, and is also the brainchild of Emmy-winning journalists Dana Nachman and Don Hardy.
The film’s thesis: “The Human Experiment lifts the veil on the shocking reality that thousands of untested chemicals are in our everyday products, our homes and inside of us.”
From reviews, Stephanie Merry of The Washington Post says that “in the end, this film will persuade only those who already believe.” Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times imparts that “it may leave many bases uncovered… but it will also leave you looking a lot more closely at what you put on your skin, in your mouth and underneath your sink.” EcoWatch called it “thoughtful and disturbing.”
For today’s interview and speaking on behalf of the film she appears in, meet the dynamic Marika Holmgren, a breast cancer survivor diagnosed at age 37. She is also a member of the Strong Voices program, a group of volunteer advocates for the Breast Cancer Fund, whose mission is to “help us expose and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer.”
Marika, who’s now age 45, founded and manages Do Good Events in Half Moon Bay, Calif., an event production firm for nonprofit organizations. She’s a mountain biker, snowboarder, skier, hiker, and parent to Jake, a crazy rescued yellow Labrador retriever.
As a breast cancer survivor, you know that what you put into your body is so important. How do you Mind Your Body with diet and nutrition?
I’ve always been aware of eating well and watching what I put in my body. I also love food, love to wear makeup, and use products. Since I got sick, I’ve been much more aware of what’s in the products that I use and the food that I eat.
You mountain bike, and you did so during chemotherapy. You said you were “giving cancer the middle finger.” Turns out you were being a model patient, too. What did exercise do for you then, and what does it do for you now?
I was extremely fit and active when I was diagnosed. I was very scared about what would happen to my ability to do the sports I loved when I started treatment. And to be honest, the treatment was tough on my fitness. There’s just no way around it when you go through eight surgeries, eight rounds of intense chemotherapy, 25 rounds of radiation, and years of hormone therapy. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel the effects. I do feel them, and I do get frustrated. But I know I’d feel even worse if I didn’t get out there and exercise.
How do you maintain your emotional health? Life has its ups and downs, and you’ve had a few yourself.
The summer after I was diagnosed in 2007, I laughed and smiled more than I had in a long time. It was all about connecting with friends and family, and we let all the small stuff go. Adversity has a way of amplifying what’s going on in your life, and I realized that what I cared about more than almost anything was the community that I had built around me over the years. I felt extremely grateful. When you’re worried about something really big, you tend to worry less about the little things.
What do you and the movie say about chemicals in this country?
Of the almost 85,000 chemicals used in products around us daily, only five have been regulated or banned since the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976. Only 200 have been tested for safety. Meanwhile, over 1,000 new chemicals are registered for use each year. The system is obviously broken, and not in favor of consumers. That’s just unacceptable, when we know that so many are linked to an increased risk in cancer, particularly in more vulnerable populations.
Do you believe chemicals in your home and the environment contributed to your breast cancer?
That’s impossible to say, of course. With a few exceptions, it’s not yet known what causes one person’s breast cancer. But my family has a predisposition for cancer, so any additional risk factors don’t help us.
Anything else you‘d like to address?
Consumers should pick safer items and send a strong market message to companies that we don’t want toxic ingredients in their products. Seek out resources like Breastcancerfund.org and the Skin Deep Database. Once you learn about some of the more egregious ingredients, you can start to phase them out, switch to safer products, and then help change the laws. Let members of Congress know we want real reform by using our spending power as consumer, to buy safer products. You can help to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act today. There are online letters that you can send your senator electronically today to support real reform.
* * *
I reached out to The American Chemistry Council for its response to the film, and share portions of their response here due to space considerations. Please visit the organization’s website to learn more. Like Marika, the council urges you to get involved and make your concerns heard:
We understand that there are questions about the possible effects of chemicals on the body and the environment, and we strongly support efforts to build on existing knowledge about safe exposure levels and reach sound conclusions based on thorough, credible, scientific investigation… Unfortunately, this film appears to present an often-repeated and overly simplistic view of chemicals and disregards the science associated with chemical exposure and decades of research regarding disease. It paints an incomplete and distorted picture of current chemical regulation, while ignoring the essential role that chemistry plays in making modern life safer, more convenient and more fulfilling… The fact is that more than a dozen federal laws govern the safe manufacture and use of chemicals and all new chemicals must be evaluated by EPA before manufacture.
Enhancing consumer confidence in chemical safety and regulation, while supporting innovation by American manufacturers, is an important goal that ACC is working hard to achieve… The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), needs to be modernized… Bipartisan proposals have been introduced in Congress to bring chemical oversight up to date. We encourage anyone with a shared interest in being a constructive part of efforts to reform and update our nation’s chemical management system to support the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, S.697, in the U.S. Senate and ongoing work around a draft bill in the U.S. House, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.
The subject matter of The Human Experiment remains one hot topic, igniting vigorous discussions on both sides. Here’s how to find out where to see it, and how to host your own screening. These websites also provide reliable information about household chemicals.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Wrap-Up of Federal and State Chemical Regulatory Developments April 2015

Apr 17, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor

EAB Reverses Epic Penalty In Elementis Case, But Affirms EPA's "Continuing" TSCA Section 8(e) Interpretation: On March 13, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) reversed the November 2013 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling that Elementis must pay a $2.5 million penalty for failing to submit a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e) notice on a 2002 study showing hexavalent chromium causes lung cancer. In re: Elementis Chromium, Inc., Docket No. TSCA-HQ-2010-5022. The EAB ruled that the report was not required to be submitted under TSCA Section 8(e) because the fact that hexavalent chrome causes lung cancer "has been well-established for decades." The EAB also determined, however, that some violations of TSCA Section 8(e) are not subject to the TSCA five-year statute of limitations. According to the EAB, the statute of "limitations for a section 8(e) violation runs anew each day the obligation to provide reportable information remains unfulfilled." The decision contains a useful discussion on the complexities of epidemiology studies and their relevance to TSCA Section 8(e) and the corroborative evidence exemption. The decision is available online.
EPA Issues Response To ICTA Petition Regarding Nanosilver: On March 19, 2015, EPA responded to a petition submitted almost seven years ago by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) requesting EPA regulate products containing nanosilver as pesticides and for related other forms of relief. On March 19, 2015, EPA responded to the petition. See online. In general, the response does not alter EPA's legal position with regard to nanosilver and its regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or otherwise contribute any new interpretations of existing EPA pesticide registration or enforcement policy. Briefly, the key decisions articulated in EPA's response to the petition are: EPA will treat products containing nanosilver as pesticides under FIFRA if intended for pesticidal purposes, even in the absence of explicit pesticidal claims. EPA rejected ICTA's claim that all products containing nanosilver are categorically pesticides and should be regulated as such. EPA will continue to apply its statutory and regulatory criteria as to what is a pesticide on a case-by-case basis. The determination "would be fact specific, typically based upon information on the use patterns intended, the claims or other advertising used to distribute or sell the ingredient or product, and any other information or knowledge made known to or known by the distributor or seller." Importantly, EPA disagrees with ICTA's claim that the treated article exemption should not apply to any nanosilver pesticide product because nanosilver specifically is not the registered pesticide active ingredient. According to EPA, application of the treated article exemption is available if a registered pesticide product is used, consistent with any terms and conditions of use of the registered product. EPA granted ICTA's request to review the health and safety impacts from use of a nanosilver ingredient in a pesticide product based on nanosilver data for the portion released as nanosilver and based on macro-scaled silver for the portion released as silver ions, and agrees that FIFRA Section 3(c)(7)(C) is the appropriate authority for review of applications for registration of products containing nanosilver ingredients. EPA rejected ICTA's claim that EPA must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the environmental impacts of EPA's decision regarding nanopesticides, citing EPA's well-settled view that it is exempt from NEPA requirements under FIFRA under Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986). EPA denied ICTA's request to use a particular enforcement strategy to address unregistered pesticides sold or distributed in the U.S., believing that EPA lacks a factual basis to conclude that all nanosilver products are pesticides and thus does not have the legal basis upon which to conclude that all products are illegally sold or distributed.
EPA Extends Comment Period For Proposed SNUR On Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate And Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances: On March 16, 2015, EPA extended the comment period on its proposed rule dated January 21, 2015, concerning long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical substances and perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) chemical substances. 80 Fed. Reg. 13513. EPA has extended the comment period for 90 days, from March 23, 2015, to June 26, 2015, to accommodate requests for more time to respond to the proposed rulemaking.
IARC Announces Cancer Classification For Glyphosate And Other Pesticides: On March 20, 2015, the United Nations (UN) World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced it had completed evaluations assessing the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate pesticides. IARC classified the herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), and classified the insecticides tetrachlorvinphos and parathion as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). IARC also found there is "limited evidence" that glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer in humans. A summary of the final evaluations, together with a brief rationale, is published online in The Lancet Oncology; the detailed assessments will be published as Volume 112 of the IARC Monographs. IARC's press release announcing its evaluation is available online. Monsanto, on behalf of glyphosate task forces in the U.S. and the European Union (EU), immediately voiced its vigorous disagreement with IARC's conclusions, noting various scientific issues with IARC's evaluation that resulted in a conclusion that has not been reached following review by EPA and in the EU. Monsanto's statement is available online. The IARC announcement with regard to glyphosate will further energize both sides of the debate about genetically modified organism (GMO) crops, since there are several crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate. If some occupational risks are identified as needing possible further mitigation, the distinction between food safety issues and occupational risks may be lost in the rhetoric. Opponents of GMO crops and those who support GMO food product labels can be expected to cite the IARC designation regardless of any further clarification or nuance that the scientific debate over the data might provide. Defenders of the technology will insist that not only is the IARC designation wrong and misleading, but it is clearly at odds with numerous other conclusions reached by multiple competent governmental authorities concerning the safety of using glyphosate and especially consuming GMO crops. Regardless of Monsanto's rapid and detailed response, "dueling science" views are not helpful towards enhancing public confidence in the safety of the food supply, which is ultimately where this headline will be most influential. That will only add pressure on the review process and conclusions contained in the expected EPA registration review of glyphosate data scheduled for completion in 2015.
IARC To Review Seven Chemicals: On March 31, 2015, IARC announced that it will review seven chemicals at its February 2016 meeting. The chemicals are: tetrabromobisphenol A, a flame retardant (CAS No. 79-94-7); the solvents 1-bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5) and dimethylformamide (CAS No. 68-12-2); hydrazine (CAS No. 302-01-2); 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (CAS No. 149-30-4); 3-chloro-2-methylpropene (CAS No. 563-47-3); and dimethyl-p-toluidine (CAS No. 99-97-8). Entities wishing to observe the meeting should notify IARC by October 5, 2015. Comments will be accepted until January 4, 2016. Experts wishing to serve on the review panel may be nominated until June 21, 2015. More information is available online.
EPA Issues Final NMP Assessment: On March 23, 2015, EPA released its final assessment of N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). According to EPA, paint and coating strippers containing NMP may harm the health of people, particularly unborn babies. EPA urged workers and consumers, especially pregnant women or women of childbearing age, who use the solvent to wear gloves and take other precautions to reduce their exposure. According to EPA, much of the NMP manufactured is used in petrochemical processing, to make agricultural chemicals and for other uses. Approximately, nine percent of the chemical's production is used to make paint and coating strippers. Worker and consumer activities that may involve the use of paint and coating strippers made with NMP include various applications, including automotive refinishing, furniture refinishing, art restoration, graffiti removal, and ship paint stripping, among other activities. The EPA final assessment is available online.
EPA Seeks Input On Panel For Use Of Trichloroethylene (TCE) As A Commercial Degreaser: On March 30, 2015, EPA announced that it is seeking nominations from individuals who represent small businesses, small governments, and small not-for-profit organizations to provide input to a federal panel that will explore risk reduction in the use of trichloroethylene (TCE). The panel will focus on EPA's development of a proposed rule to reduce the risks resulting from the use of TCE as a commercial degreaser, as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and in certain consumer products as appropriate to reduce risks posed from its commercial and consumer use. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to establish a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA is seeking self-nominations directly from the small entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Other representatives, such as trade associations that exclusively or primarily represent potentially regulated small entities, may also serve as Small Entity Representatives. Self-nominations were due by April 10, 2015.
EPA Posts New Fact Sheet On 2016 CDR Reporting: EPA recently added to its website a new fact sheet on Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) obligations. See online.
EPA And ACC Reach Settlement Regarding Antimicrobial Pesticide Data Requirements: On March 2, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) executed a settlement agreement (Agreement) following ACC's petition for judicial review of EPA's antimicrobial pesticide data requirements final rule issued on May 8, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 26936). The judicial review proceeding was held in abeyance while settlement discussions were pursued between EPA and ACC for this final rule, entitled "Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides." In the settlement, EPA agreed to propose, within four months of the Agreement becoming final, a guidance document entitled Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index (USI), and provide a 30-day comment period. The USI guidance will provide descriptions of direct food uses, indirect foods uses, and non-food uses. In addition, EPA agreed to issue, within 60 days of the Agreement becoming final, an interim guidance document explaining EPA's interpretation of the 200 parts per billion (ppb) residue level above which additional toxicology testing would be required for indirect food uses. Then, within two years and six months of the Agreement becoming final, EPA agreed to propose a correction to the final rule that "will make the language of the Final Rule as it pertains to the 200 ppb level established in 40 C.F.R. § 158.2330(d) consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's use of that same level by making clear that the 200 ppb level established in the Final Rule is based on total estimated daily dietary intake, and is not based on the amount of residue present on only a single commodity."
EPA Proposes To List 1-Bromopropane To EPCRA Section 313: On April 15, 2015, EPA proposed to add 1-bromopropane to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). 80 Fed. Reg. 20189. 1-Bromopropane has been classified by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in its 13th Report on Carcinogens as "`reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." EPA believes that 1-bromopropane meets the EPCRA Section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. Based on a review of the available production and use information, 1-bromopropane is expected to be manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would exceed the EPCRA Section 313 reporting thresholds. Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.
FDA
EPA And FDA Sign MOU On Sharing Data: On March 16, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) had been executed between the two agencies on Information Sharing regarding the sharing of data and other confidential information related to substances that may be present in human food, animal food and feed, animal drugs, and cosmetics. EPA and FDA state in the MOU that the sharing of such information will "open[] channels of communication between the agencies" and will "serve to facilitate [EPA and FDA's] accomplishment[s] of their respective missions." The MOU sets forth the safeguards to be implemented with regard to the sharing of confidential information to "protect against unauthorized use or disclosure of any non-public information shared or exchanged pursuant to this MOU." EPA and FDA's decision to share information will have a direct impact on companies with substances that have pesticidal and non-pesticidal applications. As noted in an example in the MOU, an antimicrobial food wash that can also be a labeled pesticide for other uses could have data submitted to FDA demonstrating that the product's use is safe and does not adulterate food and data submitted to EPA demonstrating that the pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Companies that have submitted information to EPA and FDA should be mindful of the potential that such information could be shared between the agencies, and consider whether additional safeguards or data compensation protection may be needed. The MOU is available online.
FDA Proposes Collection Of Information: On March 10, 2015, FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) announced it was proposing collecting information on reclassification petitions for medical devices. 80 Fed. Reg. 12642. The reclassification procedure requires submission of specific data. In a proposed rule on March 25, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 16252), FDA indicated the elimination of two specific forms for this process. Since the rule is not finalized, FDA continues to use these forms and is seeking comments on the proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension. Comments are due May 11, 2015.
FDA Issues Final Guidance: On March 17, 2015, FDA's CDRH issued a final guidance for industry entitled "Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling." 80 Fed. Reg. 13864. The guidance document includes general considerations, specific criteria, and reprocessing validation methods. FDA also held a webinar on this topic on March 24, 2015. The guidance document is available online and more information on the webinar is available online. Comments on the guidance document may be submitted at any time.
FDA FSMA Public Meeting: On March 24, 2015, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) announced it will hold a public meeting on April 23-24, 2015, to provide an opportunity to discuss the next steps for the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). 80 Fed. Reg. 15612. The meeting will focus on the prevention and risk-based safety standards and the implementation of the new operational strategies. For more information, please consult the Federal Register.
FDA Proposes Collection Of Information For Device Labeling: On April 6, 2015, FDA's CDRH announced it was collecting information on device labeling format and content. 80 Fed. Reg. 18410. The purpose of this study "is to compare existing device labeling from approximately six different types of medical devices with a standard content and format of the same labeling that FDA researchers will develop." Comments are due May 6, 2015.
FDA Proposes Amendment To Food Facilities Definitions: On April 9, 2015, FDA's CFSAN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend and update the definitions of a retail food establishment and add additional requirements for food facility registration details. 80 Fed. Reg. 19160. Comments are due by June 8, 2015.
RCRA/CERCLA
EPA Agrees To Consider Revising RCRA Corrosivity Characteristic: With a back story sparked by the tragedy of 9/11 and that at times reads like a novel teeming with alleged government cover-up, fraud, and employee persecution, EPA agreed to a March 31, 2016, deadline for deciding whether to revise the corrosivity characteristic under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The agreement came in a joint motion approved on March 13, 2015, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and filed between EPA and EPA employee Dr. Cate Jenkins and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who represents Dr. Jenkins. At issue are the alkaline hazardous waste thresholds under the RCRA corrosivity characteristic at 40 C.F.R. Section 261.22. With respect to alkaline wastes, that provision regulates as a corrosive waste any aqueous waste that has a pH greater than or equal to 12.5 and non-aqueous liquids that corrode steel at a rate greater than 0.250 inch per year under specified testing parameters. Only liquid wastes can be considered RCRA corrosive hazardous wastes. EPA promulgated the standard in 1980 and it has remained unchanged for 35 years. The arc of this story began with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. First responders to the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks inhaled corrosive dust that has reportedly caused long-term adverse health effects. This corrosive dust would not be considered a RCRA hazardous waste by EPA under the current regulations. But Dr. Jenkins alleges that EPA knowingly set the 12.5 pH level ten times too high and that had it set the pH level appropriately at 11.5, then first responders would have been provided with necessary warnings and the requisite personal safety equipment. Dr. Jenkins claims EPA "knowingly falsified the alkaline pH level that is considered safe for human exposure" when it promulgated the corrosivity characteristic, and claims that she raised her concerns with EPA officials but was allegedly ignored. She then took this information in 2006 and 2007 to members of Congress and the FBI and sought protection under federal whistleblower protection laws. In discovery during the litigation, certain EPA officials reportedly admitted that EPA mistakenly set the pH limit too high and that the limitation of the corrosivity characteristic to aqueous wastes was a mistake. Dr. Jenkins and PEER then in September 2011 filed a Rulemaking Petition to EPA, seeking to change the "erroneously-set pH 12.5 to the international standard of pH 11.5 for alkaline hazardous waste, and to remove the limitation to aqueous wastes." The petition claims that: The EPA standard is ten times more lax than the presumed safe levels for alkaline corrosives set by the UN, the EU, and Canada; EPA based its standard on a misrepresentation of the international corrosivity standard and has steadfastly refused to revisit this clear error in the succeeding decades; and The characteristic contains a false distinction between water and non-water containing materials. This is because on human contact, water-free alkaline materials quickly absorb water from body tissues, particularly the respiratory tract. At high enough levels, this causes permanent tissue damage.
EPA did not respond to the petition. Dr. Jenkins and PEER subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in September 2014, asking the court to compel EPA to respond to the petition. The March 13, 2015, agreement between EPA, Dr. Jenkins, and PEER stays the proceedings in the case. Under that joint motion, EPA has agreed to make a decision by March 31, 2016, as to whether it will revise the corrosivity characteristic. EPA makes clear in the agreement that it does not concede that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus has merit, but merely states that it "intends to sign for publication in the Federal Register a response to Petitioners' Petition for Rulemaking on or before March 31, 2016." EPA states that it will either make a tentative decision to grant or deny the petition in the form of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), a proposed rule, or a tentative determination to deny the petition. If EPA does alter the provision, the impacts could extend beyond the corrosivity characteristic itself. It could affect the list of hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, past hazardous waste determinations and listings, hazardous waste delistings, and treatment standards under the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program.
Ruling Allows RCRA Imminent And Substantial Endangerment Authority To Address Air Emissions Deposited On Land: A federal district court has ruled that the imminent and substantial endangerment authority under RCRA can be used to seek relief for contamination caused by deposition of air emissions. In the case, The Little Hocking Water Ass'n v. DuPont, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of the Ohio Eastern Division ruled that DuPont's emissions of perflourooctanoic acid (C8) that were eventually deposited on Little Hocking's rural water system caused soil and groundwater contamination and does constitute disposal of solid waste under RCRA's imminent and substantial endangerment provisions. The case comes in the wake of a January 14, 2015, decision in which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment in a case against a dairy farm and declared manure from the farm's livestock is a solid waste under RCRA and is similarly subject to the law's imminent and substantial endangerment provision.
EPA Deletes RCRA Comparable Fuels And Gasification Exclusions: In a final rule that was immediately effective, EPA on April 8, 2015, removed the comparable fuels and gasification exclusions under RCRA. 80 Fed. Reg. 18777. EPA had to delete the provisions, as both had been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2014. EPA promulgated the comparable fuels exemption in 1998. 63 Fed. Reg. 33782. Codified at 40 C.F.R. Sections 261.4(a)(16) and 261.38, the rule excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste fuels made from materials identified as hazardous wastes if, as generated or after treatment and blending, they were sufficiently comparable to commercial fossil fuels for which they were substituted with respect to levels of hazardous constituents and physical properties that affect fuel burning efficiency, such as viscosity and heating value. Because the fuels would contain contaminants no greater than commercial fossil fuels and were otherwise indistinguishable from the fossil fuels that would be burned in their place, EPA found that the comparable fuels would pose no greater risk than commercial fuels when burned, and could be legitimately classified as non-waste fuels rather than as solid and hazardous waste fuels. The comparable fuels rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit on June 27, 2014. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 755 F.3d 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The court held that the unambiguous language of RCRA Section 3004(q) requires that fuels produced from hazardous wastes must remain regulated as hazardous wastes. EPA promulgated the gasification rule in 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 57 (Jan. 2, 2008), and codified it at 40 C.F.R. Section 261.4(a)(12)(i). Under the rule, EPA determined that oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials are not RCRA solid wastes if they are inserted into a gasification unit located at a petroleum refinery to produce synthesis gas. EPA thus excluded them from regulation as a solid waste. This rule was similarly vacated by the D.C. Circuit on June 27, 2014. Sierra Club v. EPA, 755 F.3d 968 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The court held, similar to its decision on the comparable fuels rule, that the gasification rule violates the plain language of RCRA Section 3004(q) because fuels produced from hazardous wastes remain solid and hazardous wastes. Thus, all hazardous wastes inserted into a gasification unit at petroleum refineries remain subject to RCRA regulations as hazardous wastes.
EPA Delays Proposed Rule Establishing Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest Fee Structure: In an April 8, 2015, blog post, EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response Mathy Stanislaus announced that EPA is delaying until May 2016 its proposed rule that would establish the fee structure for the electronic manifest (e-Manifest) under RCRA. EPA had initially hoped to propose the rule by the end of its 2015 fiscal year (FY) (i.e., by September 30, 2015). According to Stanislaus' post, EPA is working with state agencies and other stakeholders to develop the fee program and needs more time to complete that work.
CAA/CWA/SDWA
President Obama Issues Executive Order Calling For Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions In The Federal Government And Across The Supply Chain: President Barack Obama on March 19, 2015, signed an Executive Order that the White House claims will reduce the federal government's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent over the next decade from 2008 levels -- saving taxpayers up to $18 billion in avoided energy costs -- and increase the share of electricity the federal government consumes from renewable sources to 30 percent. Complementing this effort, several major federal suppliers are announcing commitments to cut their own GHG emissions. The combined results of the actions are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 26 million metric tons by 2025 from 2008 levels, the equivalent of taking nearly 5.5 million cars off the road for a year, the White House states. To encourage continued progress across the federal supply chain, the Administration released a new "scorecard" to track publicly self-reported emissions disclosure and progress for all major federal suppliers, who together represent more than $187 billion in federal spending and account for more than 40 percent of all federal contract dollars. In addition to setting aggressive new efficiency standards for federal agencies, the Administration engaged with major federal suppliers to encourage them to adopt similar practices. Companies targeted by the administration include IBM, GE, Honeywell, SRA International, Humana, CSC, AECOM, SAIC, HP, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, CH2MHill, ADS Inc., and Battelle.
Final Rule Strengthens NESHAP For Off-Site Waste And Recovery Facilities: On March 18, 2015, EPA issued a final rule to strengthen the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (OSWRO) source category. 80 Fed. Reg. 14248. The rule is a result of EPA's residual risk and technology review (RTR) required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6), EPA has determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revision to the NESHAP standard. EPA consequently revised the tank requirements to require increased control of emissions for tanks in a specific size range that also contain material above a specified vapor pressure. EPA also revised the equipment leak requirements to remove the option to comply with either 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart H or 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V, and require compliance with only 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart H. EPA also eliminated the exemption for exceedances due to startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM). EPA states that the revised standards will cost industry $4.1 million in capital costs and $1.1 million in annualized costs, but in return it is expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) by 211 tons per year. The revised standards were effective immediately.
EPA Issues Final Rule Amending Reporting Requirements Under Mercury And Air Toxics Standard: EPA on March 24, 2015, issued a final rule that amends the reporting requirements in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) for power plants. 80 Fed. Reg. 15510. The final rule temporarily requires owners or operators of affected sources to submit certain required emissions and compliance reports to EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool. The rule also temporarily suspends the requirement for owners or operators of affected sources to submit certain reports using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The rule specifically amends the reporting requirements in 40 C.F.R. Section 63.10031(f). The final MATS rule required affected sources to submit certain MATS emissions and compliance information electronically, using either the CEDRI or the ECMPS Client Tool. EPA developed these two systems prior to the MATS rule for the electronic submittal of emissions data from many source categories. CEDRI is currently used by owners or operators of sources regulated under 40 C.F.R. Part 60 and 40 C.F.R. Part 63 to submit performance test reports and other air emissions reports. ECMPS is used to report emissions data under the CAA Title IV Acid Rain Program and other programs that are required to monitor continuously and report emissions according to 40 C.F.R. Part 75. EPA believes these two systems have improved the way source owners and operators report emissions data to EPA by providing a streamlined and standardized electronic approach. The rule was immediately effective.
EPA Proposes SIP Requirements For PM2.5 NAAQS: On March 23, 2015, EPA proposed requirements that state, local, and tribal air agencies would have to meet as they implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 80 Fed. Reg. 15340. The proposal details how EPA proposes that air agencies meet the state implementation plan (SIP) requirements that apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The rule addresses general requirements for attainment plan due dates and attainment dates; emissions inventories; attainment demonstrations; provisions for demonstrating reasonable further progress; quantitative milestones; contingency measures; and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) permitting programs. The rule also clarifies the attainment planning requirements that would apply to PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas based on their classification (either Moderate or Serious), and the process for reclassifying Moderate areas to Serious. EPA also proposes to revoke the 1997 primary annual standard because EPA revised the primary annual standard in 2012. The comment period on the rule closes on May 22, 2015.
EPA Proposes Ban On Wastewater Discharges From Unconventional Oil And Gas Wells: EPA on April 7, 2015, proposed zero discharge pretreatment standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction wells. 80 Fed. Reg. 18557. The rule establishes pretreatment standards that would prevent the discharge of pollutants in wastewater from onshore UOG extraction facilities to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). EPA states that wastewater from UOG operations can be generated in large quantities and contains constituents that are potentially harmful to human health and the environment. Because they are not typical of POTW influent wastewater, some UOG extraction wastewater constituents can be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream and can disrupt the operation of the POTW, EPA states. At this time, however, EPA is not aware of any known discharges to POTWs from UOG extraction operations. Instead, UOG extraction wastewater is typically disposed via underground injection wells, reused in fracturing jobs, or transferred to a privately owned wastewater treatment facility. EPA has thus proposed zero discharge standards prohibiting wastewater discharges to POTWs from new and existing UOG facilities. The comment period on the proposal closes on June 8, 2015.
OSHA
OSHA Extends Comment Period On PEL RFI: On October 10, 2014, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting stakeholder feedback with respect to OSHA's approach to managing hazardous chemical exposures in the workplace and establishing Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL). 79 Fed. Reg. 61384. The RFI outlines potential modifications to OSHA's current risk and feasibility assessment approaches and requests additional information about chemical management for the workplace that may be more efficient, while still maintaining worker protection. The RFI set a date of April 8, 2015, for submitting written comments. OSHA received multiple requests from stakeholders to extend the comment period by 60 to 180 additional days. The requests came from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), and ORCHSE Strategies, LLC, among others. In response to these requests, on March 25, 2015, OSHA extended the comment deadline to October 9, 2015. 80 Fed. Reg. 15702.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
French Agency Publishes Opinion On Silver Nanoparticles: The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) published on March 10, 2015, an Opinion concerning exposure to silver nanoparticles that "stresses the research that has been carried out to examine the potential health and environmental effects of silver nanoparticles but notes that this is still insufficient to allow the health risks to be assessed." ANSES states that, based on the conclusions of its April 2014 Opinion on the risks associated with manufactured nanomaterials, it recommends limiting the marketing of products containing silver nanoparticles to applications whose advantages have been clearly demonstrated. ANSES recommends encouraging research concerning physico-chemical characterization, exposure assessment, toxicology and ecotoxicology, assessment of antibacterial effectiveness, and bacterial resistance, as well as enhancing the traceability of data and consumer information on products containing silver nanoparticles. ANSES recommends that the use of silver nanoparticles (production, processing, utilization) be limited to applications whose advantages have been clearly demonstrated, and whose benefits to human health outweigh the risks for the environment.
NNI Publishes Supplement To President's 2016 Budget: The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) published on March 11, 2015, its supplement to the President's 2016 budget submitted to Congress. NNI states that the supplement serves as the NNI annual report. According to the annual report, in 2014, federal agencies invested $1.57 billion in nanotechnology-related activities. The President's 2016 request calls for an investment of $1.50 billion, which the report states "affirm[s] the Administration's continuing commitment to a robust U.S. nanotechnology effort." Almost half of the budget request is focused on applied research and development (R&D) and support for the Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives (NSI), "reflecting an increased emphasis within the NNI on commercialization and technology transfer." The NSIs are multiagency initiatives intended to focus on technology areas of national importance that may be more rapidly advanced through enhanced interagency coordination and collaboration.
The annual report provides the following highlights from the five current NSIs: Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion: Contributing to Energy Solutions for the Future spans efforts in fundamental and applied research to improve photovoltaic and thermophotovoltaic devices and advance the development of solar fuels. These efforts include research on understanding and characterizing essential processes in photovoltaic materials and devices; low-cost conversion of solar energy to electricity through the development of organic photovoltaic solar cells; and the development of high-efficiency, flexible photovoltaics for use in solar aircraft and portable power applications. Agencies participating in this NSI also support interdisciplinary centers and provide early-stage assistance to startup companies to overcome technological barriers to commercialization. Sustainable Nanomanufacturing: Creating the Industries of the Future includes efforts focused on the development of robust nanomanufacturing methods for the cost-effective production of nanoscale materials and devices. These efforts include the development and scaled-up production of carbon nanotube bulk materials and their demonstration in lightweight, high-strength composites and lightweight data and power cables. Nanomanufacturing advances also include the development of nanocrystalline alloys for lightweighting vehicles and lightweight, durable ceramics for structural applications. Agencies participating in this NSI, with support from the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), conducted two workshops in 2014 that identified key barriers to broader adoption of carbon nanotubes and cellulose nanomaterials and their commercialization. Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond is aimed at discovering and using novel nanoscale fabrication processes and innovative concepts to produce revolutionary materials, devices, systems, and architectures to advance the field of nanoelectronics. Federal agencies participating in this NSI have provided strong support for multidisciplinary university research through two public-private research initiatives in collaboration with the semiconductor industry: the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, co-funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Semiconductor Technology Advanced Research Network, supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. One area of rapidly growing emphasis is the development and application of novel materials for nanoelectronics. Recently initiated efforts in nanophotonics provide the potential for collaboration with other national efforts, such as the recently announced Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation. Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure (NKI): Enabling Leadership in Sustainable Design is focused on providing a community-based, solutions-oriented knowledge infrastructure to accelerate nanotechnology discovery and innovation. Agencies participating in this NSI are building upon existing activities, such as the National Institutes of Health caNanoLab and the NSF-funded nanoHUB, to facilitate sharing of data and models, respectively, and to promote collaboration. For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is working in 2015 to migrate the GoodNanoGuide to nanoHUB. The GoodNanoGuide is a compilation of data on workplace exposures, experimental evidence, and modeling results on the toxic effects of various nanomaterials and other nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety information. Other efforts currently being pursued under this NSI include the development of high-throughput combinatorial methods to probe nanomaterial growth and processing methods, and the development of standard procedures to validate computational techniques developed to predict the properties of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology: Improving and Protecting Health, Safety, and the Environment is focused on the utilization of nanotechnology to develop physical, chemical, and biological sensors that have higher sensitivity and selectivity, are more portable, and have lower power demands than conventional sensors. Another focus of this NSI is the development of sensors for the detection of nanomaterials in biological and environmental media. In 2014, agencies participating in this NSI, with support from NNCO, sponsored a workshop to identify key challenges faced by sensor developers and critical needs in standards development, testing and evaluation facilities, and manufacturing. The workshop highlighted the need for broader access to test beds for the evaluation of sensor performance and for fabrication facilities that address the gaps in transitioning from prototypes to large-scale commercial production.
NNI Publishes Proceedings Of Meeting On Carbon Nanotube Commercialization: NNI published on March 12, 2015, the proceedings of a September 15, 2014, meeting on "Realizing the Promise of Carbon Nanotubes: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Pathway to Commercialization," held at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters. According to NNI, a number of common themes and potential future research and development priorities emerged: Increased efforts devoted to manufacturing, quality control, and scale-up; Improvements in the mechanical and electrical properties of carbon nanotube (CNT)-based bulk materials to approach the properties of individual CNTs; More effective use of simulation and modeling to provide insight into the fundamentals of the CNT growth process; Improved understanding of the properties of bulk CNT-containing materials at longer length scales; Standard materials and protocols to guide the testing of CNT-based products for commercial applications; Life cycle assessments for gauging commercial readiness; and Use of public-private partnerships or other collaboration vehicles to leverage resources and expertise to solve these technical challenges and accelerate commercialization.
NNI states that the outcomes of the meeting will help inform the future directions of the NNI Nanotechnology Signature Initiative "Sustainable Nanomanufacturing: Creating the Industries of the Future," which aims to accelerate the development of industrial-scale methods for manufacturing functional nanoscale systems.
ACS Nano Publishes Article On Nanomaterial Categorization For Assessing Risk Potential: ACS Nano, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), has posted an article entitled "Nanomaterial Categorization for Assessing Risk Potential to Facilitate Regulatory Decision-Making." The abstract of the article, which is co-authored by Lynn L. Bergeson, states:
For nanotechnology to meet its potential as a game-changing and sustainable technology, it is important to ensure that the engineered nanomaterials and nanoenabled products that gain entry to the marketplace are safe and effective. Tools and methods are needed for regulatory purposes to allow rapid material categorization according to human health and environmental risk potential, so that materials of high concern can be targeted for additional scrutiny, while material categories that pose the least risk can receive expedited review. Using carbon nanotubes as an example, we discuss how data from alternative testing strategies can be used to facilitate engineered nanomaterial categorization according to risk potential and how such an approach could facilitate regulatory decision-making in the future.
The article is available for purchase online.
NNI Publishes Outcomes Of The 2015 EU-U.S.: Bridging Nanoehs Research Efforts Joint Workshop: NNI published on March 23, 2015, the outcomes of the March 12-13, 2015, joint workshop held by the U.S. and the EU, "Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts." The workshop was intended to promote and deepen the collaboration on nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety (nanoEHS) research. Workshop participants reviewed progress toward U.S.-EU Communities of Research (COR) goals and objectives, shared best practices, and identified areas for cross-COR collaboration. To address new challenges, the CORs were realigned and expanded with the addition of a COR on nanotechnology characterization. The seven CORs now address: Characterization; Databases and Computational Modeling; Exposure through Product Life; Ecotoxicity; Human Toxicity; Risk Assessment; and Risk Management and Control.
According to the workshop outcomes, the CORs support the shared goal of responsible nanotechnology development as outlined in the U.S. NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy, and the research strategy of the EU NanoSafety Cluster. The CORs directly address several priorities described in these documents, including the creation of a comprehensive nanoEHS knowledge base and international cooperation on the development of best practices and consensus standards.
USDA NOP Releases New Policy Memo On Nanotechnology: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) issued on March 24, 2015, a policy memorandum clarifying the status of nanotechnology in organic production and handling under the USDA organic regulations. The memorandum states that NOP has received questions about the use of nanotechnology. The memorandum uses the term "engineered nanomaterials" to refer to substances specifically designed and manufactured to have unique properties or behavior attributable to particle size. The term "incidental nanomaterials" is used to refer to substances that are incidental byproducts of other manufacturing (e.g., homogenization, milling) or that occur naturally. The memorandum states that no engineered nanomaterial will be allowed for use in organic production and handling unless the substance has been: (1) petitioned for use; (2) reviewed and recommended by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB); and (3) added to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances through notice and comment rulemaking. The memorandum notes that to avoid conflicts about the presence of nanomaterials in substances regulated by other federal agencies, NOP is not establishing a separate definition for engineered nanomaterials. Instead, the descriptions in the FDA's Guidance for Industry Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology and EPA's policies on regulating pesticides that use nanotechnology and control of nanoscale materials under TSCA "should be used as applicable."
EC Calls For Data On Colloidal Silver (Nano) In Cosmetic Products: On March 24, 2015, the European Commission (EC) announced a call for data on the ingredient "colloidal silver (nano)." According to the EC, it has received notification of several cosmetics products containing the ingredient "colloidal silver (nano)" (CAS No. 7440-22-4). The EC states that although this ingredient is not regulated in the cosmetics regulation, it is reported in the Cosmetic Ingredients and Substances (CosIng) database with antimicrobial functions. According to the applicants, the ingredient is used as antimicrobial in nano form, with a lowest cut off particle size of one nanometer (nm) and at maximum concentration up to 1.0 percent in cosmetic products. The EC states that it has concerns on the use of "colloidal silver (nano)" "because of the potential toxicity of its nanoparticles that enter into the cells and because the data submitted by the applicants seems to be insufficient to carry out a full risk assessment." To prepare requests for scientific opinions to the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), the EC invites interested parties to submit any relevant scientific information on the safety of "colloidal silver (nano)" used in cosmetic products, in particular data regarding all toxicological end-points and an indication on the suggested safe concentration limits. Interested parties, according to the EC, include Member States, manufacturers of cosmetic products, producers of the substances concerned, and relevant industry and consumers associations. Data are due June 30, 2015.
EPA Proposes Reporting And Recordkeeping Requirements For Nanoscale Materials: On April 6, 2015, EPA issued a proposed TSCA Section 8(a) rule concerning reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain chemical substances when manufactured (including imported) or processed at the nanoscale. 80 Fed. Reg. 18330. EPA proposes to require persons that manufacture or process these chemical substances to report electronically to EPA certain information, including the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and existing data concerning environmental and health effects. EPA also proposes to require any persons who intend to manufacture or process chemical substances as discrete nanoscale materials after the effective date of the final rule to notify EPA of the same information at least 135 days before the intended date of commencement of manufacture or processing. Comments are due by July 6, 2014. EPA has posted a fact sheet on its website. EPA states that it anticipates holding a public meeting during the comment period, and it will announce the time and place of the meeting on its web page. More information is available in our March 25, 2015, memorandum, "EPA Proposes Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Nanoscale Materials," and April 8, 2015, memorandum, "EPA Opens Docket for Proposed TSCA Section 8(a) Rule for Nanomaterials."
SCENIHR Identifies Use Of Nanomaterials For Medical Imaging And Drug Delivery And Graphene Nanomaterials As Emerging Issues: On April 9, 2015, the EC Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) posted a Position Statement on emerging and newly identified health risks to be drawn to the attention of the European Commission. The primary purpose of the paper is to draw the attention of the EC to emerging issues in the non-food area that have been identified by SCENIHR members as having the potential to significantly impact human health and/or the environment in the future. The criteria used to identify an emerging issue include novelty of the stressor or process; scale of possible impacts on man and/or the environment; severity of impacts for particular organisms (priority for life threatening); urgency, i.e., the temporal nature of the likely changes (priority for rapid increases); not investigated in depth recently by a reputable scientific body; and anticipated to be increasingly important over time. The emerging issues identified include the use of nanomaterials for medical imaging and drug delivery and graphene nanomaterials.
BIOBASED/RENEWABLE PRODUCTS
EPA Requests Data For Improved Renewable Fuel Standard Rules: On March 24, 2015, EPA issued two Information Collection Requests (ICR) seeking information from cellulosic biofuels producers as it seeks to improve its process for setting the annual Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). 80 Fed. Reg. 15595; 80 Fed. Reg. 15597. The proposed ICRs concern projected cellulosic biofuels volumes and E15. Comments received will inform EPA as it prepares to submit the final ICRs to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its official approval and dissemination. In the first proposed ICR on "Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting," EPA is seeking to collect information from potential cellulosic biofuel producers to aid in determining the annual volume standards. In the second proposed ICR on "Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to E15 (Renewal)," EPA is seeking comment on recordkeeping and reporting items related to the legal use of E15 in commerce. EPA has overestimated the amount of cellulosic biofuel that can be produced each year. The information request is intended to improve the data EPA has available to it when it sets the annual blending mandate. Comments are due May 26, 2015.
NRC Issues Report On Industrialization Of Biotechnology: On March 13, 2015, the National Research Council (NRC) issued its long awaited report titled "Industrialization of Biology: A Roadmap to Accelerate the Advanced Manufacturing of Chemicals." Under the Council's Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology and Board on Life Sciences, an ad hoc committee will develop a roadmap of the advances in basic science and engineering capabilities necessary to realize the full benefit of research investments intended to enable the advanced manufacturing of chemicals using biological systems. Essential elements of the roadmap include: identification of the core scientific and technical challenges that must be overcome; tools, measurement techniques, databases, and computational techniques needed to serve as the building blocks for research and applications; how to develop, share, and diffuse common interoperable standards, languages, and measurements; and when and how to integrate non-technological insights and societal concerns into the pursuit of the technical. The report provides technical conclusions, recommendations, and roadmap goals that are a must read for businesses in this space. Importantly, the Committee recommends: "In order to transform the pace of industrial biotechnology by enabling commercial entities to develop new biomanufacturing processes, the committee recommends that the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Defense, and other relevant agencies support the scientific research and foundational technologies required to advance and to integrate the areas of feedstocks organizational chassis and pathway development, fermentation, and processing as outlined in the roadmap goals." The report is available online.
BRAG Biobased Products News And Policy Report: Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.'s (B&C®) consulting affiliate, B&C Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM), manages the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG®). For access to a weekly summary of key legislative, regulatory, and business developments in biobased chemicals, biofuels, and industrial biotechnology, go to www.braginfo.org.
LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
REINS Act Passes Judiciary Committee: On a 15-10 vote, the House Judiciary Committee on April 15, 2015, passed H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS). 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.
House Committee Passes Bill Repealing WOTUS Rule: The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 15, 2015, passed the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 1732). The bill would give EPA 30 days to repeal its proposed "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule, which EPA issued on April 21, 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 22188. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) would then have three months to consult with state and local officials on how to address jurisdictional issues under the CWA. The bill passed largely along a party line vote of 36-22.
Representative Shimkus Releases Discussion Draft Of TSCA Reform Legislation; House Subcommittee Holds Hearing On TSCA Modernization Act: On April 7, 2015, Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, released a Discussion Draft of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (TMA DD). 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 TSCA. Memoranda summarizing these earlier bills and hearings are available on our website. According to the Subcommittee's April 7, 2015, press release, TMA DD "builds off the subcommittee's work to reform chemical management last Congress and further bipartisan negotiations this year." More information is available in B&C's memorandum.
On April 14, 2015, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy held a hearing on the discussion draft of TMA DD. 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. More information is available in B&C's memorandum.
Senate Environment And Public Works Committee Holds Hearing On TSCA Reform Legislation: On March 18, 2015, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing entitled the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act." The purpose of the hearing was to examine S.697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Testifying at the hearing were: Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), EPA; Dr. Richard Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund; Dr. Edward McCabe, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, March of Dimes Foundation; Dr. Lynn Goldman, M.D., Dean, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University; Ken Cook, President and Co-founder, Environmental Working Group; and Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, State of Maryland. An archived webcast of the hearing, witness testimony, and member statements are available online. Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-OK) praised the bill, which was introduced by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM). Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Ranking Minority member on the Committee, however, had caustic words for the bill. She stated: "It is clear that in its present form, the Udall-Vitter bill fails to provide the public health protections needed and is worse than current law. This bill still does not have the tools necessary to put safeguards in place -- even for the most dangerous toxic substances like asbestos." She instead urged passage of a bill she introduced with Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act (S. 725). More information on the hearing is available online.
Ignoring Veto Threat, House Passes Bill Revising EPA Science Advisory Board Process: The House on March 17, 2015, passed the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act (H.R. 1029) by a vote of 236-181. Introduced by Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK), the bill would amend Section 8(a) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to alter how EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) members are selected, expand public participation opportunities, enable reviews of EPA risk or hazard assessments, limit non-scientific policy advice, expand required disclosures, and increase the ability of Board members to express dissenting views. The White House on March 3, 2015, issued a Statement of Administration Policy threatening to veto the bill. The White House claims that H.R. 1029 would "negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB." The statement also claims that the bill's limitations on SAB's members' indirect involvement in the review and evaluation of their own work "will be difficult and consequently problematic to implement." The White House further claims that H.R. 1029 "would add burdensome requirements on the SAB" that would "saddle the SAB with workload that would impair its ability to carry out its mandate."
House Budget Resolution Takes Aim At Clean Power Plan: A House of Representatives budget resolution for FY 2016 criticizes EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan rule that limits emissions of GHGs from coal-fired utilities. The resolution states that the highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by EPA and are primarily targeted at the coal industry. To reduce the costs of the Clean Power Plan and other regulations, the resolution would seek to impose several changes at the rulemaking process. It calls for a limit on the total costs of federal regulation in a year and would also require Congressional approval of new federal regulations that impose an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more. The resolution would also require federal agencies conduct a three-year retrospective cost-benefit analysis of all new major regulations. All major regulations (those with an economic impact of $100 million or more) would also be required to go through a formal rulemaking process, and all federal agencies -- not just those in the executive branch -- would be required to conduct regulatory impact analyses of their regulations.
House And Senate Bills Would Delay Implementation Of Revised Ozone NAAQS: A duo of bills introduced in Congress on March 17, 2015, would delay, if not outright block, the implementation of EPA's revised NAAQS for ozone. The Clean Air, Strong Economies Act (S. 571), introduced by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), would block the effectiveness of the NAAQS until 85 percent of areas that currently do not meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS can demonstrate compliance with that standard. A companion bill (H.R. 1388) was introduced in the House by Representative Peter Olson (R-TX). The 2008 ozone NAAQS is 75 parts per billion (ppb). The revised standard, which EPA is required to issue in final by October 1, 2015, under a court order, is 65 ppb to 70 ppb. Both bills also would require EPA to consider costs before implementing the rule; EPA is currently not required to consider the cost of compliance when setting NAAQS.
Bill Would Amend FIFRA To Allow Sale Of Antimicrobial Copper Alloys: Representative Robert Latta (R-OH) on March 18, 2015, introduced H.R. 1424, a bill that would amend FIFRA to allow the marketing, distribution, or sale of solid antimicrobial copper alloys with certain claims. The legislation would also amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to exclude certain solid antimicrobial copper alloys from regulation as drugs or devices.
Democratic Lawmakers Introduce "Frack Pack" Of Bills Intended To Improve Safeguards For Hydraulic Fracturing: Democratic lawmakers in the Senate and House on March 18 and 19, 2015, introduced a package of bills intended to improve the regulation and safeguards for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The so-called "Frack Pack" was initiated on March 18, 2015, when Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act (S. 785), which is intended to increase environmental protections for communities where natural gas drilling takes place. The bill would require drillers to disclos

Return to headline | Return to top
House Subcommittee To Evaluate Veterans' Chemical Exposures Bill

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Sam Pearson

Lawmakers are set to consider a bill that would streamline how the Department of Veterans Affairs researches and provides services to ex-service members exposed to toxic chemicals.
The House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health will look at H.R. 1769, or the "Toxic Exposure Research Act," this week.
The bill, by Reps. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.), aims to make it easier for the VA to assist veterans and their families who are experiencing health problems associated with chemical exposures.
Among other things, the bill would require the VA to designate one facility as its national center for research into toxic exposures. It also would create a national outreach campaign about the risks faced by veterans if they are exposed to toxic chemicals and allow the military to declassify information regarding incidents in which service members were exposed.
The panel is likely to hear testimony from VA officials who opposed a version of the bill that was introduced last year. Rajiv Jean, the assistant deputy undersecretary for health for patient care services at the Veterans Health Administration, told the panel last year that he was concerned the bill would further complicate the VA's ability to serve veterans (E&E Daily, April 15).
The committee will also discuss four other bills -- H.R. 271, or the "Creating Options for Veterans Expedited Recovery Act"; H.R. 627, to expand the definition of a homeless veteran for purposes of VA benefit programs; H.R. 1369, or the "Veterans Access to Extended Care Act of 2015"; and H.R. 1575, which would make permanent a pilot program on counseling in retreat settings for female veterans who have recently left the military.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, April 23, at 10 a.m. in 334 Cannon.
Witnesses: To be announced.

Return to headline | Return to top
Industry, Animal Rights Groups Question EPA's Proposed EDSP Tier 2 Tests

Apr 17, 2015 | InsideEPA

By Maria Hegstad

Industry and animal rights groups are raising concerns about three tests that EPA has proposed for use in the second tier of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), with both types of groups questioning the tests' suitability for use in the screening program, and multiple animal rights groups protesting the vast numbers of animals the tests will consume.
The tests are the first that EPA has proposed for the second tier of tests in its two-tiered EDSP. The first tier is intended to indicate whether chemicals interact with estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormones, while the second tier is intended to provide dose-response and other information for use in risk assessment. EPA ordered a first group of pesticide chemicals to undergo the first tier of testing in 2009, and the agency continues to evaluate the test results of the last of this group of chemicals.
Meanwhile, the agency is attempting to stand up the second tier of tests for those chemicals flagged in the first tier as potential endocrine disruptors to undergo further evaluation. The three tests include the Japanese quail 2-generation reproduction test, the Medaka fish extended 1-generation reproduction test and larval amphibian growth and development assay, each of which were reviewed by EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel in a June 2013 meeting.
The advisors "reviewed draft protocols and supporting data for the four non-mammalian Tier 2 tests," including the three above and a fourth additional test known as the "mysid 2-generation toxicity test," according to the Jan. 30 Federal Register notice where the agency released the three tests for public comment. The fourth test is not yet ready for public comment, the agency added.
Two of the three tests, the Medaka fish assay and the larval amphibian assay, have also been under review by international experts as part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines evaluations.
The Endocrine Policy Form (EPF), a group of chemical manufacturers who have or expect to receive EDSP test orders, in March 31 comments urges EPA to make alterations to its guidelines for these assays in order to harmonize them with the OECD guidelines for the assays.
The third test, which uses two generations of Japanese quail offspring, is not undergoing OECD validation processes, leading Ellen Mihaich, the scientific coordinator for the EPF, to predict in February that the test would draw increased scrutiny from stakeholders commenting on the tests.
In EPF's comments, the industry group questions the validation status of the quail test, as well as the lack of guidance on how EPA will determine which results in the tier one screen will trigger a test order for the test. Like the animal rights groups, EPF also notes the large number of lab birds the test will consume, because it requires a breeding pair and two additional generations of birds to produce the results.
"The rationale justifying a two-generation test is not provided and no specific guidance indicating how this study requirement will be determined is given," according to EPF's comments. "Given the extremely high animal usage in this study and the poor validation status, there needs to be very good reasons to require this study, especially when 1-generation avian studies for the compound are available."
EPF's Concerns
EPF also warns that the quail test is subjective, questions some of the endpoints EPA selects for inclusion, and also notes that only a few labs will be able to perform the test because of the highly specialized knowledge about birds that the test requires of anyone attempting to perform it.
"The extensive pathologic evaluations, in particular, require very highly specialized expertise that the authors acknowledge is limited to a small pool of avian pathologists with the necessary training and experience that are available to read the histopathology endpoint of the assay," according to EPF's comments. "The subjective nature of these observations and the expertise required for the histopathology makes standardization difficult and results potentially inconsistent."
By contrast, EPF's comments on the Medaka fish test and the larval amphibian test are less critical. The group largely focuses its comments on urging EPA to ensure that its test guidelines match those of the OECD for these two tests.
EPF does encourage EPA to drop the option for adding an additional generation of lab fish to study from the Medaka test, arguing that these fish are "not needed, thus, the recommendation to potentially extend this assay to include F2 reproduction should be removed. It should be noted that none of the validation studies indicated any value to the F2 extension."
For the amphibian test, EPF points out population-level shortcomings in the test, suggesting that EPA clarify the test description to include them. The test does not provide population-level effects for the estrogen or androgen pathways, EPF says. "The lack of population-level relevant endpoints for this assay limits its usefulness for measuring adverse effects as a consequence to perturbations in the estrogen and androgen pathways."
Meanwhile, animal rights groups raise numerous concerns with all of the tests, because of the large numbers of animals each assay will consume. The commenters note that because of the precise dosing levels that must be used for endocrine system testing, additional animals are used in range-finding testing to determine what dose levels to use in the main test, further increasing the animal toll for each assay run.
Like the industry group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the U.S. Humane Society in their March 31 comments question what testing results in the 11-assay tier one will trigger a test order for the two-generation quail bird test or any of the other tier two tests.
EDSP Testing
"Stakeholders have yet to receive any indication as to what criteria the EPA will use to trigger the requirement to conduct Tier 2 testing," the animal rights groups write.
"We are particularly concerned regarding what information will be used to trigger the [Japanese Quail Tier Two test (JQTT)] as there is no Tier 1 test that might suggest potential vulnerability of birds to a particular chemical (and help define the doses to be used in a longer multi-generation test). While we are not advocating for an avian Tier 1 test, there should be environmental monitoring data available that would strongly suggest the likelihood for wild bird populations to be exposed to the chemical in question before the JQTT is required."
The groups add that they estimate that the JQTT test will consume "about 1,500 birds through the F2 generation. . . .
Similarly, the total number of amphibians used in the [larval amphibian test] appears to be the same."
The groups applaud EPA's decision to replace an earlier two-generation version of the Medaka fish test with an extended one-generation version, which they say "appears to have reduced the number of fish being used, but when adding in culled fish and those used in range-finding tests, the number is still quite high."
In separate undated comments, Wildlife International also questions the large number of animals that will be used in the three tests, and particularly, the JQTT. Wildlife International provides an even higher estimate for the number of birds it anticipates running the test will consume per chemical: "(3000 -- 4000 birds per study) and should not be embarked upon lightly. In our opinion, the two generation test should be reserved for testing specific chemicals, where it is necessary to evaluate the transgenerational impact of the chemicals and to evaluate such effects on reproduction endpoints and overall productivity." The group adds that in its opinion, "it has not been sufficiently established in the validation process that [the JQTT] is sensitive and focused enough to identify endocrine effects in birds."

Return to headline | Return to top
Liquor-Store Spirits Provide Green Alternative To HPLC Solvents

Apr 17, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Catherine M. Cooney

Long considered a lab workhorse, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) typically requires expensive chemicals that need to be disposed of as hazardous waste. A new study shows that rum, vodka, and other distilled alcohols combined with household products can serve as low-cost and sustainable alternative eluents for HPLC, and in many cases produce excellent analytical results (ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00133).
Chemists most often use the solvent acetonitrile in HPLC separations to elute the components of mixtures from the instrument’s chromatographic column. During a worldwide shortage of acetonitrile in 2009, which caused the price to skyrocket, researchers found that ethanol was a good substitute. Still, the cost of HPLC-grade absolute ethanol is high, typically about $120/L.
Recent innovations have reduced the size and cost of HPLC-based instruments, raising the possibility that HPLC could someday be used in doctors’ offices and in labs in developing countries. So Erik L. Regalado, Christopher J. Welch, and colleagues of Merck Research Laboratories, in Rahway, N.J., wanted to see if cheaper and more readily available solvents could perform as well as HPLC-grade ethanol.
The researchers combined distilled spirits purchased from a local liquor store with ammonia and white vinegar from a supermarket and used the eluents to separate a mixture of five compounds—uracil, caffeine, 1-phenylethanol, butylparaben, and anthracene—in a conventional HPLC instrument.
In HPLC, compounds separate based on how quickly they move through the instrument’s column. The team found that grain alcohol, which cost $22/L, was a good substitute for HPLC-grade ethanol, especially when analyzing more hydrophilic compounds that move slowly through the column. Rum and the lower-proof alcohols were less effective at eluting the strongly retained components, but they cleanly separated compounds that came off the column in a shorter time. The liquor-store alcohol-based eluents also performed as well as HPLC-grade ethanol in HPLC combined with mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS) when measuring caffeine and theanine in brewed black teas and vitamin C from oranges and supplement pills.
Similar analyses on a microfluidic HPLC instrument required much less solvent. One high-throughput analysis of vanillin in a vanilla extract showed that a single “airline serving” of vodka was sufficient for 1,560 assays.
“In effect, distilled alcohol spirits are just a more convenient and more economical way to obtain ethanol,” Welch says. The liquors they tested—rum, vodka, cachaça, and aguardiente—contained at most 40% ethanol, while the grain alcohol was 95%.
The researchers admit these analytical results could be performed more quickly and perhaps with finer resolution using acetonitrile, which costs $50 to $130/L. “However, the green chemistry and cost advantages of this method open up some interesting possibilities for the use of HPLC/MS technologies outside the conventional laboratory setting,” Welch says.
Larry Miller, a principal scientist at Amgen and president of the nonprofit Green Chemistry Group, agrees that the nonhazardous substances can perform chromatographic separations that, in many cases, are roughly equivalent to using acetonitrile. “But there are still challenges, including the price and availability of the smaller instruments, that would have to be overcome before HPLC/MS can be routinely used in nontraditional settings,” Miller says.

Return to headline | Return to top
There is Nano-WHAT in My Food?

Apr 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

By David Andrews

Are intentionally engineered nanoparticles being added to our food? We don’t know for sure – and federal food regulators aren’t helping us find out the truth.
On April 6 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule to collect basic information on production, processing, exposure and available health and safety data for nanomaterials – chemical particles tens of thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. EPA said it would use the information to determine if further action to protect the public is needed under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not proposed any such rules. There is little publicly available information about nanoparticle use in food, although a 2012 investigation by E, The Environmental Magazine concluded that nanoparticles “made a quiet entrance into the nation’s food supply at least a decade ago.” We do know this: FDA’s process for regulating new food additives is woefully inadequate.
Food companies are not required to disclose whether their foods contain nanoparticles. FDA allows food manufacturers to decide if their own additives qualify for a designation called Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS, without ever having to notify the agency or seeking an independent evaluation by someone without a financial stake in the outcome. Numerous questionable food additives such as propylparaben and BHT are currently listed as GRAS. On April 13 the Center for Public Integrity published an investigation into how the loopholes in current law allow new additives to be added to food without telling FDA.
The FDA does not require registration or even notification. Instead, it “encourages” companies to consult with the agency in developing new additives. It is not known if any companies have self-determined that an engineered nanoparticle is safe for food, or if a company is already using an engineered nanoparticle without telling FDA.
In nonbinding recommendations published in June 2014, the FDA said it is “not aware of any food substances intentionally engineered on the nanometer scale for which there are generally available safety data sufficient” to determine whether the additive could be generally recognized as safe.
A report in 2010 by the World Health Organization predicted that nanomaterials could become common in food as ingredients in flavors, preservatives, vitamins and nutrients, food storage containers and more applications. The report said:
The very small size of nanomaterials enables dispersion of water-insoluble additives (such as colours, flavours and preservatives) in food products without the need for additional fat or surfactants. Nanosizing of bioactive substances is also claimed to give greater uptake, absorption and bioavailability in the body compared with bulk equivalents. Nanosized and nano-encapsulated ingredients and additives are used for the development of improved or new tastes, flavours and textures, and products with enhanced nutritional value. The advent of nanotechnologies has also enabled the development of innovative packaging materials, nanosensors and intervention technologies that can improve the safety, traceability and shelf life of food products.
On March 12, EWG, As You Sow and seven other advocacy groups published a policy statement that said that food companies should reveal whether they are using nanomaterials, substantiate the safety of these particles before putting them in food, label their use, and minimize worker exposures and risk. Safety must come first.

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Energy and Environment News

(ACC Blog) Two New Reports Highlight U.S. Natural Gas Production Boom

Apr 17, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

Assessments released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Potential Gas Committee this month project robust growth in domestic natural gas, reinforcing prospects for continued chemical industry expansion and investment.
EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015, issued on Tuesday, projects that U.S. energy imports and exports will come into balance between 2020 and 2030 as a result of increased oil and natural gas production and slow growth in energy demand.
It follows the Potential Gas Committee’s biennial assessment of the nation’s natural gas resources, which reports that the U.S. has a record 2,515 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas as of the end of 2014. That’s the highest resource evaluation in the Committee’s 50-year history, exceeding the previous high assessment (from 2012) by 131 tcf.
U.S. chemical industry investment linked to natural gas has already reached historic levels. As of this month, 226 shale-related projects representing $138 billion are planned or underway. The new reports are terrific news for sustained supplies of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from shale formations, which are key sources of fuel and feedstock for chemical makers in this country.
According to EIA:
Growth in production of dry natural gas and natural gas plant liquids contributes to the expansion of several manufacturing industries (such as bulk chemicals and primary metals) and the increased use of [natural gas] feedstocks in place of petroleum-based naphtha feedstocks.
Unfortunately, oil and gas production on federal lands lags far behind production on state and private lands. A new report from the Congressional Research Service finds that since fiscal year 2010, oil production on federal lands is down by 10 percent and natural gas production is down 31 percent. On non-federal lands, over the same period, oil production is up 89 percent and natural gas production is up 37 percent.
The anemic production picture on federal lands is the direct result of Administration policies such as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)’s draft proposed program for oil and gas leasing for the Outer Continental Shelf. As ACC noted recently, “BOEM’s draft plan continues a clear strategy to limit oil and natural gas production on federal lands, where it has been declining for a decade. Along with restrictions for the Arctic coastal plain proposed earlier this week, current government policies are putting more resources off-limits.”
At a time when federal policies are increasing demand for energy, especially natural gas, our government should be doing everything possible to expand and diversify America’s resource base. We urge the Administration to revise its restrictive policies. Meanwhile, we look forward to development and enactment of a broad strategy to modernize America’s energy policies.
The AEO projects that combined heat and power (CHP) in the industrial sector will grow by 50% between 2013 and 2040, from 147 billion kWh to 221 billion kWh. The U.S. chemical industry is a leader in the use of CHP, also known as cogeneration, a technology that can enhance energy diversity by enabling more efficient power generation. While significantly underused today, EIA’s report may signal improvement in the coming years, which could help ease the transition in the electricity sector as many coal-fired power plants are retired.

Return to headline | Return to top
House Lawmakers To Wade Into Fracking Science Debate

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Daniel Bush

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Thursday will delve into the debate on hydraulic fracturing, taking up concerns over water pollution and local control of fracking wells.
The committee will consider the scientific research that fracking opponents claim shows the drilling method causes underground water contamination. Republicans in Congress and industry groups have long argued that the practice is safe and poses few environmental risks.
Chairman Lamar Smith(R-Texas) is a vocal supporter of fracking who slammed the Obama administration last month after it released new rules for drilling on federal lands.
"A widely publicized handful of fabricated charges that fracking pollutes groundwater has led some to question the safety of this practice," Smith said at the time. "States have effectively regulated this technology for years and understand the local conditions and geology far better than any lawyer in Washington ever could."
The new rules could come up at the hearing, though a GOP aide said the focus will likely fall on the science around fracking and the fight between states and municipalities seeking to assert control over local fracking wells.
The issue has recently grabbed headlines in Texas, where the state House last week passed a bill that would prevent cities in the state from banning fracking and imposing other oil and gas regulations.
The measure was a response in part to voters in the city of Denton, roughly 40 miles north of Dallas, who approved a referendum last November that banned fracking in the city.
State lawmakers passed the fracking measure just days after a gas well in Arlington, Texas, sprang a leak and forced the evacuation of about 50 homes (EnergyWire, April 14).
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, April 23, at 9 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Christi Craddick, chairwoman of the Railroad Commission of Texas; Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning for the Environmental Defense Fund; Simon Lomax, western director for Energy in Depth; and Donald Siegel, chairman of earth sciences at Syracuse University.

Return to headline | Return to top
Texas House Votes to Block Local Fracking Bans

Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The Texas House of Representatives voted Friday to block cities and counties from banning hydraulic fracturing. The move comes after voters in the town of Denton, Texas, outlawed fracking there last year.
Lawmakers in the Texas House, bolstered by arguments against a series of mismatching local laws against fracking, voted 122-18 to ban those restrictions, Reuters reports.
The state Senate has yet to take up the bill.  Denton was one of a few cities whose voters approved fracking bans last November, while similar bans failed at the polls elsewhere.
The Texas Oil and Gas Association, which had fought against the ordinance, eventually sued over it.  State courts have been mixed on local fracking bans. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down bans there. Last summer, a New York court allowed them.

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP, Drillers Blast BLM Move to Consider Fee Hike

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Phil Taylor

The Bureau of Land Management's move today to initiate a rulemaking that could hike fees to drill for oil and gas on public lands drew swift blowback from Republicans and the energy industry, but praise from conservation groups.
BLM is seeking public input on a potentially sweeping new rule that would update oil and gas royalty rates, rental payments, lease sale minimum bids, civil penalty caps, and financial assurances (Greenwire, April 17).
The proposal comes less than a month after BLM finalized a controversial rule to update its oversight of hydraulic fracturing, a move that drew a lawsuit from an oil and gas trade group (Greenwire, March 20).
Julia Bell, a spokeswoman for House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), called BLM's new advanced notice of proposed rulemaking "yet another regulatory assault" that could stifle energy production on public lands.
"Hiking the royalty rates will further curtail production and decrease revenue flowing to the federal Treasury," Bell said in a statement.
Less revenue would result in less federal disbursements for states to fund rural schools and communities, she said. States receive about half of the leasing and production revenues from oil and gas on federal lands within their borders.
Dan Naatz, senior vice president of government relations and political affairs at the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said higher royalties "will cause small, family-owned businesses to suffer and further discourage energy development on federal lands."
"At a time when the price of oil has dropped 50 percent over the past seven months and coupled with new federal regulations for onshore producers, the Obama administration's proposal to increase onshore royalty rates will ultimately result in fewer American jobs, less energy production, and hurt our nation's energy security," he said in a statement.
Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs for the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, said BLM is right to examine whether taxpayers are getting a fair return for publicly owned minerals.
However, "the answer is they are not," she said, "because Interior policies are needlessly preventing access to the energy that all Americans own."
"Charging a higher royalty rate will accelerate the exit off federal lands and result in less revenue back to the taxpayer," she added.
While BLM has not formally proposed increasing the royalty rate, past Obama administration officials and budget proposals have strongly hinted at plans to increase or modify them.
Setting royalties is a tricky challenge. Set them too low and taxpayers get fleeced. But set them too high and some companies won't be able to afford to drill on public lands, resulting in a potential net loss to taxpayers.
The Government Accountability Office said in 2013 that Interior has previously calculated that raising BLM's current 12.5 percent onshore oil and gas royalty rate to 18.75 percent would raise an additional $1.25 billion over a decade.
BLM has conducted other studies on royalty rates, but they have not been made available to the public. The agency's rate is far lower than those of some Western states.
Conservationists praised BLM's move.
"For the first time in nearly a century, steps are being taken to ensure that oil and gas companies pay their fair share to drill on our national public lands," said Greg Zimmerman, policy director at the Center for Western Priorities, a Denver-based nonprofit. "It's past time for the federal government to bring royalty rates in line with what Western states charge."
Bob LeResche, chairman of the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a Billings, Mont.-based group that advocates for sustainable land use, said BLM's move to update royalty rates and ensure bonds are sufficient to reclaim drill sites is "long overdue." He said Wyoming has thousands of orphaned wells and un-reclaimed sites and that companies have "literally disappeared" after drilling ended.
"The federal onshore oil and gas royalty rate is lower than those of many Western states, including Wyoming," LeResche said. "There's no question that an increase is needed to ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return for federally owned oil and gas."

Return to headline | Return to top
Feds Weigh Drilling Fee Hike

Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The Obama administration has begun considering whether to increase rates and royalties imposed on oil and gas companies drilling on federal lands.

The Bureau of Land Management announced Friday that it will seek public comment on rules making changes to royalty rates, rental payments, lease sale prices and other compensation for onshore oil and gas work on federal lands.  
Federal regulators and inspectors have questioned whether the government is leaving money on the table by charging relatively low royalties for onshore drilling on federal lands. The current royalty rate for public land leases is 12.5 percent of the production value. Some states have higher rates — Texas charges 25 percent, according to the Center for Western Priorities — and the rate for offshore drilling is higher, as well.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said BLM's regulations "have not kept pace with technology advances and market conditions" for onshore drilling.

"It’s time to have a candid conversation about whether the American taxpayer is getting the right return for the development of oil and gas resources on public lands," Jewell said in a statement.
Energy producers, though, warned against raising rates at a time of soft oil prices. "The Obama administration’s proposal to increase onshore royalty rates will ultimately result in fewer American jobs, less energy production, and hurt our nation’s energy security," Independent Petroleum Association of America Vice President Dan Naatz said in a statement.
The move drew a rebuke from Republicans, as well. A spokeswoman for Rep. Rob Bishop's (R-Utah) Natural Resources Committee said higher royalties represented "another regulatory assault from the Obama administration." Oil and gas production on federal lands is down 10 percent since 2010, and "hiking the royalty rates will further curtail production and decrease revenue flowing to the federal Treasury," spokeswoman Julia Bell said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Interior Looking at Higher Royalties, Fees For Oil, Gas Work on Federal Onshore Lands

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alan Kovski

The Interior Department opened the regulatory process April 17 on steps that could raise royalty rates, rental payments, minimum bid levels, bonding requirements and civil penalties on oil and gas companies working on federal onshore lands.
The department released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to seek public comment on whether the rates, rents, penalties and other financial requirements should be raised—a step the department referred to as opening a public dialogue. Dialogue developed swiftly.
Julia Bell, spokeswoman for the House Natural Resources Committee, issued a statement saying, “At a time when oil and natural gas production on state and private land is up 89% since 2010, and federal production is down 10%, it's unbelievable that we have yet another regulatory assault from the Obama administration on energy development on federal lands.”
The Independent Petroleum Association of America said the higher costs would kill jobs and reduce energy production.
Environmental Benefits Suggested
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was issued by the Bureau of Land Management, the Interior Department agency that leases onshore federal properties.
The BLM acknowledged that higher costs have the potential to reduce work on federal lands—and that reduced work might be viewed from some quarters as beneficial.
“It may be argued that potential production decreases resulting from higher royalty rates could result in environmental benefits on federal lands, such as a reduction in the number of surface acres disturbed by drilling and its associated infrastructure,” the BLM said.
“The BLM would be interested in receiving information related to these potential environmental benefits, particularly studies where those benefits are quantified—e.g., to what extent might such benefits be realized?” the notice said. “Or, would they be largely offset by drilling and production shifting to State or private lands?”
Bonding Also Addressed
Bonding is more directly concerned with the environment. Companies post bonds “to ensure the complete and timely reclamation of the lease tract, and the restoration of any lands or surface waters adversely affected by lease operations after the abandonment or cessation of oil and gas operations on the lease,” the notice said.
Throughout the notice, the BLM said most financial requirements of leases have remained unchanged for many years or decades. The agency questioned whether bonding at current rates is adequate to cover the compliance costs that might be incurred and whether civil penalties are high enough to deter unlawful conduct.
For royalties and rates, the agency questioned whether levels were adequate to provide a fair return to taxpayers for the use of public lands.
For each of the financial requirements under consideration, Interior sought public comment on whether a change is needed, and if so, how much change—most notably, how much increase might be appropriate.
Many Rates Fixed by Statute
Many royalty rates are fixed by statute at 12.5 percent, but Interior has the discretion to raise royalty rates for competitive leases, the leases that attract at least two bids. The notice said any potential revisions to royalty rates would apply only to new leases obtained competitively, not to existing leases nor to new noncompetitive leases.
“In aggregate, approximately 40 percent of the BLM-issued leases that are currently in force have been issued non-competitively,” the notice said. “In FY 2014, approximately 10 percent of leases were issued non-competitively.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Investors Urge SEC to Take Closer Look At Oil, Gas Companies' Climate Disclosures

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrea Vittorio

A global group of institutional investors representing nearly $2 trillion in assets is calling on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to place more scrutiny on oil and gas companies' disclosures of climate change-related risks.
The investors, which include the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the California Public Employees' Retirement System, said in an April 17 letter to SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White “we are concerned that oil and gas companies are not disclosing sufficient information about several converging factors that, together, will profoundly affect the economics of the industry.”
These “carbon asset risks” include government policies to limit carbon emissions, the possibility of reduced global demand for oil and capital expenditures on increasingly high-cost, carbon-intensive oil and gas exploration projects, such as Arctic drilling, they said.
“We believe it is crucial that SEC staff closely scrutinize oil and gas companies’ reporting on carbon asset risks under existing SEC rules,” the letter said. Specifically, they said the commission should issue comment letters asking the companies about carbon asset risks.
The SEC declined to comment on the letter.
Shortcomings in Reporting
The commission issued guidance in 2010 asking publicly traded companies to report on material climate-related risks and opportunities in regular financial filings. But since then, the SEC has done little to enforce it, according to a recent analysis by sustainability advocacy group Ceres, which also organized the letter (26 DEN A-12, 2/7/14).
The investors said many fossil fuel companies have admitted that climate change is real and that emissions from their products contribute to it, but when asked how laws and regulations to prevent climate change may affect their business models, they often say the impact will be limited.
Exxon Mobil Corp., for example, said in a recent report to investors that it is confident none of its oil and natural gas reserves would become stranded and lose their value because demand will continue to grow worldwide.
The letter from investors highlights specific shortcomings in annual financial filings by Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Canadian Natural Resources. It asks SEC staff to take a closer look at disclosures from these companies and others in the oil and gas industry.
Comptrollers From New York
The New York State and New York City comptrollers, who together manage more than $330 billion public pension funds, sent their own letter to the SEC the same day.
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli said he and New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer are “concerned that many fossil fuel companies are responding to global warming's unprecedented challenge with a business-as-usual approach.”
“Fossil fuel companies can't acknowledge climate change and their role in it, but then act as if it won't affect them and their investors,” DiNapoli said in a statement April 17. “They can't have it both ways.”
DiNapoli and Stringer likewise called for regulatory or enforcement action from the SEC to bring disclosures by companies in the fossil fuel industry into compliance with the commission's requirements and guidance.
The pair of letters comes a day after shareholders at British oil giant BP voted overwhelmingly in support of a resolution asking for regular reporting on climate risks (74 DEN A-7, 4/17/15).

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel to Review Safety Innovations Since BP Spill

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Phil Taylor

The House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday will hold a hearing to review safety innovations since the BP PLC oil spill in April 2010.
Committee members will hear from the Obama administration's top drilling regulator, as well as industry officials and a fisheries biologist from the University of South Florida.
The oversight hearing comes five years after BP's Macondo well exploded, killing 11 rig workers and sending millions of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.
The Interior Department last week released a sweeping rule designed to improve the reliability of blowout preventers, the devices that clamp down on a drill pipe to stop the flow of oil, and which failed in the case of the BP spill.
One witness will be David Coatney, managing director of Helix Well Containment Group, a partnership of 16 deepwater oil and gas operators that has developed technology to capture and process crude and natural gas that escapes from a busted offshore well.
The partnership announced last fall that it had roughly doubled the amount of hydrocarbons it could capture from a spill. HWCG and a similar outfit known as the Marine Well Containment Co. were both assembled after the Deepwater Horizon spill to meet new requirements for oil spill containment.
Helix's services cleared the way for Interior to issue the first post-spill deepwater drilling permit in February 2011.
Members will also hear from Charlie Williams, who leads the Center for Offshore Safety, an industry-funded group established in 2011 to train auditors to assess the industry's compliance with new safety and environmental management system (SEMS) regulations put in place in the aftermath of the spill.
The center this month reported that none of its member companies experienced a worker fatality or loss of well control in 2013 (EnergyWire, April 9).
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, April 22, at 9:30 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.
Witnesses: Brian Salerno, director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Holly Hopkins, senior policy adviser, American Petroleum Institute; Charlie Williams, executive director, Center for Offshore Safety; David Coatney, managing director, Helix Well Containment Group; Steven Murawski, professor, University of South Florida.

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Oil Companies Face Gloom, With a Silver Lining

Apr 19, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Darren Goode

The U.S. oil industry has gone from boom to gloom.
Oil prices have plunged to half the level they were a year ago, triggering a wave of layoffs and spending cuts even as the Obama administration tightens regulations over how and where the industry can drill.
Headlines boasting record domestic oil and natural gas production have been replaced by worries about a glut that’s poised to turn output lower in the next few months. Contributing to the woes is Saudi Arabia’s strategy battle for market share by allowing global prices to fall in an bid to drive out its higher-cost competitors.
That’s led to belt-tightening among U.S. companies, who Goldman Sachs predicts will cut their spending by 25 percent this year, and layoffs that have topped 100,000 so far.
“Yeah, there’s a lot of things that you can say ‘there’s gloom and doom,'” said Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm, who has made billions off his early move into the prolific Bakken field, where new projections from the International Energy Agency suggest production is slowing down faster than expected.
But even with the drop in prices that is squeezing many of the midsized and smaller energy producers, giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell still posted strong profits last year. Consumers are benefiting from the pullback in retail gasoline prices, and predictions that the U.S. could soon become a net exporter of energy has emboldened the industry and its backers in Congress to increase the pressure to end the ban on crude exports.
Industry experts expect the dark mood to show when the oil leaders gather in Houston this week for the annual IHS CERAWeek conference, where top U.S. government, corporate and international players will chew over the uncertain future.
“I go to Houston a lot and certainly the mood there is a bit more pessimistic and concerned than it was a year ago,” said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and a former Obama administration energy adviser at the National Security Council.
Adding to the somber tone, the five-day CERAWeek kicks off Monday on the five-year anniversary of BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster that sparked the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The Interior Department marked that milestone last week by releasing long-awaited proposed new standards for well control and blowout preventers, the last-ditch technology that failed to prevent BP’s Macondo well from rupturing and sparking the deadly fire that led to the biggest spill in U.S. maritime history. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell will speak at the conference Monday afternoon.
“The biggest question is obviously how the global industry adjusts to this gritty new reality of price,” said Daniel Yergin, CERA’s founder, the vice chairman of IHS and a Pulitzer-winning oil historian. “I think there’s going to be a tone of realism, kind of in a sense amazed by what the U.S. has accomplished in terms of energy in the last few years. But now, this is a different reality and prices and … all eyes on the world are focused on what happens to the U.S. upstream.”
The Obama administration has also proposed the first-time controls on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands and moved to curtail some Arctic drilling. Interior also sought public comment Friday on a proposed regulation that would update its onshore oil and gas royalty rates as part of a “candid conversation about whether the American taxpayer is getting the right return for the development of oil and gas resources on public lands,” Jewell said in a statement.
All that comes as the administration continues its climate change push ahead of international talks in Paris this December.
“December is going to be here pretty quickly and the administration has made clear aside from a deal with Iran, a climate change deal is their top priority,” Yergin said. “It is really now things have shifted [from an] all-of-the-above energy policy to climate change policy.”
The administration’s chief climate diplomat, Todd Stern, will be speaking on a panel at CERAWeek Thursday on the climate discussions.
And depending on who wins the White House in 2016, the industry could see greenhouse gas restrictions expanded to cover emissions from petroleum refiners, tighter limits on methane pollution and uncertain prospects for lifting the 40-year-old ban on U.S. oil exports.
Yergin expects CERAWeek will examine a “number of the critical assumptions … [that] have kind of been overturned.” Those include the doubts that China’s economic growth will continue to boost global energy demand, and that the Gulf States — and Saudi Arabia in particular — would “underpin stability to cut supply to bolster price,” he said.
Still, Yergin said the accomplishments by the U.S. energy industry should not be underestimated, since “the growth of U.S. supply has exceeded even what the most optimistic wildcat would have thought three years ago,” Yergin said. “Without it, we’d probably be looking at an oil crisis.”
And it’s that production boom that brought Iran to the table in talks aimed at curtailing its nuclear ambitions.
“The Iranians would have never been at the negotiating table in the first place because sanctions would never have worked” without the surge in U.S. production, Yergin said.
And at a time turbulence around the globe, “for now at least geopolitics seems to have been drained out of the oil price,” he added. “There is no risk premium in oil today, which is ironic given how unstable parts of the world are.”
Indeed, oil industry officials and their backers universally downplayed the current state of affairs as being particularly worrisome.
“The longer term narrative is still very positive,” said American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard, who will speak at CERAWeek Tuesday.
“Nobody likes to see layoffs,” he added. But “at times like this is when you see an industry become more efficient.”
The worries about the cyclical nature of the business have also been tempered by development of the vast shale fields in the U.S. over the past several years.
“Doom and gloom, our industry don’t tend to do that,” said Hamm, who is also on a panel in Houston on Tuesday. “We have the resource that’s going to be here for an awfully long time.”
That’s the silver lining that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who will help open the conference on Monday, is focused on.
“We’re dealing with the impact of low oil now and we’ve heard the numbers and see what that presents. But I think we also have a very keen recognition of where we can go,” she said.
“The oil industry has a long memory and is used to cycles of boom and bust,” Bordoff said. And when prices do inevitably rebound, “shale may even be in a stronger position,” he added.
And it’s not as though the industry — which is just a couple of years removed from record profits and still reaping billions annually — is necessarily struggling relative to most industries.
“If our cars could run on crocodile tears, we’d all be driving for free from how many are being shed by the oil industry about low oil prices,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who traveled to CERAWeek in 2009 when he was pushing a cap-and-trade bill with then-Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
“Drivers who paid four dollars a gallon for gasoline have little sympathy for the oil industry, and little patience for their request to export oil to foreign nations just so they can pump prices and profits back up again.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Governments, Companies Pledge to End Routine Flaring of Natural Gas by 2030

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alan Kovski

Officials of nine national governments and 10 companies pledged April 17 to stop the routine flaring of natural gas by 2030, an initiative sponsored by the United Nations and the World Bank.
The “Zero Routine Flaring by 2030” initiative also was endorsed by six development institutions, including the World Bank.
Flaring routinely occurs when “associated gas” emerges along with oil from wells where no gas pipeline exists to transport the gas to a market. In many areas, a market for gas doesn't exist. Economic, political and regulatory barriers all can impede the infrastructure and market investments that can reduce or eliminate flaring.
The government commitments to the initiative came from Angola, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, France, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Norway, Russia and Uzbekistan.
Companies committing to the initiative included five partly or wholly commercial enterprises and five companies entirely owned by governments: BG Group Plc, Eni S.p.A., Statoil ASA, Total S.A., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the national petroleum companies of Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Ecuador and Kuwait.
‘Long-Term Trends Are Favorable.'
The obstacles to gas infrastructure and market development are substantial, but a lot of investment already is being done to reduce those obstacles, said Lysle Brinker, director of equity research at IHS Energy.
“At least the long-term trends are favorable for that kind of development,” Brinker told Bloomberg BNA.
Companies probably are willing to make the investments if they can get a return on their investments, he said. Governments also have to be willing to accept at least a temporary reduction in revenues when devoting money to infrastructure and market projects, he said.
Brinker noted that West Africa has seen the development of liquefied natural gas plants for export and gas-fired power plants for gas use and a gas-to-liquids plant in Nigeria.
In Angola, an LNG plant has been built to use associated gas. “I think that is the first LNG plant that is sourced by associated gas” anywhere in the world, Brinker said.
Better Investment Climate Sought
The World Bank, in announcing the commitments to the initiative, said governments “will provide a legal, regulatory, investment and operating environment that is conducive to upstream investments and to the development of viable markets for utilization of the gas and the infrastructure necessary to deliver the gas to these markets.”
Companies in the initiative commit to developing new oil fields without routine flaring, the bank said.
“Oil companies with routine flaring at existing oil fields they operate will seek to implement economically viable solutions to eliminate this legacy flaring as soon as possible, and no later than 2030,” the bank said.
For companies and governments alike, flaring wastes a valuable resource. The World Bank also emphasized that it contributes to climate change by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Gas Reinjection Wells Being Used
Brinker said a lot of new developments are using gas reinjection wells to pump gas back down into the source geologic layers. Reinjected gas can help maintain the pressure that pushes oil up or can help loosen the oil from its locations.
“In the old days they would have just flared it,” Brinker said.

Return to headline | Return to top
Greens Face Divide Over Hillary and Keystone

Apr 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro

By Elana Schor

Hillary Clinton is maintaining her years of silence on the Keystone XL pipeline — and environmental groups are increasingly divided on how hard they should push her to take a stand.
It’s a further sign that the never-ending pipeline drama will remain one of the biggest policy minefields facing Clinton’s White House campaign, even if President Barack Obama rejects the project in the coming weeks or months.
As secretary of state, Clinton spent four years presiding over the Obama administration’s still-unfinished review of the $8 billion Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, including repeated studies finding that Keystone wouldn’t significantly worsen greenhouse gas pollution. But like Obama, she has resisted pressure to offer her own opinion on the project until the review is done, aside from one 2010 appearance in which she said the department was “inclined” to green-light it.
Major environmental groups are prepared to go easy on Clinton over the issue, looking to her overall as a champion on their issues, especially climate change. But the outside-the-Beltway grassroots groups that the pipeline fight has awakened see Keystone as just the first of a series of fossil fuel disputes where they want Clinton to declare her allegiance, including future battles over fracking, Arctic drilling and natural gas exports.
The more adamant activists say the green base is a force that she can’t afford to ignore.
“Activists who are the ones that will turn out for her events and donate money are the ones who will also see the gap of her talking about climate change and yet (if she does) supporting tar sands and fracking,” said Jane Kleeb, founder of the anti-Keystone group Bold Nebraska. She added that Clinton “needs to visit with us and hopefully not listen to some of the DC lobbyists who I just know are saying ‘they will vote for you anyway, what other option do they have?’”
Bill Snape, senior counsel of the Center for Biological Diversity, said his group is not “taking any electoral stands” on Keystone. But it wants Clinton to declare her position, calling the pipeline “a microcosm of other fossil-fuel issues where she might cave.”
“What we are saying is: the public has a right to know where the leading Democratic presidential contender stands on the greatest American fossil fuel flashpoint ever,” he said by email. “Keystone is the pivot: we are moving either toward or away from these types of dirty oil pork barrel projects.”
Snape expressed no surprise on the emerging split among greens, saying a “tension has existed since the beginning of the Keystone campaign,” during which “national groups had to follow the grassroots.”
The upstart climate group 350 Action, which helped elevate the pipeline to national prominence, demonstrated its impatience by protesting outside Clinton’s Brooklyn campaign headquarters after she announced her candidacy. The signs read, “I’m Ready for Hillary to say NO KXL.”
Meanwhile, the more established environmental groups are content to woo Clinton to continue in Obama’s climate-hawk mold, saying little reason exists to pressure her over the pipeline.
Clinton “has been quite clear that there’s a process in place” to settle Keystone’s future, League of Conservation Voters senior vice president Tiernan Sittenfeld said in an interview, “and she’s not going to comment before there’s a decision.”
Sittenfeld added that Clinton “has a long history of fighting climate change, as secretary, as senator, and through the Clinton Foundation. So we’re optimistic that once a rejection comes, she would support that.”
Besides, one official with one major green group said, environmentalists have made tremendous progress toward killing the pipeline.
“There’s a dynamic that’s already out there — we’ve done a good job of making this a highly scrutinized project,” the official said. “The president has been saying pretty consistently good things about climate change. We feel very confident that that’s leading up to a decision sooner than later, and one we’re going to like.”
The divide promises to test the activists as much as it does the candidate. Environmental groups have lured droves of new backers and donors during the past decade by fighting the pipeline to a standstill. But they’ve also cheered as Obama commits serious political capital to climate change in his second term, including with EPA regulations aimed at the power industry. So does Keystone deserve to become the global-warming litmus test?
“We have to protect our issue, and reducing carbon pollution from power plants is one of the most important things we can do to fight climate change, period,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, who noted that the environmental movement is anything but monolithic. She added that the “disturbance in the force” over Keystone and Clinton could come from the growing sense among activists that the pipeline’s future is going to be settled within weeks or months, if not days.
The environmentalists seem content to agree to disagree. And so far, the Keystone fight doesn’t seem to pose the kind of existential threat to Clinton’s White House hopes that a now largely forgotten dispute involving the Florida Everglades created for Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.
Gore was one of the Everglades’ most prominent advocates in the Clinton administration, as well as a major advocate of its $7.8 billion plan to restore the marsh, but he declined to publicly weigh in on a proposal to create a commercial airport on the former Homestead Air Force Base, just a few miles from Everglades National Park near Miami. His campaign said it would be premature to comment before the Clinton administration’s environmental review was finished — prompting angry Everglades activists to warn that Gore could expect protesters if he tried to campaign in South Florida.
The dispute drove an untold number of Florida greens, including the Sierra Club’s chairwoman on Everglades issues, to declare they were voting for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader instead. (The Sierra Club had endorsed Gore.) Nader got more than 90,000 votes in Florida, a state that Gore lost to George W. Bush by 537 votes — and along with it, the White House.
The Clinton administration rejected the airport proposal just a few days before Bush was sworn in.
“Oh, I don’t think the airport was a major factor in the outcome,” Gore later told author Michael Grunwald — now a reporter for POLITICO — for his 2006 book “The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise.” Then he paused. “Well, maybe it was.”
Kleeb says she sees the parallels between that issue and Keystone.
No matter what Obama decides on the pipeline — or when — the issue shows no signs of going away anytime soon. If Obama says no to the pipeline, congressional Republicans have vowed to fight to revive it, perhaps by attaching it to must-pass spending bills. If he says yes, climate activists will pressure Clinton to denounce the decision.
Newer anti-Keystone groups note that all of Clinton’s GOP foes have a clear opinion on the pipeline: They support it. The project has stayed a uniquely uniting issue for Republicans ever since Mitt Romney vowed during the 2012 presidential primaries to “build that pipeline if I have to do it myself.”
Republicans and the oil industry will be watching closely as environmentalists shape their strategy for dealing with Clinton. When climate activist billionaire Tom Steyer’s political action committee lauded Clinton’s record on global warming this week, his critics wondered if the Democratic mega-donor had softened on her since openly musing in September that the former first lady would benefit from a primary opponent.
“Having suffered a devastating blow in the last election, the fringe environmental left led by billionaire Tom Steyer is going to excruciatingly painful lengths to reposition themselves moving into the 2016 campaign,” said FTI Consulting senior director Matt Dempsey, whose firm represents oil and gas industry clients. “Steyer is now getting aboard the Clinton bandwagon while abandoning talk about opposition to Keystone XL.”
In a lengthy response, Steyer’s organization said it’s “confident that any policy maker or candidate for public office that is committed to fighting climate change will oppose Keystone XL.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Inhofe Seeks Details About EPA Meetings With Advocacy Groups on Power Plant Rules

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is seeking detailed records from the Environmental Protection Agency's meetings with environmental groups while it was developing its proposed carbon dioxide rules for power plants.
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee, asked the EPA to provide e-mails, briefing materials and agendas of its meetings with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Clean Air Task Force, the American Lung Association and the Center for American Progress in an April 16 letter to Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Additionally, Inhofe is seeking information about the contractors that the EPA hired to conduct modeling and analysis and to provide technical support for the development of the agency's proposed carbon dioxide new source performance standards for new power plants and its proposed carbon dioxide emissions guidelines for existing units.
‘Ongoing, Close Coordination.'
“The extent of EPA's ongoing, close coordination with these groups and individuals and lack of transparency about expenditures in support of these rulemakings are unacceptable,” Inhofe said in his letter. “These circumstances are especially concerning in light of the substantial public opposition, economic cost, legal challenges and uncertain climate change benefits from these rules.”
The EPA's proposed performance standards for new power plants (RIN 2060–AQ91) would set an emissions limit of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour for new natural gas-fired power plants and 1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour for new coal-fired units, which would effectively necessitate use of carbon capture systems. The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for existing power plants in each state. Both rules are expected to be finalized this summer.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and then-House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) launched a similar investigation in 2014 into the EPA's meetings with the Natural Resources Defense Council. That investigation uncovered cordial e-mail exchanges between McCarthy and various senior NRDC staff who work on climate change issues (199 DEN A-1, 10/15/14).
Inhofe asked the EPA to respond by May 11.

Return to headline | Return to top
Inhofe Wants to Know How much EPA Has Spent on Clean Power Plan

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E News PM

By Jean Chemnick

Not only will U.S. EPA's utility-sector carbon rules cost the nation's economy dearly, they may already be draining EPA's own coffers, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) charged today.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman asked the federal agency this afternoon for a detailed accounting of the resources it has already spent constructing and defending carbon rules for new, modified and existing power plants. All three are set to be final this summer.
"While it is well known that these rules will have a devastating economic impact on state and local governments, businesses, and private citizens, very little is known about the amount of taxpayer dollars and agency resources that have already gone into developing these rules," Inhofe said in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

He pointed especially to line items in EPA's fiscal 2016 budget request that totaled $15 million -- $11.44 million requested to finalize the rules and $3.6 million to defend the rule for existing sources, known as the Clean Power Plan.
Inhofe also reiterated his concern that environmental groups are inappropriately influencing the rulemakings, pointing out that agency staff has met with representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and others since the rules came out. The agency has also met with industry stakeholders, but Inhofe argues that it appears to be coordinating its legal strategy with the green groups.
"These circumstances are especially concerning in light of the substantial public opposition, economic cost, legal challenges, and uncertain climate change benefits from these rules," Inhofe wrote.
He asked for exhaustive records of EPA's communications and meetings with advocacy groups. He also requested details about all work done to support the three rulemakings, including hours and tasks performed by external contractors and the release of documents related to the intra-agency rulemaking processes.
McCarthy for her part has spent recent months pounding the message that EPA's greenhouse gas regime will save taxpayers money by reducing health care costs and modernizing the power grid.
In a post Wednesday on the agency's blog, McCarthy argued that the Clean Power Plan "will boost our economy by helping us move towards a modern energy system that creates good jobs and new opportunities, and unleashes American innovation that will help us continue to lead globally."
"For every dollar we spend on clean air, our economy and our health reap huge benefits," she wrote.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Seems Well Positioned To Weather Early Legal Challenge

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Manuel Quiñones

Federal judges wasted no time last week showing their skepticism about the first court challenge to U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan that seeks to block the draft rule before it's finalized.
Coal company Murray Energy Corp., along with 15 predominantly Republican-led states and other potentially regulated parties are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ," an unusual move that would set precedent for future challenges of unfinished regulations.
In the opening minutes of oral arguments at the D.C. Circuit, Republican-appointed Judge Thomas Griffith emphatically asked West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin: "Why in the world would we resort to an extraordinary writ -- which we have never used before?"
This week, E&E Publishing will have several reporters at IHS Energy's annual CERAWeek in Houston. EPA chief Gina McCarthy will provide the keynote address Thursday.
Also on Thursday, the American Council on Renewable Energy will hold its policy forum, which includes a 4 p.m. EDT session on how regulations for power plants will bring state politics even more into the renewable energy debate.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.

Return to headline | Return to top
House, Senate Panels Plan Hearings To Get Input on Broad Energy Legislation

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

Lawmakers drafting broad energy legislation have scheduled the first in what is expected to be a series of hearings to gain input on the bills.
In the House, an Energy and Commerce subcommittee has scheduled an April 23 hearing on “legislative language to create a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce.”
Specifically, a planned section of the legislation would direct the Energy Department to “establish a comprehensive program to improve education and training for energy and manufacturing-related jobs,” according to a hearing notice issued by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Other parts of the bill, which committee members plan to bring to the floor later this year, include titles on infrastructure, “energy diplomacy” and energy efficiency, according to a framework released by Republican committee leaders in February (27 DEN A-1, 2/10/15).
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA April 15 that “in the next three weeks or so, the committee should be ready to move.”
Senate Efficiency Hearing
In the Senate, an April 30 hearing on energy efficiency marks the first of a series of hearings planned on comprehensive energy legislation being written by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
The hearing will be on a series of energy efficiency bills, including energy efficiency legislation (S. 720) by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that stalled in the 113th Congress. The Senate passed a narrower version of the bill (S. 535) by voice vote in March (60 DEN A-3, 3/30/15).
The hearing also will focus on legislation (S. 703) introduced by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) that would authorize billions of dollars to extend the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program, as well as a bill (S. 858) by Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) designed to encourage the increased use of performance contracting in federal facilities. Performance contracts eliminate the need for up-front capital spending by a government agency, and the costs are recouped through energy savings.
Additional hearings are scheduled for May on other parts of the comprehensive energy bill, which Murkowski announced in January. Those hearings will include a focus on strengthening supply, modernizing infrastructure, supporting efficiency and ensuring federal accountability.
“We're kind of sketching out where we go,” Murkowski told Bloomberg BNA April 15.

Return to headline | Return to top
Manchin Staying in Senate, Backing Clinton

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Manuel Quiñones

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin plans to finish his Senate term and seek re-election in 2018, giving up on returning to the Mountain State to run for governor next year, he announced yesterday.
Manchin had been toying with a gubernatorial bid for several months, frustrated with the political gridlock in Washington, D.C. And a recent poll showed he was well-positioned for such a contest (Greenwire, April 14).
But yesterday on CBS's "Face the Nation" and in a statement to the media, Manchin confirmed his plan to stay on Capitol Hill, calling his current job an effective venue to help his constituents.
"We are simply bringing a greater sense of bipartisanship and commitment to working together for the good of the American people," he said in a statement. "It is because of that optimism that I have decided to continue serving the people of West Virginia in the United States Senate."
Manchin served as governor from 2005 to 2010. He arrived in the Senate that year, winning a special election soon after legendary Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd died, and won a full term in 2012. He quickly became a leading voice on energy issues, often in defense of coal, and willing to buck his party's leaders.
"I have always said that being governor of West Virginia was my life's most fulfilling work, and it was a true honor and privilege to be able to serve the great people of West Virginia. By removing politics and putting people first, we greatly improved our state," Manchin said.
"I truly believed we could take that success and our common-sense approaches to Washington to improve the dysfunction in Congress," he added. "I will admit that it has been a harder transition than I had expected, but I believe that, after five years, we are beginning to make a difference."
Manchin's tough criticism of President Obama and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), plus his party's losses during the midterm elections, made at least some observers wonder whether he would become a Republican, or at least an independent.
But Manchin recently offered strong backing for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to become Democratic leader once Reid retires next year. And yesterday, Manchin expressed backing for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president.
"I find her to be warm and engaging, compassionate and tough, all of the above," said Manchin on "Face the Nation." "She brings more experience to the table. She's been more on the front lines than any person, more experienced than any person we have at that level."
Manchin expressed support for Clinton despite significant policy difference. Clinton has expressed backing for Obama administration climate policies, while Manchin has opposed them.
Manchin staying in the Senate means that, at least for now, he will be a firewall against Republicans taking full control of the state's congressional delegation. At the same time, he leaves the door open for the GOP to expand gains at the state level.
West Virginia Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Kessler has expressed his desire to run for governor. Potential GOP contenders include Rep. David McKinley and Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.
The West Virginia Democratic Party said on Twitter yesterday, "[F]or the people of West Virginia. Rest assured, that we will have a strong nominee for Governor in 2016."

Return to headline | Return to top
House Energy Bill Assembly Begins With An Olive Branch To Dems

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Nick Visser

Work on bipartisan energy legislation begins in earnest this week as a House subcommittee plans to start deliberating a Democrat's bill to establish new worker training programs in energy and manufacturing.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power this week will consider the "21st Century Workforce" title of a broader energy bill the committee hopes to advance this year. While text was unavailable last week, aides said the title would be based on legislation from Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) to establish worker-training programs in energy and manufacturing targeted to women, minorities, veterans and other underserved groups.
Legislative text will be released ahead of Thursday's hearing, the committee said last week. Witnesses had not yet been announced in time for publication.
Workforce development will be one of four broad areas Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) hopes to address, along with energy efficiency, infrastructure and diplomacy, according to a framework of the energy bill released earlier this year (E&ENews PM, Feb. 9).
Upton has long said he hopes to find substantial bipartisan support for an energy bill this year, and the schedule is beginning where there is the broadest bipartisan agreement. Energy efficiency is another area where Democrats and Republicans can find ample common ground, but the other titles of the bill are likely to provoke a greater split between the two parties.
Republicans tend to be more supportive of calls to streamline environmental permitting requirements to build new oil and gas pipelines, electric transmission and similar infrastructure, while Democrats tend to resist efforts to modify long-standing environmental laws. Energy diplomacy is likely to feature a focus on exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) -- which Democrats close to environmentalists tend to oppose because it could incentivize additional exploration. Oil exports also could come up, but that is an area where even Republicans are not yet united behind a push to lift the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude.
Parallel efforts are ongoing in the Senate, where Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is working on a comprehensive energy bill around a similar framework. The upper chamber's energy committee is expected to consider an efficiency title in the coming weeks -- indicating a similar desire to start with areas of broad agreement (E&E Daily, March 20).
"We said from the get-go this was going to be bipartisan," Upton said in a brief interview last week.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, April 23, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Tracy Brundage, vice president for workforce development and continuing education, Pennsylvania College of Technology, appearing on behalf of ShaleNET; Rick Jarvis, vice president of field construction, Morrow-Meadows Corp., appearing on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association; Ramanan Krishnamoorti, chief energy officer, University of Houston; Monica Martinez, president, Hispanics in Energy; Felix Ortiz III, founder, chairman and CEO, Viridis Learning; Charles Wilson, senior reactor operator trainer, managing partner, CW Consulting Group LLC.

Return to headline | Return to top
Chief Executives of Dozens of Companies Urge Swift Action to Address Climate Change

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stefan Nicola

The heads of 43 companies, including Ikea, Dow Chemical Co. and HSBC Holdings Plc, have called for swift action on climate change, a sign that businesses are prepared for a United Nations deal this year on limiting fossil fuel emissions.
The chief executive officers in an open letter promised to move their own businesses toward a low-carbon economy and called on world leaders to seal an ambitious global agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions at a December meeting in Paris. The executives oversee companies in 20 industries with a combined $1.2 trillion in sales last year.
“This initiative is a significant commitment in efforts to combat climate change,” Iberdrola SA CEO Ignacio Galan said in an e-mailed statement. “As businesses, we have the obligation to contribute to sustainable development by fully integrating the environmental dimension in our strategy and management.”
The letter, signed by executives from mobile phone company Ericsson AB, insurer Allianz SE and the biggest wind turbine maker, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, is a message to envoys from some 190 nations to ratchet up ambitions for the Paris climate change meeting that the UN is organizing.
With greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion at record levels, global temperatures are on track to warm by 3.6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That's the quickest shift in the climate in 10,000 years, which scientists say raises risks of more violent storms and rising seas.

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Push for Carbon Capture Said To Jeopardize Development by DOE

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

The Environmental Protection Agency's push to mandate carbon capture systems for new power plants before the technology has been properly vetted could undermine the Energy Department's work to develop the technology, an organization that describes itself as a regulatory watchdog said.
The EPA's proposal to set a carbon dioxide performance standard for new power plants, which would force coal-fired units to install carbon capture systems before the technology has been proven commercially viable, could dissuade power generators from investing in the technology once the rule is inevitably litigated, Jim Tozzi, an advisory board member at the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, said in an April 16 letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
“I make this statement because CCS will be the focal point of subsequent litigation during which time CCS will be criticized and the resultant record will discourage adoption of the CCS technology by the regulated community notwithstanding the laudable advances that are underway but have not yet advanced to the stage of a universal technology,” Tozzi said in his letter.
To satisfy peer review requirements of the Data Quality Act, Tozzi recommended the administration propose a carbon dioxide standard for new power plants that requires new coal-fired units to apply the best available control technology until carbon capture has been determined to be viable.
Questions on Technology's Adequacy
Tozzi cited a February report from the National Coal Council, a federal advisory committee, that questioned whether carbon capture systems had been adequately demonstrated as required by the Clean Air Act. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act stipulates that required pollution controls be “adequately demonstrated,” but not a single power plant in the world is operating with full-scale carbon capture technology, the National Coal Council said.
The EPA is expected to issue final performance standards for new power plants (RIN 2060–AQ91) this summer as part of a package of rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The EPA proposed a carbon dioxide performance standard of 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour for new natural gas-fired power plants and 1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour for new coal-fired units, which effectively would necessitate use of carbon capture systems.
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness argued in 2014 after the proposed rule was published that the Energy Department studies of carbon capture used by the EPA qualify as “highly influential scientific assessments” that should have been subject to outside review as required by the Data Quality Act (84 DEN B-1, 5/1/14).

Return to headline | Return to top
House Lawmakers to Mark Up Energy and Water Spending Bill

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Daniel Bush

House appropriators Wednesday will mark up an energy and water spending bill that would block the Obama administration's water rule and boost funding for nuclear and fossil fuel research.
The House Appropriations Committee is expected to easily pass the $35.4 billion spending bill after a subpanel approved it unanimously last week. The bill, which would provide fiscal 2016 funding for the Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies, will likely head to the House floor for final passage by early next month.
The legislation would boost overall energy and water spending by $1.2 billion over fiscal 2015 enacted levels, though the proposed increase would still fall $633 million short of President Obama's budget proposal.
Under the bill, GOP lawmakers would set the Army Corps' budget at $5.6 billion, $142 million higher than current spending levels and $865 million more than the president's budget request.
But the bill would block the agency from using funding to implement the "Waters of the U.S." rule, a controversial regulation the Obama administration is finalizing to clarify which streams and wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act.
House Republicans are also trying to kill the rule through a separate bill passed last week by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that would require U.S. EPA and the Army Corps to withdraw the regulation and seek an alternative proposal.
The energy and water spending bill would boost funding for fossil fuel research and provide $150 million in funding that GOP lawmakers want to use to reopen the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository site.
The bill also contains a gun rights provision and other controversial policy riders that are sure to face fierce opposition from Democrats, who say the measures should not be included in annual appropriations bills.
GOP lawmakers are also considering attaching a rider to the bill or another appropriations measure that would block EPA's power plant rule, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the House Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said last week.
Senate Democrats have blocked the greenhouse gas emissions rider in the past, but opponents will face a tougher time this year in the GOP-controlled Congress.
Schedule: The markup is Wednesday, April 22, at 10:45 a.m. in 2359 Rayburn.

Return to headline | Return to top
Panel to Scrutinize Administration's Safety Agenda

Apr 20, 2015 | E&E Daily News

By Manuel Quiñones

The House Education and Workforce Committee is planning to scrutinize the Obama administration's mine safety agenda, including controversial new rules.
Mine Safety and Health Administration chief Joe Main is scheduled to appear before the Workforce Protections subpanel this week, his first official testimony to lawmakers since 2012.
Main and his agency stepped up their regulatory efforts following the 2010 Upper Big Branch explosion in West Virginia, which killed 29 miners.
MSHA in 2013 finalized a rule making it easier to tap problem mines for increased scrutiny. It survived an industry challenge last year before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Other challenges remain.
Also last year, MSHA released a rule meant to protect miners from black lung disease. An industry fight against it is ongoing before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This year, MSHA released a rule meant to protect workers from underground mining machines. It will soon propose standards meant to protect miners from other machinery.
Other planned agency actions include protecting miners from diesel exhaust and crystalline silica, plus incorporating new research into rules for underground miner refuge options during an emergency.
Mining companies have said MSHA is cracking down too hard on coal companies and unfairly penalizing non-coal mines. At the same time, safety advocates and Democratic lawmakers would like to see new legislation to boost penalties and give the administration more leeway for enforcement.
Republican lawmakers, who control both chambers on Capitol Hill, have essentially ruled out a broad new mine safety bill. They have instead focused on pushing MSHA to use the laws already at its disposal.
Main has touted a significant improvement in mine safety statistics under his tenure. In 2014, MSHA statistics show, the rate of reported injuries was at historic lows. And the 16 coal mining deaths last year, four fewer than 2013, marked the lowest number ever recorded.
However, MSHA has been alarmed by an increase in deaths at non-coal mines -- 28 last year, bringing the total number of miners killed in 2014 to 44, according to a report released this week.
The weakness in both coal and non-coal resources is reflected in the new statistics. Mines in operation dropped from 13,761 in 2013 to 13,588 last year. The number of workers, including contractors, dropped from 374,522 to 365,406.
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, April 23, at 9 a.m. in 2175 Rayburn.
Witness: Mine Safety and Health Administration head Joe Main.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

DOT Issues Emergency Order on Transport Of Flammable Liquid by Rail, With Advisories

Apr 20, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rachel Leven

The Transportation Department issued April 17 a package of speed limit requirements, along with inspection and response advisories and requests, for shippers and rail carriers of crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids. The requirements and advisories take effect immediately.
An emergency order would require certain trains carrying Class 3 flammable liquids to restrict their speed to 40 miles per hour in specific urban areas. A separate safety advisory would recommend that railroads conduct pre-departure inspections of certain trains' brakes and mechanical systems and lower the threshold for determining when to replace a wheel, and another safety advisory would urge carriers and shippers to have certain information accessible for federal investigators in case of a derailment.
Several of the actions apply to “high-hazard flammable” trains—defined as trains that are moving 20 or more tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid, including crude oil and ethanol, in a continuous block or that are moving 35 or more tank cars of these liquids. Such trains also would have to include at least one older DOT-111 tank car or CPC-1232 standard car that is transporting these liquids. Federal standards requiring more protective tank cars are under development.
“Addressing the risks associated with moving unprecedented volumes of crude oil by rail is not something that can be accomplished with one rule or emergency order. We are continuously looking at ways to protect people, communities, and the environment,” Susan Lagana, deputy director of public affairs for the Transportation Department, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“The actions we are taking today are based on the Department's observations and analyses of the recent accidents and are intended to both prevent future accidents and to mitigate the consequences should one occur. We examined options that railroads could implement immediately, and that is what we are presenting in this package,” Lagana said.
With increased transport of oil by rail, crude oil train derailments have occurred more frequently in recent years and have harmed the environment, property and the public.The announcement also comes just weeks before a separate Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration final rule on safe transport of flammable liquids by rail is expected to be released.
Emergency Order
The emergency order, issued by the Federal Railroad Administration, requires certain trains to reduce their speed to 40 miles per hour in “high threat urban areas” or “an area comprising one or more cities and surrounding areas includ[ing] a 10-mile buffer zone.”
The FRA chose 40 miles per hour, despite several recent derailments occurring at speeds lower than that, because lower speeds could increase other safety risks and harm interstate commerce and because this speed would “substantially mitigate the effects of any accidents as when compared to accidents that occur at higher speeds,” the order said.
The Association of American Railroads in February 2014 voluntarily lowered its speed limit to 40 miles per hour for trains that are carrying large amounts of crude oil with at least one older DOT-111 tank car through these areas. However, the DOT order would apply to the newer CPC-1232 model cars and to transport of all Class 3 flammable liquids, not just crude oil.
The order is effective immediately and railroads must implement the change by April 24.
The FRA also issued a safety advisory that urges railroads operating high-hazard flammable trains to lower the threshold for determining when to replace a wheel and to use a qualified mechanical inspector and a designated inspector to conduct pre-departure brake and freight car inspections, respectively. This advisory addresses FRA's preliminary finding that the March 5 derailment in Galena may have been due to “a broken wheel on one of the loaded tank cars,” the advisory said.
Wheel, Brake Inspections
Under the advisory, railroads are urged to continue using Wheel Impact Load Detectors to measure the wheel's impact for a given tank car (a higher impact indicates a more significant need to replace the wheel). However, the railroads should lower the “kip”—a measurement of force measured by the load detector—that leads the railroad to replace a wheel. For example, a railroad should stop a train immediately and inspect a wheel at 120 kip rather than 140 kip.
Railroads should also use highly trained brake and mechanical inspectors—known as qualified mechanical inspectors and designated inspectors—to check for defects in brakes, wheels and other components before departing for any trip of 500 miles or more rather than using a less qualified inspector, such as a train crew member, the advisory said.
Additionally, the FRA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued a safety advisory urging railroads and shippers for high-hazard flammable liquid trains to ensure that certain information is immediately available for FRA and PHMSA investigators, should a derailment occur.
For example, information regarding the train “consist” (such as tank car attributes), the origin and destination of the train, results of product testing and analysis and relevant Safety Data Sheets or other emergency response documents should be available as quickly as possible, the advisory said.
Other Steps
Finally, the FRA and PHMSA took several steps to collect additional information regarding incidents and to make more information available quickly to emergency responders. The FRA released a to-be-published Federal Register information collection notice that would capture certain information regarding crude oil train accidents, “provid[ing] FRA an opportunity to better address risks to railroad safety and the general public.”
FRA Acting Administrator Sarah Feinberg sent a letter to AAR Chief Executive Officer Edward Hamberger requesting that railroads voluntarily create processes to “gather, organize and store various information” on high-hazard trains to be able to provide information to FRA and emergency responders immediately and within 90 minutes.
PHMSA also released a notice to all hazmat shippers and carriers reminding them of their obligations to have specific information such as such as the basic description and technical name of the hazardous material being transported and the personnel involved in offering or shipping materials accessible for emergency responders.
Insights for Rule
There are certain definitions and decisions that were discussed in PHMSA's proposed rule—such as a definition for “high-hazard flammable” trains—that are also discussed in these actions.
For example, “high-hazard flammable liquids” is defined in the PHMSA proposed rule as “a train comprised of 20 or more carloads of a Class 3 flammable liquid.” However, these FRA actions define the same term more broadly in the sense that it also includes trains that are moving 35 or more tank cars of Class 3 flammable liquids; however, it also explicitly links a high-hazard train to use of at least one legacy DOT-111 or CPC-1232 tank car carrying flammable liquids.
The FRA actions also choose 40 miles per hour in high-threat urban areas, which was an option in the PHMSA proposed rule.
Brigham McCown, former acting administrator for PHMSA, told Bloomberg BNA that the order “tips its hand as to what we can expect” in the upcoming rule.
“We should all hold back judgment until we see the final rule,” McCown, now the chairman and chief executive officer of Nouveau Inc., said in an e-mail.
When asked if these choices in the FRA actions reflect the Transportation Department's choices within the PHMSA rulemaking, Lagana replied, “I cannot confirm what is included in the final rule.”
Industry Reacts
Rail and energy industry groups highlighted their continued commitment to safety in response to messages from Bloomberg BNA requesting comment.
Hamberger of the railroad group said in an e-mailed statement that the FRA's actions build on existing processes the railroads have been implementing for years in moving hazmat.
“Overall, these federal provisions reflect the fact that moving crude by rail is a shared responsibility, involving a safety system of prevention, mitigation and response,” Hamberger said. “Railroads, like all supply chain stakeholders, anxiously await the federal government's final rules on tank cars, which directly addresses the heart of mitigation.”
The Railway Supply Institute emphasized its support for a “holistic approach” to addressing safe transport of flammable liquids. A spokesman highlighted via e-mail that “though today's announcement is directed more toward shippers and railroads, RSI supports efforts that address all stages of transportation of flammable liquids including prevention, mitigation and response.”
A spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute told Bloomberg BNA via e-mail that the group is reviewing the details of the FRA's newest safety measures. Bob Dinneen, chief executive officer of the Renewable Fuels Association, praised the Transportation Department's actions, saying, “As the collective efforts of government and industry to improve rail safety continue, I would hope the focus on rail integrity and rail operations is maintained.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Regulators Urge Railroads to Make Changes to Improve Oil-Train Safety

Apr 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal

By Russell Gold & Betsy Morris

U.S. regulators are urging railroads to make dramatic operating changes, including how they deal with wheel defects, saying a wheel problem may have caused the fiery oil-train derailment in Illinois last month.
Despite multiple warning signs, a train carrying crude oil from North Dakota to Philadelphia continued to travel on a potentially faulty wheel, according to a preliminary federal investigation.
Twenty-one cars of a BNSF Railway Co. oil train derailed near Galena, Ill., 160 miles west of Chicago. Several cars ruptured during the accident and the oil inside caught fire, generating large explosions.
On Friday, the Federal Railroad Administration issued a safety advisory pointing to a broken wheel and telling railroads to act more aggressively to fix similar defects found on other trains.
According to investigators, a trackside device flagged the oil train’s defective wheel about 130 miles before the derailment. A month before the accident, other similar devices registered a reading on this railcar’s wheel at a level that indicated there was a flat spot that made it “condemnable,” according to the safety advisory.
Despite the reading, BNSF didn’t break any industry or federal rule. Industry guidelines suggest that the wheel be replaced the next time the tank car was sent for repairs.
In late March, BNSF began slowing down its trains that haul crude oil to 35 miles an hour in cities with over 100,000 residents, according to a letter sent to its customers. The railroad stepped up the frequency of track inspections to 2½ times the rate required by FRA regulators along certain waterways.
BNSF also said it would act faster to take railcars out of service if its own equipment detects a problem with a car, locomotive or wheels, a spokesman said. “It’s clear to us that given the recent incidences, along with our own in Galena, that more needs to be done,” he said.
The rail agency’s new safety advisory questioned the “general mechanical condition of the equipment” used in trains hauling crude oil and other highly flammable substances and recommended that railroads strengthen their criteria for identifying potentially defective wheels and remove them from trains more quickly. Government regulators also noted that defective wheels can put stress on train tracks that can lead to breaks or cracks in the rail.
The safety advisory was one of several plus a new emergency rule issued Friday by the U.S. Transportation Department aimed at pressuring railroads to step up their game in its continuing effort to make trains carrying crude oil safer. The proposals—most of which aren’t binding but which the railroads generally follow—could further slow trains carrying highly hazardous substances and cause disruptions to other rail traffic.
In an effort to bring greater transparency to crude transport by rail, the new policies require the railroads maintain records tracking the crude from the wells where it is pumped all the way to the refineries buying the oil. Those records should include what energy company pumped the oil out of the ground, what trucking company or pipeline carried it to the railroad terminal, and the results of any tests performed on the crude to determine its volatility and flammability.
Currently, railroads aren’t privy to a lot of that information, according to a spokesman for BNSF, and they don’t have a system for capturing it.
The federal directives “build on the many practices and protocols the industry has applied for years,” said Edward R. Hamberger, chief executive of the Association of American Railroads. But the advisory directing railroads to provide customer information is problematic, he said, because they don’t possess it and customers aren’t required to provide it.
Railroads own the locomotives and the track. They don’t own the vast majority of tank cars.
Still, regulators said in a letter to the AAR that they’re hopeful that within 30 days, railroads will be able to provide this information within 90 minutes of a request on cell phones and tablets.
In the next few weeks, the government is expected to issue new rules about the design and build of tank cars carrying hazardous liquids.
A spate of derailments and fiery explosions involving trains transporting crude oil from North Dakota has prompted the government to undertake a wide-ranging review of its rules. The volume of oil hauled by railroads has mushroomed in recent years, increasing to nearly 374 million barrels last year from 20 million barrels in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
An emergency order, also issued Friday by the Federal Railroad Administration, places a 40 mph speed limit in urban areas for trains carrying significant volumes of flammable liquid, such as crude oil. The major North American railroads had already agreed to a similar, voluntary speed limit last year after multiple oil train derailments. The order calls into question the safety of both DOT-111 and newer CPC-1232 unjacketed cars after a spate of recent accidents resulted in puncturing of those types of cars, even at lower speeds.

Return to headline | Return to top
Feds Order Speed Limits for Oil Trains

Apr 17, 2015 | The Hill - Transportation

By Keith Laing

The Obama administration is requiring freight rail companies to impose a 40 mile per hour speed limit on oil trains that run near major cities that have large populations.
The announcement, from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), comes in response to a series of high-profile accidents that have raised questions about the safety of shipping large amounts of crude oil by train.
The FRA said Friday that it is issuing an emergency order that will apply the new speed limit to all trains that are carrying 35 or more tank cars loaded with liquids that are considered class 3 flammable materials under federal regulations, which means they have a flash point of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
“FRA has determined that public safety compels issuance of this Order,” the agency said in a summary of its action. “This Order is necessary due to the recent occurrence of railroad accidents involving trains transportation petroleum crude oil and ethanol and the increasing reliance on railroads to transport voluminous amounts of those hazardous materials in recent years.”
The new speed limits will apply to areas of track that are located within ten miles of 34 metropolitan areas that have been designated "High Threat Urban Areas" by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The high-occupancy cities include New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, among others.
The transportation of crude oil by freight rail is a contentious issue. Lawmakers have sought widespread reforms since 2013 accidents in Casselton, N.D., and Quebec, Canada, spilled thousands of gallons of oil and caused explosions.
Safety advocates praised the Obama administration Friday for implementing more stringent oil train regulations, citing the risk to cities that are near heavily used tracks.
“Many of these rail safety announcements are long overdue and just common sense,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said in a statement.
“We need to make sure our first responders are receiving the critical information they need to prepare for and respond to rail incidents involving flammable materials, including crude oil and ethanol,” he continued.
“The advisories that recommend railroads lower the threshold for requiring wheel repairs and reduce speeds in certain areas are a good start. Ultimately, we also need the final rail tank car safety rule. We must replace the outdated, unsafe rail cars moving hazardous materials through our communities and better protect the public as soon as possible.”
Rail groups in Washington have supported the objective of making oil train shipments safer, but they say the industry has voluntarily made reforms in recent years.
“The freight railroad industry shares the belief that there is no greater priority than safety. It is always our goal to make a safe network even safer, and as FRA data shows, 2014 was the safest year for train accidents in railroad history,” Association of American Railroads spokesman Ed Hamberger said in a statement.
“The added federal directives build on the many practices and protocols the industry has applied for years for safely moving and handling hazardous materials by rail, including flammable liquids,” Hamberger continued. “Overall, these federal provisions reflect the fact that moving crude by rail is a shared responsibility, involving a safety system of prevention, mitigation and response. Railroads, like all supply chain stakeholders, anxiously await the federal government’s final rules on tank cars, which directly addresses the heart of mitigation.”
The full FRA emergency order can be read here.

Return to headline | Return to top

Full Text of Stories Below

Add recipients

Suggested