Preview Newsletter
ACC AM apr 28
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Silver Collar' Workforce: When a 4-Year Degree Isn't Best Move
Apr 27, 2015 | Newsmax
By Rob Nikolewski
This may come as bad news for parents who have spent tens of thousands of dollars sending their kids to expensive universities, but one path for young people getting a good job requires just a two-year degree or, in some cases, no college degree at all. "The reality is, most jobs do not require a four-year college degree," said William C. Symonds... -
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Prices Remain Unpredictable
Apr 27, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Oil prices leveled off a bit in March, but North American commodity resin prices remained as unpredictable as ever. After dropping to $44 per barrel in mid-March, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price rebounded to near $54 by April 14 — roughly the same level it held in late February. This of course is a far cry from the $100+ levels it held in ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Perplexing Longtime Allies, Son Of Legendary Environmentalist Defends Negotiations With Chemicals Industry
Apr 28, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Staffers at Sen. Tom Udall's office are still unpacking boxes from a recent move from the senator's old digs just steps from the offices of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and it's not the only way the two lawmakers have drifted apart this year. Udall's embrace of bipartisan chemical safety legislation, S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical... -
(ACC Mentioned) EU Negotiator Rules Out Exclusion Of Chemicals From TTIP
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
There is no intention of excluding the chemical sector from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations, according to the EU's chief negotiator Ignacio Garcia Bercero. Mr Bercero was responding to questions at a press conference last week at the end of the ninth round of negotiations ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Linde's North Carolina Electronics Gases Plant Receives Responsible Care® Certification
Apr 28, 2015 | PR Newswire
Linde LLC has received certification of its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, electronics gases plant under the American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care® program. Terrance Caldwell, RTP plant manager, said, "The personnel at the RTP plant are very proud to have achieved Responsible Care certification. As Linde has been a... -
‘Breakthrough’ Changes Made to TSCA Bill, Sen. Udall Announces on Eve of Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
State authority to regulate chemicals would be boosted under a revised version of a Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul bill (S. 697) that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to mark up April 28, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and three Democratic senators have announced. -
EPW Democrats Tout Compromise On Amended TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate Democrats on the Committee on Environment & Public Works (EPW) are touting a compromise on language to amend a bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) bill ahead of a committee markup slated for April 28, including narrowing state preemption provisions, allowing states to act as “co-enforcers” and other revisions. -
Federal Preemption Key to TSCA Reform, Small Businesses Say on Eve of Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A revised Toxic Substances Control Act must ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency's decisions on chemicals become national standards, officials from two trade associations representing small businesses told Bloomberg BNA April 27. Federal preemption is important, Eric Byer, president of the National Association of... -
US Industry Executives Told TSCA Reform Prospects Are Good
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Prospects are good for the passage of the two bipartisan bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the Senate and House. This was the message conveyed to members of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) during a visit to Washington DC last week. -
EDF Applauds Bipartisan Breakthrough on TSCA Reform Legislation
Apr 27, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund applauds the enormous progress announced today by Senators on both sides of the aisle to develop and advance bipartisan legislation to reform our nation’s badly broken 40-year-old chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
GOP Lawmakers Reach Agreement in Negotiating Chemical Reform Bill
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
In negotiating how best to reform the nation's toxic chemical laws,Democratic lawmakers say they’ve reached an agreement with Republicans that will expand states’ authority to issue protections, signaling a breakthrough in efforts that have stalled in previous years. Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.)... -
Opinion: Complete Sen. Lautenberg's Legacy: Update Chemical Safety Law Now
Apr 25, 2015 | NJ.com
By Keith Gaby
Growing up on the banks of the Millstone River in Somerset County, it seemed to me the greatest threats we faced came from the natural world. Hurricanes would sweep through central New Jersey and the river would end up in our living room. As I got older, I realized that many of the most dangerous threats are manmade, including the thousands... -
House Panel to Examine Microbead Use in Cosmetics
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing May 1 to examine the environmental and health impacts of plastic microbeads in cosmetics and other personal care products. The subcommittee will look at the impacts in light of the Microbead-Free Waters Act (H.R. 1321), which is co-authored by Energy and Commerce... -
Microplastics as Deadly for Marine Life As Plastic Bags, UN Advisory Body Says
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim
Microplastics—fragments of plastics that are smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter—can be as damaging to marine life as larger debris floating in the oceans, such as plastic bags or fishing nets, a report published April 27 by a United Nations-advisory body said. “Even tiny particles, such as those used in cosmetic products or abrasives... -
New California Program Is On A Mission To Reduce Toxic Chemicals In Our Everyday Products
Apr 27, 2015 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Veena Singla
We've all probably heard about the problem of toxic chemicals in everything from baby sippy cups to kid's jewelry to pajamas to hair straighteners. While the problem of hazardous chemicals in our everyday products seems quite large, attempts to address this poisonous proliferation have usually been piecemeal. For example, the hormone disrupting... -
(ACC Blog) How Are Global Chemical Manufacturers Helping to Tackle Climate Change? [VIDEO]
Apr 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Michelle Orfei
2015 is a crucial year for moving the international climate change negotiations forward, and some of the world’s brightest solutions providers – global chemical manufacturers – are ready to help. At the UN Climate Summit in September 2014, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for the private sector to drive more action and mobilize...http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
Fracking Is Not The Cause Of Quakes. The Real Problem Is Fracking’s Wastewater
Apr 27, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Becky Oskin
New earthquake hazard maps show that fracking’s byproducts are clearly to blame for recent swarms of earthquakes plaguing several states. The maps highlight 17 hot spots where communities face a significantly increased risk of earthquakes, and the accompanying report links the earthquakes to injection wells used to dispose of fracking... -
South Dakota Delays Keystone XL Permit
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
South Dakota regulators have delayed a decision on whether to renew the expired permit for the Keystone XL pipeline’s route through the state. South Dakota’s Public Utility Commission decided Monday to push back a hearing that had been set for early May until late July or early August, South Dakota Public Broadcasting reported. -
Why Future Oil Demand Could Be Very Low
Apr 28, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ivan Marten
The conventional wisdom among a number of leading energy companies, OPEC and the International Energy Agency is that global oil demand will continue to rise strongly over the next two decades. Indeed, one particularly bullish projection is for demand to reach 115 million barrels a day in 2035, 25% above 2014′s 92 million barrels a day. -
Nuclear Industry Pushing for Changes to Obama’s Climate Rule
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
As the Obama administration moves to finalize its climate rule for power plants this summer, the nuclear industry is pushing for major changes to the components of the plan. The proposed Clean Power Plan rule would allow states with nuclear power plants to take 6 percent of their nuclear output and credit it toward the emissions reduction goals... -
Funding Mechanism Uncertain for $15 Billion Proposed in Quadrennial Review, Moniz Says
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Obama administration still needs to work with Congress on how to fund the majority of the more than $15 billion in new spending programs and tax credits proposed in the White House's Quadrennial Energy Review released last week, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said April 27. The QER outlines methods to modernize and update the country's... -
States: Comment Period on EPA Climate Rule a ‘Sham’
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Fifteen states suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told a federal court that the agency’s public comment period for its land climate rule is a “sham” because it has already made up its mind about the rule. The states’ late Friday letter to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is part of their effort to convince... -
Senate Panel Rebuffs Democrats' Request To Pull Secret Science Bill From Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans to move forward over the objections of committee Democrats to mark up legislation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency's actions to be based on data that are public and available for independent analysis. “The House has passed this bill twice in the last six months with... -
Senate Dems Push Back Against Bill Banning EPA ‘Secret Science’
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are urging their Republican colleagues to stop a bill aimed at improving scientific transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill “would dramatically change what data and scientific research the Environmental Protection Agency could use in fulfilling its... -
Warren Activists Launch New Effort To Coax Environmental Advocates' Support
Apr 28, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jennifer Yachnin
Liberal activists pushing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) to join the 2016 presidential race have launched a new effort to gin up support from environmental advocates. Ready for Warren campaign manager Erica Sagrans detailed her organization's latest arm -- Environmental Activists for Warren -- in a teleconference with supporters last night. -
Slight Uptick in Coal Ash Lobbying Followed December Release of Final EPA Regulations
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
More than five dozen energy corporations, other businesses, industry groups and environmental advocates reported lobbying on coal ash legislation during the first quarter of 2015, as many of those organizations have urged Congress to step in with legislative fixes to a final Environmental Protection Agency rule on the material... -
Industry Digs in Over Mining Regulations
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Industry groups, congressional Republicans and nearly a dozen states are clashing with the Obama administration over planned regulations meant to crack down on some of the most harmful effects of the controversial mountaintop removal mining process. The move would update decades-old regulations from the Interior Department designed to... -
Refinery Industry Touts Emissions Reductions
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrates that the U.S. refinery industry has significantly cut emissions of ozone precursors and toxic air pollutants since 1990, according to an industry-commissioned analysis. The analysis, conducted by Sage Environmental Consulting on behalf of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers... -
9th Circuit Poised To Weigh Novel Questions About CERCLA Air Emissions
Apr 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is poised to consider a novel district court ruling that found the deposition of hazardous substances onto land or water stemming from a mining facility’s air emissions constitutes “disposal” under the Superfund law’s arranger liability provisions -- a decision that has drawn interest from the U.S...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Silver Collar' Workforce: When a 4-Year Degree Isn't Best Move
Apr 27, 2015 | Newsmax
By Rob Nikolewski
This may come as bad news for parents who have spent tens of thousands of dollars sending their kids to expensive universities, but one path for young people getting a good job requires just a two-year degree or, in some cases, no college degree at all.
"The reality is, most jobs do not require a four-year college degree," said William C. Symonds, executive director at the Global Pathways Institute at Arizona State. "What they do require is some solid technical skills. And the best way to get those is at a program lasting two years or less."
The average amount of college student loan debt rose last year to an average of $28,400 while an increasing number of graduates either can't find work or are working at jobs that don't even require a bachelor's degree to begin with, leaving many of them — their parents included — wondering if they've wasted their money.
"I think we made a real mistake as a country moving away from the vocational school option, absolutely. That's where many of the jobs are needed," said Symonds, whose organization concentrates on fixing what he's called the "disconnect between education and business."
"There was so much emphasis on going to four-year schools. We have the highest college dropout rate in the world, and the costs are out of control and students are taking on a lot of debt," Symonds told Watchdog.org in a telephone interview. Special: Why China's "Assassin's Mace" Will Kill the Dollar
While it's true statistics show that overall, those with bachelor's degree and higher tend to make more money than those who don't, there are some fields where workers who received associate's degrees in two years — or certifications that can take as little as six weeks — are making good livings.
"I think we lost focus on the fact that middle-skill jobs also pay reasonably well," said David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, based in Colorado. "You get to them much quicker and for many people, the nature of the work is more rewarding than the work that comes with a a bachelor's degree because you're working with your hands."
For example, the petrochemical business, hard-pressed to find skilled workers, offers starting wages between $17 to $18 an hour — income that many an art history or English Lit major would envy.
"They're calling them 'silver collar' jobs," said Melissa Hockstad, vice president of petrochemicals at the American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers. "That's because for many of them, they're based on the hours you work and with overtime, you can make upwards of six figures."
For people like Skyler Browning, a recent graduate of the pipefitting technology program at Lee College in Baytown, Texas, it's good-bye to the mindset that blue-collar manufacturing jobs are so last century and welcome to the brave, more profitable world of skilled labor.
"You put in a hard day's work, earn an honest day's living, and you got a fat wallet," said Browning, whose story was featured in an online video posted by the school.
Browning earned his pipefitting certificate in a year and a half and started making "between $50,000 to $60,000 a year." After eight years, he says he now earns "in the range of $140,000 a year."
The petrochemical industry is making a comeback, with a recent report from J.P. Morgan Chase estimating that new plants worth about $80 billion are scheduled to be built in coming years.
The American Chemistry Council is even more bullish, reporting that 225 new chemical industry projects have been announced in the United States, which translates into $138 billion in activities that include new facilities, expansion, and increases in capacity. Latest News UpdateGet Newsmax TV At Home »
The gas and chemical refineries on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast area are particularly hot and a host of community colleges in the area are recruiting students to meet the needs of companies like ExxonMobil Chemical, Dow Chemical, and LyondellBasell.
Petrochemical outfits take natural resource products like crude oil and natural gas, break down their hydrocarbons and convert them to materials ranging from plastics to medical devices to parts used for making solar panels. Special: New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm
"Skilled welders represent the most critical resource demand in our industry, especially along the U.S. Gulf Coast," Jim Hanna, human resources executive director at Fluor, a global engineering construction company, told the Houston Chronicle. "However, other crafts like pipefitters, equipment operators, electrical, and instrumentation technicians will be in demand as well, as major projects are executed."
Lee College takes part in a consortium of nine schools that offer a range of two-year associate degrees and certifications in fields like welding and pipefitting. The starting salary for these technical jobs is commonly $62,000 a year — not including overtime.
"That's a pretty good deal," said Longanecker. "There is much to be said, particularly for returning adults and older adults who are changing careers, to look at the value of certificates and associate's degrees as a new venue."
To help students who are changing careers or looking for work, Lee College also offers a fast-track program in which students can earn certification in as little as six weeks.
"When you're unemployed, you often don't have the time to go to class two nights a week for 16 weeks," said Debbi Jordan, the school's executive director of workforce and community development. "You need that training now."
Jordan said the fast-track program emphasizes to students drug-testing requirements and background checks.
"You need to be employable," Jordan told Watchdog.org.
But while the Gulf Coast is the epicenter for petrochemical jobs right now, other parts of the country have more mixed results.
In recent days, it was reported that an energy company based in Thailand is considering building a plant in eastern Ohio to process natural gas liquid components used in plastics.
Royal Dutch Shell has plans to construct a plant in the Pittsburgh area, but progress has been slow.
And it was announced Wednesday an ambitious plan to construct a plant in West Virginia that would convert natural gas has been put on hold by the two Brazilian companies in charge. According to at least one report, executives are worried about the falling price of oil and what it would mean for using ethane — which the plant would derive from oil.
While falling oil prices lead to some unanswered questions, the dramatic drop in natural gas prices has translated into very good news for the petrochemical industry.
The "shale revolution," which has been tied to the technology used in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, coincides with natural gas prices that were at $12.50 per million BTU in 2008, compared to 2015 prices that are expected to stay in the $3 to $4 range.
"Natural gas is an important part to the petrochemical industry, using it as an energy source as well as a feedstock," AFPM's Hockstad told Watchdog.org. "This is a new economics that has really helped to create a competitive advantage for U.S. manufacturers. So we've seen this dramatic reversal from years ago when you'd see manufacturing leaving the U.S. and now the U.S. is one of the most affordable for petrochemical production." Special: The One Thing You Should Do for Your Prostate Every Morning
But the push in recent years to steer high-school students to four-year colleges resulted in a de-emphasis on vocational schools across the country.
That's created a generation gap between skilled workers now approaching retirement and a younger workforce that too often lacks the technical proficiency to replace them.
Industry figures show that many pipefitters will reach retirement age within the next 10 years, with one recent study predicting employment for plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters growing 21 percent from 2012 to 2022.
Hockstad said as many manufacturing jobs have left the country many young people don't think of the manufacturing or chemical industries as career opportunities.
"We have lost a number of folks in that generation in the last 10 years who didn't think of that as an opportunity but we're definitely seeing that resurgence again," Hockstad said.
"It's like any other career — you climb the ladder, but in this industry you're climbing fast," pipefitter Browning said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/trade-schools-four-year-degrees-two-year-associates/2015/04/27/id/641084/#ixzz3YbTUxnRu
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now! -
(ACC Mentioned) Resin Prices Remain Unpredictable
Apr 27, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Oil prices leveled off a bit in March, but North American commodity resin prices remained as unpredictable as ever.
After dropping to $44 per barrel in mid-March, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price rebounded to near $54 by April 14 — roughly the same level it held in late February. This of course is a far cry from the $100+ levels it held in mid-2014, but it’s also not the price collapse some had predicted.
This relative stability allowed North American PVC prices to climb an average of 3 cents per pound for the month, and for PET bottle resin prices to tick up an average of 1 cent per pound. It’s a reversal of form for PVC prices, which had been flat in February after falling for three straight months from November-January. Market sources told Plastics News that PVC production in early 2015 has been lower than expected at plants operated by Formosa Plastics Corp. in Baton Rouge, La., and by Westlake Chemical Corp. in Geismar, La.
The 1-cent PET hike surprised some buyers, since demand for the material hasn’t been strong, due in part to colder-than-normal weather in much of the U.S. That cold snap flattened demand for carbonated soft drinks and bottled water — two big end markets for PET. Prior to the March uptick, regional PET prices were flat in February, but had plunged a total of 16 cents per pound in November-January.
The modest oil increase also helped regional prices for polyethylene and solid polystyrene to remain flat. PE’s stable pricing month was welcome after prices fell for the fourth consecutive month in February, with those four dips totaling 16 cents per pound.
Market watchers are hoping that the April 3 shutdown of a Dow Chemical Co. PE unit in Freeport, Texas, won’t have much of an effect on regional PE supplies. One of the site’s PE units was shut down after an accidental ethylene release. Dow officials described the event as “a process upset” and had no timetable for the unit’s restart.
The inactivity in regional PS pricing was a bit surprising to buyers, since prices for influential benzene feedstock were up somewhat for the month. The standstill ended a streak of six straight months in which PS prices fell in the region. Those declines had driven prices down a total of 23 cents per pound. Benzene lost about 60 percent of its value between August and February, dropping from just over $5 per gallon to barely over $2.
Not surprisingly, polypropylene staked out its own path in March, as the only commodity resin to see a price drop in the region. PP prices ticked down an average of 1 cent per pound. This also surprised some buyers, since demand for the material was off to a good start in North America in the first two months of 2015. Sales of PP grew 7 percent, according to the American Chemistry Council, with domestic sales growth of 9 percent dampened by a drop of more than 30 percent in export sales.
Regional PP prices had climbed a penny per pound in February after being hammered by 10-cent drops in both December and January. Market watchers now are concerned about the potential impact on PP prices from a March 30 fire at an ExxonMobil Chemical propylene unit in Beaumont, Texas. No one was injured in the incident, but the unit remains out of commission.
Over on the engineering resins side of the plastics world, buyers of nylon 6/6 are keeping an eye on pricing after Invista placed force majeure sales limits on the material after a “chemical function issue” at its plant in Victoria, Texas. The incident is limiting production not only of nylon 6/6 resin but of adiponitrile (ADN) and hexamethylene diamine (HMD) feedstocks as well.
A company spokeswoman said that Invista will provide customers with updates on the amounts and rough estimates for timing of supply allocations of nylon 6/6. Prices for the material had fallen in February, in spite of strong demand from the North American auto sector.
-
Apr 28, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sam Pearson
Staffers at Sen. Tom Udall's office are still unpacking boxes from a recent move from the senator's old digs just steps from the offices of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and it's not the only way the two lawmakers have drifted apart this year.
Udall's embrace of bipartisan chemical safety legislation, S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," which he co-sponsored with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), has brought criticism from Boxer and other opponents, and has bewildered some of his traditional supporters, who count on him to uphold a long-standing family legacy of environmentalism.
Udall, for one, says he's just picking up where the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) left off by trying to get Congress to change how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals.
But the way he's doing it has brought the New Mexico Democrat criticism from once-friendly sources, who have warned that provisions in the bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 would bar states from helping the federal government enforce federal chemical laws, create a gap in enforcement that would preclude new state restrictions on chemicals before the federal government has taken a final action, and take too long to review the most dangerous chemicals, among other concerns.
Some of these issues are slated to be addressed today at a markup of the bill before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where lawmakers are expected to unveil a new version of the bill (see related story) that will be the first sign of how far lawmakers are willing to go to quell concerns over the proposal, which has drawn strong opposition from Boxer, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and others. At a press conference last week, Boxer said she thought the proposal would be "worse than current law" (E&E Daily, April 22).
A supporter of past legislation, the "Safe Chemicals Act," introduced from 2005 through 2013 and opposed by the chemical industry, Udall has been accused of letting the American Chemistry Council author his compromise bill.
Udall has been a regular guest on MSNBC over the years for his support, popular among liberals, for eliminating the use of the filibuster to stall legislation in the Senate. But the network, in a rare cable news segment on chemicals policy on "The Rachel Maddow Show" last month, mocked Udall for accepting campaign contributions from the industry group, which ran advertisements on his behalf in 2013.
"Oops, we left the lobbyist's signature on the bill," Maddow joked.
Udall is adamant that criticism of his motivations is misplaced. He says his office has reams of paper containing different versions of the legislation, which have been circulated and shared with all stakeholders.
"This is the most transparent, open process on a big piece of legislation that I've ever seen," Udall told E&E Daily in a recent interview.
Like no other lawmaker, Udall, 66, faces pressure to maintain a strong environmental record. The son of former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, who presided over high-profile conservation milestones during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Udall faces expectations he will channel the same environmental idealism that shaped important policy battles of an earlier generation.
Conservation is "in the Udall DNA," he likes to say.
But Udall's presence as the lead Democrat negotiating with the chemical industry and Republicans in a bid to reform the nation's chemical policy in a GOP-controlled Congress has scrambled some of the usual political coalitions.
Udall says it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's seeking to build a bipartisan consensus. He says he wishes some of the groups that oppose his bill -- specifically, the Environmental Working Group -- would talk to him before working to scuttle his legislation. (EWG Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber said that "Sen. Udall is well aware that EWG believes the Udall-Vitter bill is worse than current law and that EWG has provided testimony, legal analysis and other supporting documents to make very clear there are substantial flaws with the Udall-Vitter bill, and to make it equally clear what's needed to ensure everyday products are safe.")
"If you look at every big environmental law that's been passed -- and my father was there at the birth of many of these laws; he would lay the groundwork for many of these laws -- you have to have everybody at the table," Udall said. "That doesn't mean that everybody gets what they want, and it doesn't mean that everybody trusts each other, but by getting them at the table, many times you then open up a window of opportunity to get something done."
Many advocates, in effect, wish Udall had played hardball with the chemical industry.
"By making clear he would stick with Sen. Vitter whether or not the bill was improved, he's basically enabled the chemical industry to take a more aggressive approach and try to fix fewer of those things," said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. "The result is a bill that's weaker than it needs to be, and we still feel like it's not worth supporting."
Igrejas added, "I don't doubt that the senator would prefer a more improved bill -- the problem is, he's enabling a bad bill." 'Camelot in New Mexico'
Udall was born in Tucson, Ariz., but grew up in New Mexico and in the Washington, D.C., region, where the Udall family lived while his father served as a member of Congress and later as Interior secretary.
After earning bachelor's degrees from both Arizona's Prescott College and Cambridge University's Downing College, Udall went back to New Mexico and graduated with a law degree from the University of New Mexico in 1977. Udall went on to serve as a law clerk to a federal judge, as an assistant U.S. attorney, and as chief counsel to New Mexico's Department of Health and Environment.
Udall's father lived in New Mexico for 40 years before his death in 2010 at the age of 90, which left "a huge impact on New Mexico," former Gov. Bill Richardson (D) said.
Despite his name recognition, Udall's first stab at running for Congress ended with a fourth-place finish in the Democratic primary for New Mexico's newly created 3rd District. Voters sent Richardson -- who went on to become governor, secretary of Energy, a U.N. ambassador and a presidential candidate -- to Congress instead.
The setback did not deter Udall, who lost a second congressional race in 1988 before being elected New Mexico's attorney general in 1990. He served in that position until winning election to the House in 1998, and then won the race in 2008 to replace retiring Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).
Even in a tough year for Democrats last fall, which saw Udall's cousin, former Colorado Sen. Mark Udall (D), vanquished by a GOP challenger, Udall won re-election with 55 percent of the vote, defeating former state Republican Chairman Allen Weh.
While serving as attorney general, Udall pushed to enforce state environmental laws on illegal dumping, protecting New Mexico's rivers and suing the federal government to prevent the improper transport of nuclear waste from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a waste depository near Carlsbad, N.M. Udall's office also issued the first legal opinion that held that the New Mexico Constitution provided the New Mexico State Engineer with the authority to protect instream flows for recreation or to protect fish and wildlife. He also worked to protect public land from a then-nascent movement to return federal holdings to the state, which environmental groups feared would lead to decreased protections for wildlife and vegetation.
"It was Camelot in New Mexico with him as attorney general," said Fred Nathan, a former special counsel to Udall and the director of Think New Mexico, a Santa Fe-based advocacy group.
In Congress, Udall has worked on issues like pushing for a national renewable electricity standard and advocating for legislation to expand the scope of a 1990 law, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, to make eligible more individuals who were exposed to radiation from uranium mining or aboveground nuclear testing (E&E Daily, Feb. 6).
Udall and other lawmakers from New Mexico and six other states have tried for years to expand the scope of the radiation law beyond an initial set of counties in Utah, Colorado and Arizona, where people exposed to radiation during the mid-20th century are eligible to seek compensation.
"There was always a sense of justice that was passed down from my father on that front," Udall said. 'You may not get everything you want'
Udall grew frustrated with the American Chemistry Council's top official when he wouldn't take a position on changes to TSCA in late 2011.
At the 2011 hearing, Udall told American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley -- a former Democratic colleague of his in the House -- that health studies showed harmful chemicals were accumulating in Americans' blood and suggested the chemical industry's objections were standing in the way of reform.
Dooley bristled at the charge.
"I take offense when anyone would even insinuate that our industry is supporting an increase in the body burden of chemicals," Dooley shot back (E&E Daily, Nov. 30, 2011).
With Lautenberg's death in 2013, Udall became the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, a position he held until he lost his seat on the EPW committee at the end of the 113th Congress. Republicans have since renamed the panel the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight.
A few months later, the ACC's ad buy "left some New Mexico viewers scratching their heads," The New Mexican newspaper reported, because his Republican challenger had not yet entered the race. Since the ads didn't air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election and didn't call for the election or defeat of a candidate, ACC wasn't required to disclose the spending with the Federal Election Commission.
Unlike some other lawmakers who have backed chemical industry priorities, Udall does not represent a major chemical-producing state. According to ACC statistics, chemical production in New Mexico is a $507 million industry and is the third-largest manufacturing industry in state, supporting 1,300 direct jobs and 2,050 related jobs. Still, New Mexico's production pales in comparison to heavyweight states like Louisiana, which Vitter represents, or Texas.
Udall credits the ACC for working with lawmakers to update TSCA since then. He said getting the trade group to engage on the issue should be seen as a win for the chemical safety movement, even though the Environmental Defense Fund is so far the only major environmental group to support a proposal that has the ACC's blessing.
"What we wanted him to do is, send us in your changes you want -- we'll work with you on those," Udall said, referring to Dooley. "You may not get everything you want ... but it'll help improve upon our bill, and it may mean that we'll get additional co-sponsors; it may mean that we get bipartisanship."
Nathan said Udall should be commended for not simply grandstanding and accomplishing nothing. Still, Udall's position was "an eyebrow raiser" in New Mexico, said Joe Monaghan, an Albuquerque-based political commentator.
"I'm not sure if he's running again" in 2020, Monaghan said. "This chemical bill, the heat he's taking from the environmental base, makes you wonder if he feels this may be his final term and he has room to get his name on the bill that he obviously believes in." 'Of course, we don't agree with him on every issue'
Advocates of Udall's bill say the fact that the chemicals industry came to the table proves that the lawmaker's tactics worked. But others say the industry's role in the negotiations sets a dangerous precedent of allowing companies to decide how they will be regulated.
Reaction among some of Udall's environmental supporters ranges from confusion to a sense of betrayal over the outlines of the chemical plan. Some advocates say they trust Udall to stand up for public lands, water and wildlife issues in New Mexico, but find his chemicals stance baffling.
Richard Moore of the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice and the Albuquerque-based Los Jardines Institute said he has counted on Udall's staff to assist the group with efforts to protect communities from chemical facilities operating in an unsafe manner.
As the bill was nearing introduction, Moore said, Udall policy adviser Jonathan Black contacted him to say, "You're not going to be happy, but we tried."
Moore said some other environmental groups may hesitate to weigh in on the bill because "if you ever ask the senator to do something again, he's never going to do it."
In the environmental justice community, though, some aren't shy about saying what they think of Udall's actions, Moore said.
"His father would not necessarily be so happy about this, and that's a little bit what's said in the community," Moore said. "Those comments are very clearly made in the community."
Four members of the Sierra Club's Rio Grande Chapter declined to comment on the group's relationship with Udall, instead releasing a statement through the group's national office.
"Senator Udall has proven time and time again that he is an outspoken advocate for clean air, clean water and climate action," Rio Grande Chapter Director Camilla Feibelman said in the statement. "Of course, we don't agree with him on every issue, every time, but we're eager to continue working side-by-side with him to protect New Mexico's families and communities."
Todd Schulke, a senior staff member and co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, who lives in Pinos Altos, N.M., said he knows Udall will stand up to protect forests and endangered species, and to fight Republicans who try to insert appropriations riders that would harm those priorities. But the environmental community doesn't quite know why Udall is pushing for the chemicals bill, Schulke said, though he wants to think it's for the right reasons.
"I think it's jarring for everybody," Schulke said. "It's kind of inexplicable, and I'm sure he's got a good explanation for what he's doing."
Some of these groups may be willing to give Udall the benefit of the doubt, since he's so important to their agenda, Richardson said, and the move could benefit Udall if it shows he can spur action.
"Tom has broad support in the environmental community," the former governor said. "He'll be able to keep the environmentalists happy with him regardless of what happens to the bill, because he's invested so much over the years. He's got a strong legacy and a strong record, and I think most people in the environmental community will see him as getting something done."
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Negotiator Rules Out Exclusion Of Chemicals From TTIP
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
There is no intention of excluding the chemical sector from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations, according to the EU's chief negotiator Ignacio Garcia Bercero.
Mr Bercero was responding to questions at a press conference last week at the end of the ninth round of negotiations between the US and the EU in New York. A reporter wanted to know whether the two sides would give in to “voices in the EU community” calling for the exclusion of the chemical sector.
Mr Bercero said that both sides had acknowledged early on that as far as the chemical sector is concerned, regulations in the EU and US are different, so the “aim cannot be harmonisation [or] mutual recognition.”
He added that the objective is to identify practical steps by which regulators can cooperate by sharing data, comparing their procedures on risk assessment and by looking into some very technical issues, but "nothing that could in any way undermine the implementation of our respective regimes. This does not mean exclusion.”
Commenting on a proposal on horizontal cooperation presented by the EU (CW 12 February 2015), chief US negotiator Dan Mullaney said the overall goal of the regulatory coherence and transparency agenda is to “ensure as much as possible that future regulations [in] the US and EU don't diverge in ways that are unnecessary.” The US side is examining the proposal, he added.
Saying the revised proposal would be made public this week, Mr Bercero commented that the objective is to “facilitate cooperation between regulators in those areas where there is mutual interest to explore how to achieve regulatory compatibility.” From the EU side's perspective, he added, it would be unsatisfactory to exclude cooperation in areas regulated by member countries or states in the US.
Meanwhile, measures to give the US President trade promotion authority (TPA) have passed key committees in the US Senate and House. TPA would require Congress to either approve, or disapprove, any trade deal without changing its terms. Pointing out that President Obama had called for TPA, Mr Mullaney said that having TPA is “an important step” in the TTIP process.
The move to legislate TPA was welcomed by industry groups like the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma), who said it would help drive US chemicals exports and eliminate costly barriers to chemicals trade.
But NGOs such as the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) opposed it on the grounds that trade agreements like TTIP “reflect the wish-lists of industry lobbyists, not the needs of the American people.”
-
Apr 28, 2015 | PR Newswire
Linde LLC has received certification of its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, electronics gases plant under the American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care® program.
Terrance Caldwell, RTP plant manager, said, "The personnel at the RTP plant are very proud to have achieved Responsible Care certification. As Linde has been a member of the American Chemistry Council for over 60 years, this recent certification demonstrates a continued commitment to safety, community awareness and regulatory compliance. Association with the ACC and the Responsible Care management system program, along with established Linde standards, provide meaningful structure to our business practices and demonstrates the level of our commitment to the pledge that The Linde Group will avoid harm to its people, society and the environment."
The RTP plant has been operating since 1986 producing semiconductor materials, high purity inert gases (argon, helium and nitrogen), nitrous oxide and isotopes for high-tech companies and semiconductor manufacturers around the world. RTP is also responsible for managing gases inventories in Ireland and China for a major semiconductor manufacturer. Linde employs 50 people at the plant
Holly Jerdi, head of Health, Safety and Environment for Linde North America, said, "Our colleagues at RTP are to be congratulated for meeting the very challenging criteria for this prestigious certification. Their expertise, hard work and diligence fall right in line with our goals as a high performance organization and our vision to be the leading gases and engineering company."
Linde LLC is a member of The Linde Group, a world-leading gases and engineering company. The ACC is an association of producers, manufacturers and suppliers of chemical products. Linde has been a member of the ACC since 1951.
Responsible Care is a globally recognized management system aimed at helping companies improve performance in areas such as safety, health, environment and security. Certification is mandatory for all ACC member companies, which must undergo headquarter and facility audits by an independent, accredited auditor to verify that they have a structure and system in place that manages and measures performance. Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) is Linde's independent auditor. Since 2008, 25 Linde plants in North America have been certified under the program.
The Responsible Care management system offers an integrated, structured approach for driving continual improvement in seven key areas: community awareness and emergency response; security; distribution; employee health and safety; pollution prevention; process safety; and product stewardship.
Implementing the Responsible Care system is a multi-step process. Companies must first plan – identify, assess and evaluate potential hazards and risks associated with their products, processes and operations – and establish goals and objectives to address any significant hazards or risks. Next, they must do what they have planned, checking their progress along the way to measure performance and take necessary corrective actions. Communicating with employees and other stakeholders, including neighbors and customers, along the way also is essential.
About Linde North America, Inc.
Linde North America, Inc., is a member of The Linde Group. In the 2014 financial year, The Linde Group generated revenue of USD 17.9 bn (EUR 17.047 bn), making it the largest gases and engineering company in the world with approximately 65,500 employees working in more than 100 countries worldwide. The strategy of The Linde Group is geared towards long-term profitable growth and focuses on the expansion of its international business with forward-looking products and services. Linde acts responsibly towards its shareholders, business partners, employees, society and the environment – in every one of its business areas, regions and locations across the globe. The company is committed to technologies and products that unite the goals of customer value and sustainable development.
-
‘Breakthrough’ Changes Made to TSCA Bill, Sen. Udall Announces on Eve of Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
State authority to regulate chemicals would be boosted under a revised version of a Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul bill (S. 697) that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to mark up April 28, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and three Democratic senators have announced.
“Following intense weekend negotiations, the bipartisan compromise agreement strengthens protections under the proposed law and expands states' authority,” the senators' announcement said.
Udall, joined by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), described the changes as “a major breakthrough” in negotiations with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) concerning S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Sens. Udall and Vitter introduced the bill March 10 (47 DEN A-19, 3/11/15).
The compromises have been incorporated into the version of S. 697 that the committee will mark up April 28, Udall's announcement said.
Changes and clarifications that Udall said would now be in S. 697 include:
• state chemical disclosure laws would be permanently protected from preemption;
• state clean air and clean water laws would not be preempted;
• any state chemical regulation in effect before Aug. 1, 2015, would be permanently protected from preemption (that date was Jan. 1, 2015, under the original version of S. 697);
• public comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's designation of a chemical as a low- or high-priority for safety assessment would be accepted for 90 days; and
• the public could challenge a low-priority determination within 60 days of an EPA decision.
“The bipartisan agreement greatly strengthens the ability of states to protect citizens from toxic chemicals when the federal government has failed to do so,” Merkley said in Udall's announcement. “It's a vast improvement over the broken law currently in force and an important step in protecting families across America,” he continued.
The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement applauding the progress Udall and his colleagues announced.
Trade associations representing small businesses, however, are unlikely to support the revisions that would decrease federal preemption over state chemical regulations (see related story).
Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, told Bloomberg BNA his organization continues to oppose S. 697.
-
EPW Democrats Tout Compromise On Amended TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate Democrats on the Committee on Environment & Public Works (EPW) are touting a compromise on language to amend a bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) bill ahead of a committee markup slated for April 28, including narrowing state preemption provisions, allowing states to act as “co-enforcers” and other revisions.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), Cory Booker (D-NJ) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced the revisions in an April 27 press release, calling the compromise the “latest sign that support is continuing to grow” for the bill, S. 697, introduced earlier this year by Udall and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). At press time the bill has 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats listed as co-sponsors excluding Vitter and Udall, but the new additions of Merkley, Whitehouse and Booker would bring the number of Democratic sponsors to 13.
The legislation is aimed at reforming the decades-old chemical safety law, widely seen as ineffective in particular because it fails to give EPA ample authority to address the thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace.
“This bipartisan agreement greatly strengthens the ability of states to protect citizens from toxic chemicals when the federal government has failed to do so,” Merkley said in the press release, calling the amended bill a “vast improvement over the broken law currently in force.”
And Booker, while acknowledging that the revisions represent a compromise and are “not perfect,” added that the changes are a “significant step forward in long-stalled efforts to improve federal chemical safety protections.”
The revisions, which will be incorporated into the existing bill as a manager's substitute ahead of the April 28 markup, include a narrowing of controversial state preemption language criticized during a March 18 hearing by Whitehouse and Merkley. For example, limits on new state rules would begin when EPA defines the scope of uses of a chemical and end when the safety determination is made, with an automatic waiver from the preemption in the event that EPA misses a deadline.
Additionally the revisions seek to address concerns over some state air and water quality rules, with clarifications that all state chemical disclosure laws are permanently protected, air and water quality regulations are not preempted, and that states can “co-enforce” identical rules provided penalties cannot be assigned at both the federal and state level.
The changes also would aim to lower the legal threshold for designations of chemicals as “high priorities,” from those that the agency believes pose a “high hazard and widespread exposure” to those that present a “significant hazard and exposure” and elevate risk reviews for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund, praised the announcement in an April 27 statement. “With the agreed-upon changes, the revised bill represents a strong, bipartisan compromise that fixes the major flaws in current law and addresses each of the key concerns raised by Members at the March hearing,” he said, adding that the strong bipartisan support for the manager's amendment paves the way for EPW “to advance legislation to the Senate floor that can finally bring our chemical safety law into the 21st century.”
-
Federal Preemption Key to TSCA Reform, Small Businesses Say on Eve of Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A revised Toxic Substances Control Act must ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency's decisions on chemicals become national standards, officials from two trade associations representing small businesses told Bloomberg BNA April 27.
Federal preemption is important, Eric Byer, president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors, and Megan Ekstrom, government affairs director for the International Fragrance Association North America (IFRANA), told Bloomberg BNA in interviews the day before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to mark up S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, disagreed. “The bill [S. 697] falls far short of what is needed to be sure chemicals are safe,” he said.
Faber faulted bill provisions that would preempt many new state chemical regulations and preclude states from adopting new chemical regulations even if they are identical to EPA's.
House Markup Also Planned
Byer and Ekstrom said they are pleased to see S. 697 progressing to markup and to see the House pursuing TSCA reform as well. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) plans to mark up a House bill on May 14 that has circulated in draft form (72 DEN A-13, 4/15/15).
“We are very encouraged by the tremendous amount of progress made from the bill that came out a couple of years ago,” Ekstrom said.
S. 697 emerged through a two-year bipartisan negotiation process that began when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced the Chemical Safety Improvement Act in 2013 (100 DEN A-15, 5/23/13).
Concern Over Too Many Rules
Federal preemption is vital to the small businesses that make up a large percentage of the companies that both trade associations represent, Byer and Ekstrom said.
“A family-run business based in New Jersey may touch 10 other states,” Byer said. “Trying to deal with different regulatory requirements in 10 states is impossible.”
Ekstrom said the essential oils and other chemicals IFRANA's members work with have not been targeted by state chemical restrictions or bans.
IFRANA's members are affected nevertheless, she said, because they are subject to reporting requirements that result from those restrictions or bans.
Byer, Ekstrom and Faber all said they were not familiar with specific changes Senate staff have been negotiating prior to the April 28 markup.
Faber said his group hopes that the Environment and Public Works Committee will accept amendments during the April 28 markup that would ensure S. 697 requires the EPA to promptly review “dangerous” chemicals such as asbestos and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances; has strict deadlines for the EPA to regulate chemicals; provides the EPA adequate funding to manage chemicals; and preserves a role for states to protect their residents.
-
US Industry Executives Told TSCA Reform Prospects Are Good
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Prospects are good for the passage of the two bipartisan bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the Senate and House.
This was the message conveyed to members of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) during a visit to Washington DC last week.
More than 40 executives of the society's member companies took part in its annual "fly-in" event, lobbying 100 congressional offices on TSCA reform and other issues.
There were some lingering concerns in Democratic offices about the TSCA bills, says Bill Allmond, Socma's vice president of government and public relations. However, he adds, “overall we didn't hear from many offices that either one of these TSCA reform bills are bad"
“We heard that the bills are a good start and are worthy of further consideration. So we are quite optimistic … that we have a very good shot [at TSCA reform] this year.”
-
EDF Applauds Bipartisan Breakthrough on TSCA Reform Legislation
Apr 27, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund applauds the enormous progress announced today by Senators on both sides of the aisle to develop and advance bipartisan legislation to reform our nation’s badly broken 40-year-old chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Today’s announcement is the culmination of two years of tough negotiations led by Senators Tom Udall and David Vitter, who have worked steadfastly to address the concerns of Members and stakeholders. With the agreed-upon changes, the revised bill represents a strong, bipartisan compromise that fixes the major flaws in current law and addresses each of the key concerns raised by Members at the March hearing.
The strong bipartisan support for this manager’s amendment paves the way for the Committee to advance legislation to the Senate floor that can finally bring our chemical safety law into the 21st century.
-
GOP Lawmakers Reach Agreement in Negotiating Chemical Reform Bill
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
In negotiating how best to reform the nation's toxic chemical laws,Democratic lawmakers say they’ve reached an agreement with Republicans that will expand states’ authority to issue protections, signaling a breakthrough in efforts that have stalled in previous years.
Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Corey Booker (N.J.) said they have reached an agreement in negotiations on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, introduced by Udall and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
The bill, which aims to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was initially criticized for restricting states’ rights to issue their own protections for dangerous chemicals and for failing to ban asbestos.
The compromise agreement reached Monday would allow states to regulate a chemical if the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) misses a required deadline in assessing that chemical, would allow states to ask for a waiver to take action on chemicals while EPA is evaluating them for safety and would keep in place any chemical laws that took effect before Aug. 1, extending the former Jan. 1, 2015 grandfather date.
The bill has also been amended to allow the public to challenge any low priority chemical designation from EPA and to clarify that cost should not be considered in regulating toxic chemicals.
While the bill is not perfect, Booker said the bipartisan consensus is a significant step forward in long-stalled efforts to improve TSCA first led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
“Senator Frank Lautenberg made strengthening federal laws to better protect Americans from toxic substances and pollutants one of his top priorities, working tirelessly to find common ground across party lines to advance important reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act,” he said in a news release. “Reaching a bipartisan agreement to improve the legislation bearing his name is a fitting way to honor this great New Jerseyan’s legacy.”
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday to markup the final bill and vote on whether to pass it through committee.
-
Opinion: Complete Sen. Lautenberg's Legacy: Update Chemical Safety Law Now
Apr 25, 2015 | NJ.com
By Keith Gaby
Growing up on the banks of the Millstone River in Somerset County, it seemed to me the greatest threats we faced came from the natural world. Hurricanes would sweep through central New Jersey and the river would end up in our living room.
As I got older, I realized that many of the most dangerous threats are manmade, including the thousands of chemicals all around us. They are in the products we buy in the store, from clothes to cleaning products to couches. They are – especially in a highly industrialized state such as New Jersey – everywhere. And the scary truth is that no one has the power to ensure those chemicals are safe enough to be on the market, because our main chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976), is so badly broken.
If some of the problem originated in New Jersey, so did the best chance we have for a solution. After decades of watching Congress fail to fix this broken law, the late liberal lion Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) realized our children couldn't afford to wait any longer.
A new version of the bill he worked on right up to his death is now working its way through the U.S. Senate and is our best chance to end this national scandal. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) has rare bipartisan support – 11 Democratic and 11 Republican co-sponsors – and would be a dramatic improvement over current law. In fact, it would be the most important piece of environmental legislation in 25 years.
The bill gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the tools necessary to strengthen health protections for American families. Among the most important improvements:
-- it requires an affirmative safety finding for new chemicals before they can come on the market;-- it mandates comprehensive reviews of chemicals already in use against a health-based standard instead of the paralyzing cost-benefit standard required under the current law;
-- it explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations such as infants and pregnant women, and
-- it drives far more information on chemicals into the open by imposing stricter limits on companies' ability to claim it is confidential.
Under the current system, the EPA is essentially powerless to restrict any chemicals – even known carcinogens such as asbestos. That would all change. Bill S.697 will also strike a balance between state and federal authority: All existing state actions stay in effect and the EPA only supersedes future state actions if it reviews a chemical itself.
The truth is, only the EPA has the capacity to deal with this problem. Even large states such as California can tackle only a few chemicals at a time. In fact, in the last 40 years, only approximately 12 chemicals or chemical groups have been restricted by states. As much great work as states have tried to do with their limited resources, that patchwork leaves all Americans vulnerable.
Of course, like all bills – from the original Social Security Act to the Clean Air Act – the Chemical Safety Act is a compromise. But it is far more than "half a loaf." Political and market pressures have forced the chemical industry and its allies in Congress to agree to a much stronger federal system, which they now see as needed to restore the public's confidence in the safety of their chemicals. All of us are realistic enough to know that waiting for Congress to pass a perfect bill means leaving American families exposed forever.
Under the current system, all Americans are losing. The failures of the existing law represent a serious and growing public health calamity. American families cannot afford to watch Congress squander the best opportunity ever to improve protections from toxic chemicals. -
House Panel to Examine Microbead Use in Cosmetics
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing May 1 to examine the environmental and health impacts of plastic microbeads in cosmetics and other personal care products. The subcommittee will look at the impacts in light of the Microbead-Free Waters Act (H.R. 1321), which is co-authored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the committee's ranking member. Introduced March 4, H.R. 1321 would ban the sale or distribution of personal care products—such as exfoliants, soap and toothpaste—that contain synthetic plastic microbeads, starting Jan. 1, 2018. The bill would amend Section 601 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 361). Plastic microbeads smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter are passing through the filters of wastewater treatment plants and ending up in rivers, lakes and other larger bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes, the world's largest source of freshwater. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represents nearly 300 wastewater utilities, supports the bill. Representatives of Johnson & Johnson and the Personal Care Products Council have testified in favor of phasing out the sale of these products in Colorado. Among the states, New Jersey, Colorado and Maryland have passed bills supporting the phase-out of these products.
-
Microplastics as Deadly for Marine Life As Plastic Bags, UN Advisory Body Says
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ali Qassim
Microplastics—fragments of plastics that are smaller than 5 millimeters in diameter—can be as damaging to marine life as larger debris floating in the oceans, such as plastic bags or fishing nets, a report published April 27 by a United Nations-advisory body said.
“Even tiny particles, such as those used in cosmetic products or abrasives, could potentially harm marine life if ingested,” Stefan Micallef, the administrative secretary of the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), said in a statement announcing the report.
“We need to work globally to ensure that plastics do not end up in the oceans,” he said.
The report, which describes itself as the “first attempt, at a global scale, to identify the main sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the ocean” ends five years of research since GESAMP was informed of the potential problem, the UN body said.
The joint group defined microplastics as small plastic particles, less than 5 mm in diameter and even as small as 10 nanometers, which could cause cellular damage in animals when ingested because they contain pesticides.
Identify Sources, Promote Re-use, Recycle
Given the highly variable and poorly quantified information currently available, the report's first recommendation was for scientists to try to identify more clearly probable ‘hotspots' of land- and sea-based sources for plastic and microplastics.
By using a combination of targeted modelling, knowledge of actual and potential sources, such as coastal tourism, aquaculture, fisheries, riverine inputs, urban inputs and environmental and societal data, the report said mitigation measures could be better targeted.
The report also urged decision makers to shift the current view of ‘unwanted’ plastic as a ‘waste problem’ to one as a ‘useful’ resource with commercial value, by promoting the so-called 3 Rs (Reduce, Re-use, Recycle).
Without raising awareness about the negative impacts of plastics, the report said it would be more difficult to gain political agreement, public and private sector commitment and public acceptance of the necessary measures that need to be pushed through to reduce plastic litter.
For instance, scientists needed to adopt simpler and clearer language to target stakeholder groups involved in industrial production, manufacturing, retail, fisheries, aquaculture and coastal tourism, the report said.
More Research Into Nanosize, Chemical Risks
In addition, the report called for more research into finer plastic particles, including nano-plastics, as these smaller-sized particles were more likely to cross cell membranes, posing a greater risk to the organism than micro-sized plastics.
More information is also needed into the role plastics and microplastics play in transporting non-indigenous species from one marine area to another, including pathogenic microorganisms which may have serious consequences for both ecosystem and potentially human health, the report said.
The report's sixth and final recommendation was for future assessments to address in greater depth the chemical risk posed by ingested microplastics.
-
New California Program Is On A Mission To Reduce Toxic Chemicals In Our Everyday Products
Apr 27, 2015 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Veena Singla
We've all probably heard about the problem of toxic chemicals in everything from baby sippy cups to kid's jewelry to pajamas to hair straighteners. While the problem of hazardous chemicals in our everyday products seems quite large, attempts to address this poisonous proliferation have usually been piecemeal. For example, the hormone disrupting chemical BPA has been banned from some products like sippy cups and baby bottles but not other drinking and food containers. BPA exposures can continue from these other products, and regrettably, it seems that the chemicals used to replace BPA may themselves pose health risks. So, while banning one toxic chemical from one product is a good thing, unfortunately it doesn't always protect us like we think it might. But the answer is not to resign ourselves to a parade of new unsafe chemicals. Instead, we need to fundamentally alter the way we assess and regulate chemicals, so that to toxic chemicals are eliminated and replaced with safer alternatives.
Back in 2008, California legislators and then-governor Arnold Schwarznegger wanted a more comprehensive solution like this-- one that would truly reduce toxic chemicals used in products while also drawing on the rich culture of cutting-edge innovation, technical and scientific expertise for which the Golden State is known. The result was the Green Chemistry Initiative, which led to the creation of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program, launched in 2013. The SCP program's mission is to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products, while at the same time promoting safer technologies, safer chemicals, and green chemistry.
The basic idea of how the program works is shown in the diagram at left.
Step (1): chemicals that pose health and/ or environmental hazards are identified, called "Candidate Chemicals."
Step (2): SCP chooses consumer products containing candidate chemicals, called "Priority Products."
Step (3): Companies that make the Priority Product then have to evaluate their use of the hazardous chemical and search for something safer, using the process of alternatives analysis.
Steps (4)-(5): Finally, the SCP program issues regulations and products are changed to be safer for public health and the environment.
Above: The steps in the SCP process and terminology the program uses.
Maybe it seems pretty simple, but within each of these steps, the SCP program has some unique and exciting approaches seen in policies nowhere else in the country, giving the program a real chance for success. Let's take a closer look at what happens in each step.
Step 1: Candidate Chemicals
The list of Candidate Chemicals is drawn from authoritative sources such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
SCP uses authoritative sources to identify a list of candidate chemicals that are hazardous to health or the environment.
Each one of the ~2000 or so candidate chemicals is hazardous to human health or the environment in some way-- it may cause cancer, disrupt hormones, persist in the environment, or have a number of other 'hazard traits' of concern that make it potentially harmful. The Candidate Chemical list is not static--it changes as the referenced authoritative lists change.
Hazardous chemicals that are not on the Candidate Chemical list can be added by petition to the SCP Program.
Step 2: Priority Products
But the Candidate Chemical list is just a long list of chemicals. The list doesn't tell you what products the chemicals are used in, so the next step is to connect candidate chemicals with a particular consumer product. Together, the chemical-product combination is called a Priority Product-- so far, the SCP program has proposed 3 "initial" Priority Products: Paint strippers with the chemical methylene chloride,Kid's padded sleeping items with chlorinated Tris flame retardant chemicals (like nap mats, sleep positioners, bassinet and crib pads)Spray polyurethane foam with the chemical methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (used as building insulation in walls, roofs, and attics)
Note that this is a different approach than is typically used by US EPA and other agencies--they usually focus on a single chemical and look at the use of that chemical in a variety of products. For example, US EPA recently looked at the chemical trichloroethylene in a variety of products used for degreasing, spot cleaning, and spray-on coatings. In contrast, the SCP listing focuses on a pretty specific set of products, and doesn't include other products that may contain the chemical. So, even though the initial Priority Products list includes two kinds of chlorinated Tris flame retardants, the listing is limited to kid's padded sleeping items, and wouldn't cover other products that might contain these flame retardants, like furniture. However, impacts from the candidate chemical CAN be considered more broadly, as described below.
SCP has chosen three initial Priority Products and will choose more products each year from their Work Plan.
Moving forward, the program will select additional Priority Products each year from categories of products listed on a Work Plan. There are seven categories of products listed on the work plan, including personal care products, cleaning products, and clothing.
How will the Priority Products be chosen?
There are lots of products out there that contain a chemical of concern--so how does the program decide which ones to name as Priority Products? SCP has two key criteria to consider when selecting Priority Products: (1) the potential for human and/ or environmental exposures and (2) the potential for exposures to cause adverse impacts, to humans and/ or the environment. Here, again there are some key, critical differences with SCP's considerations compared to other policy frameworks.
Escape from "paralysis by analysis": The criteria require the potential for exposure and adverse impacts--not demonstrated proof. Basically, this means that we don't need studies showing that children have been harmed by flame retardants in their nap mats--if there is the potential for them to be harmed, based on the evidence we have, then that is sufficient. SCP does not conduct "risk assessments"--these are the hundreds of pages long documents that attempt to quantify exactly how toxic a chemical is, and exactly how much of a chemical people are exposed to. The risk assessment framework can lead to what's called "paralysis by analysis"--getting stuck because we don't have comprehensive, complete data on every chemical, especially related to human exposure. SCP gets out of this conundrum by using the evidence we do have to make an informed decision.
Comprehensive consideration of adverse impacts: SCP can consider threats to human health AND the environment across the entire life cycle of a product. A product's life cycle begins when it is created (manufacturing), continues when it is used by consumers (use), and ends when the product is disposed by recycling, landfilling, or incineration. So, though we think about the safety of consumer products most often for the person who uses the product, in reality the consumer use phase is just one of the places where chemicals can have adverse impacts on people or the environment. Workers who make products are exposed to chemicals, and chemicals released during manufacturing can be toxic to the environment, for example by killing fish or polluting the air.
A chemical can cause adverse human health or environmental impacts throughout a product's life cycle, from manufacturing to use to disposal.
A major weakness of many other policy frameworks is that they only can look at a single "piece of the puzzle" in the picture above-- the focus is on either human health or environmental impacts, not both, and only in one phase of the life cycle. For example, a program that considers the safety of a chemical for workers in a factory focuses exclusively on the workers, and nothing else. The same chemical might harm aquatic life when released at low levels in the factory's wastewater, or present risks to consumers who use the product after it exits the factory. But because of the fragmentation and narrow scopes of existing frameworks, many of a chemical's adverse impacts go unaddressed.
SCP puts together the pieces of the puzzle because threats to human health and the environment are considered across the entire life cycle.
At left: SCP comprehensively considers potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment.
Additionally, SCP can evaluate the potential for adverse impacts in a real-world context--we're exposed to many chemicals at once, and the same chemical from different sources. So, even though a product listing might be quite narrow, as in the kid's sleeping products, the evaluation of the potential for adverse impacts can take into account exposure to the same flame retardants from other sources like furniture, and also the effects of exposure to multiple chemicals at once that might exacerbate the same negative health effect.
Step 3: Alternatives Analysis
Once a product with a toxic chemical is identified as a Priority Product, the next step is to figure out how to make a safer product. In another critical departure from other policy frameworks, this is the first question that SCP asks about the chemical: "Is it necessary?"
Note that this is very different from the question that is usually asked, which is: "Is it safe?" This question is problematic because it can lead directly again into paralysis by analysis, and trying to pinpoint precisely how toxic a chemical is, and precisely how much gets into people's bodies, and whether or not it's "safe."
But "is it necessary?" is typically a much easier question to answer--for example, are flame retardants necessary in children's nap mats? The answer is no--they are not needed to meet legal requirements, or for the function of the product. Flame retardant chemicals are usually there by accident, because scraps of foam left over from larger products are used to make smaller items like nap mats. For kid's sleeping products, the alternative is easy: use foam without flame retardants, thus removing the flame retardant chemical all together.
But what if a chemical is necessary in a product? Methylene chloride in paint strippers serves an essential function--it's the chemical that helps to actually remove paint. In this case, the next step would be to go through the process of alternatives analysis to determine if a safer substitute is available. In the process of alternatives analysis, possible substitutes are evaluated to determine if they are in fact safer for health and environment than the toxic methylene chloride. The risks of methylene chloride have been well known for decades--every year, people die from exposure to this dangerous chemical. Many safer substitutes are available, including less hazardous chemicals or using mechanical abrasion to remove paint.
Sometimes a safer substitute may not be readily available--as seems to be the case for diisocyanates in spray polyurethane foam. The isocyanates serve as the backbone of the foam's structure. In this situation, green chemistry research is sorely needed, and the SCP program can help to spur and support innovation.
Step 4: Regulatory Response
If a safer alternative to a toxic chemical in a product is not found through the alternatives analysis process, SCP evaluates if a regulatory response is needed in order to protect public health and/ or the environment.
In choosing a regulatory response, SCP prioritizes "inherent protection" to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. This means trying to make a product or process fundamentally less hazardous, rather than attempting to control how much of a toxic substance people contact using administrative or engineering controls such as respirators. SCP may consider costs broadly, taking into account economic feasibility as well as the costs of adverse impacts.
There are a range of potential regulatory response options, including asking for additional information on the safety of a proposed alternative, limiting the amount of a toxic chemical used in a product, or requiring an end-of-life stewardship program (also known as extended producer responsibility) for the proper disposal of a product.
If a safer alternative is not found, SCP chooses a regulatory response that will best protect human health and the environment.
But unique amongst the regulatory response options is the "Advancement of Green Chemistry," where a product manufacturer is required to carry out a green chemistry research and development project or fund a challenge grant related to improving the design, performance, costs and/ or market penetration of safer alternatives. This is one way SCP can help lead to the creation, implementation, and wide adoption of new, cleaner chemicals, designs and technologies.
Step 5: Safer Products
The vision is that through this iterative process, California and US businesses can become global leaders in a new safer products economy, while also benefitting public health and creating a cleaner environment.
-
(ACC Blog) How Are Global Chemical Manufacturers Helping to Tackle Climate Change? [VIDEO]
Apr 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Michelle Orfei
2015 is a crucial year for moving the international climate change negotiations forward, and some of the world’s brightest solutions providers – global chemical manufacturers – are ready to help.
At the UN Climate Summit in September 2014, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for the private sector to drive more action and mobilize political will for a meaningful agreement in 2015. We listened then, and we’re listening now.
Our industry provides solutions in many areas such as building climate smart cities, fostering energy generation and storage through new technologies, and enhancing energy efficiency in our own processes and within the supply chains.
ICCA’s Building’s Technology Roadmap estimates that combining ambitious energy improvements with lower-carbon fuels and electricity use could cut energy use by 41% and greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2050.
In addition creating products that help save energy in our buildings, there’s a lesser known but similarly powerful technological process that can aid efforts to improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, feed a growing population, and improve health and living standards. It’s called catalysis.
Catalysts are added substances that increase the rate of chemical reactions. When used in the manufacturing process, they improve resource and energy efficiency, which helps lessen greenhouse gas emissions. In many ways, catalysis makes modern living possible, with valuable contributions in areas such as transportation, energy, food production, and health.
The global chemicals sector has produced a roadmap that explores wider adoption of catalysis as a route to improved efficiency. Around 90% of chemical manufacturing processes use catalysis, and experts say that related process improvements by future “game changing” technologies could slash energy intensity of these processes.
And with the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-21) fast approaching this winter, we know the world will be looking to global chemical manufacturers do what we do best: create solutions to the world’s greatest challenges.
-
Fracking Is Not The Cause Of Quakes. The Real Problem Is Fracking’s Wastewater
Apr 27, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Becky Oskin
New earthquake hazard maps show that fracking’s byproducts are clearly to blame for recent swarms of earthquakes plaguing several states.
The maps highlight 17 hot spots where communities face a significantly increased risk of earthquakes, and the accompanying report links the earthquakes to injection wells used to dispose of fracking wastewater. Previous maps did not include earthquakes that are induced by human activities.
“We consider induced seismicity to be primarily triggered by the disposal of wastewater into deep wells,” said Mark Petersen, chief of the National Seismic Hazard Project for the U.S. Geological Survey, which released the maps last week.
The earthquake hot spots include portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado and New Mexico. Until recently, many of these states were some of the places in the United States least likely to have an earthquake. But then high oil prices brought in companies eager to exploit ancient seabeds where oil and gas mingle with brine.
Wastewater wells are the issue
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, extracts far more water from these underground oil-laden rocks than traditional drilling. Currently there is no way to treat, store and release the billions of gallons of wastewater at the surface. Instead, drillers pump the fluid back underground, below groundwater, into wells where it sometimes triggers earthquakes.
For instance, in Oklahoma, state records show that companies injected more than 1.1 billion barrels of wastewater into the ground in 2013, the most recent year for which data is available. The following year, Oklahoma had more magnitude-3 earthquakes than California did. The quakes clustered around wastewater injection wells.
Oklahoma’s current earthquake rate is now 600 times higher than its pre-fracking rate, which was based on the state’s natural seismicity, the state geological survey said.
“We suspect the vast majority of these earthquakes are from produced wastewater,” said Austin Holland, head seismologist for the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Fracking itself can also induce earthquakes, but the technique has never caused earthquakes greater than magnitude 4. For comparison, an Oklahoma injection well is thought to have triggered a magnitude-5.6 earthquake in 2011. Mining blasts and geothermal energy plants can also trigger earthquakes.
Quake road map
Until now, the USGS has usually excluded induced earthquakes from its earthquake hazard maps. The researchers who make the maps assume earthquake rates are more or less the same through time, and that’s not the case with man-made quakes.
“These earthquakes are different from natural earthquakes because they turn on and off over short periods of time, sometimes over a period of a year,” Petersen said.
So even as north central Oklahoma and Texas were suffering swarms of earthquakes, the 2014 hazard map showed little to no shaking risk for these states. The national map shows where earthquakes may strike in the next 50 years, how big they might be and how strong the shaking could get.
Central U.S. risk
But now there is no way for scientists to ignore the incredible rise in earthquakes in the central United States. With input from more than 150 scientists, the USGS decided to release a separate earthquake hazard map for man-made earthquakes. Researchers gauged a region’s shaking risk by first looking for changing earthquake rates. Then the scientists counted the previous year’s temblors to forecast the next year’s tally.
A one-year model is not useful for issuing building permits, but it is helpful for planning where to spend limited funds on bridge repairs and for other decisions, said Bill Ellsworth, a USGS seismologist who is studying injection-well earthquakes.
A simplified version of the man-made earthquake hazard map will be published by the end of the year and will be updated yearly thereafter, Ellsworth said. (The agency will continue to issue the long-term forecasts every six years.) Scientists are still fine-tuning models that predict the shaking strength from man-made earthquakes, which tend to be shallower than natural quakes.
Researchers involved in the mapping project called for expanded seismic networks and public access to well-injection records last week at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America. Only a few injection wells cause headaches, so this data may help determine whether small earthquakes at wells could lead to more-damaging ones.
“This monitoring would fundamentally change how often and how accurately we can update these maps,” said Andy Michael, a USGS geophysicist in Menlo Park, Calif,, who was involved in the project.
-
South Dakota Delays Keystone XL Permit
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
South Dakota regulators have delayed a decision on whether to renew the expired permit for the Keystone XL pipeline’s route through the state.
South Dakota’s Public Utility Commission decided Monday to push back a hearing that had been set for early May until late July or early August, South Dakota Public Broadcasting reported.
TransCanada Corp. must obtain a new permit for Keystone’s route through South Dakota because the previous one expired in June.
Regulators pushed the hearing for the new permit back because opponents’ lawyers wanted more time to process the thousands of pages of documents they requested on Keystone from TransCanada, which provided them in mid-April, South Dakota Public Broadcasting said.
The new permit process gave Keystone opponents another opportunity to fight the controversial pipeline, and the regulators’ decision gives them yet another delay.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration still has yet to decide whether to approve a permit for the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline to cross the international border, more than six years after TransCanada first applied.
-
Why Future Oil Demand Could Be Very Low
Apr 28, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ivan Marten
The conventional wisdom among a number of leading energy companies, OPEC and the International Energy Agency is that global oil demand will continue to rise strongly over the next two decades. Indeed, one particularly bullish projection is for demand to reach 115 million barrels a day in 2035, 25% above 2014′s 92 million barrels a day.
What if the consensus is wrong, though, and growth in global demand stands to be far lower? We see three powerful forces, in particular, that could weigh materially on demand growth.
The first is pending improvements in energy efficiency, especially in cars and, to a lesser extent, trucks. Compelled by tightening standards, vehicle manufacturers will be forced to make their vehicles increasingly efficient: the fuel economy of new vehicles is expected to rise by about 2.5% a year to 2035. This would translate into sizable decreases in oil demand. The net effects of heightened energy efficiency on oil demand from cars and trucks could, of course, be negated, to an extent, if oil prices were to remain low for an extended period. But we do not consider sustained low oil prices likely, at least currently.
The second factor that could dampen global demand growth for oil is increasing substitution of natural gas for oil in the transportation, power generation, and petrochemicals sectors, coupled with growing adoption of electric vehicles, hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles. Within transportation, the substitution of gas for oil stands to be particularly strong among truck fleets: using compressed natural gas in favor of oil can save fleets about 25% on fuel costs. Substitution will also be strong in marine shipping, where the recent introduction of new emissions standards for ships trading in designated emission-control areas (enacted under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) stands to lead to increasing substitution of relatively clean-burning liquefied natural gas for fuel oil.
Within the petrochemicals sector, companies are likely to seek opportunities to substitute ethane-based ethylene for naphtha-based ethylene as a feedstock, as ethane prices have become increasingly attractive versus naphtha prices as a result of the U.S. shale-gas boom.
Combined, the substitution of natural gas for oil and the potential growing adoption of alternative vehicles (the adoption rate of electric cars, hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles is currently modest but could accelerate, at the expense of conventional combustion engines and fuel) will touch areas that currently account for about 70% of total global oil demand.
The third factor that has the potential to significantly reduce growth in oil demand is rising institution of carbon-emissions targets. Oil is currently the source of an estimated 36% of the world’s CO2 emissions, and climate-change concerns are mounting globally. Hence growing adoption of emissions targets, leading to a commensurate de-emphasis on oil, seems likely.
Considering the above, we may see a scenario in which daily oil demand in 2035 will be about 90 million barrels a day—below where it stood in 2014—or even lower. Time will tell, but we should be prepared for the possibility.
-
Nuclear Industry Pushing for Changes to Obama’s Climate Rule
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
As the Obama administration moves to finalize its climate rule for power plants this summer, the nuclear industry is pushing for major changes to the components of the plan.
The proposed Clean Power Plan rule would allow states with nuclear power plants to take 6 percent of their nuclear output and credit it toward the emissions reduction goals regulators set for them. The industry says the 6 percent figure is arbitrary and creates a disincentive for states that might otherwise switch to nuclear sooner.
ADVERTISEMENTThe preliminary emissions reduction targets for some states also assume power is being generated today by nuclear plants that are still under construction, something the industry has argued contorts states’ existing emissions and makes it much tougher for them to bring down their carbon intensity in the future.
“The community doesn’t necessarily want preferential treatment, we just want equal treatment,” said Craig Piercy, the Washington representative of the American Nuclear Society.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged at a House hearing in February that “on the basis of the comments that came in,” the agency would “take a very close look” at its use of nuclear energy in the plan.
Final rules are due later this year, so an EPA spokeswoman couldn’t say much, except that “nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and provides reliable baseload power without contributing to carbon pollution. Nuclear power from current and future plants can help the U.S. meet its goals.”
Nuclear power is a zero-emission, high-output power source, and one of several “renewable or low-emission” options the administration says states can use to help meet the emissions reduction goals it will set in the final regulation. The overall goal of the plan is a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030, and states have varying targets based on their current energy portfolios.
States can use 6 percent of their nuclear generation as credit toward their goals. That number is based on a government calculation that nearly 6 percent of U.S. nuclear plants are in danger of closing, primarily due to market pressures. The credit is meant to encourage states to keep those plants open, or replace nuclear output with other forms of clean energy.
“That was an attempt ... to indicate that we are building those into the standard-setting process because we believe that they may be at risk,” McCarthy said in February. “But they should be staying in, all things being equal, because we are providing an incentive for a low-carbon future with this rule.”
The nuclear industry said the 6 percent plan could end up reversing climate gains, however: if a nuclear plant were to close, and a state only needed to replace 6 percent of its output with clean energy, the rest could come from higher-emission sources and the state would still be seen as achieving the goal.
The industry’s other major concern is related to the way the plan treats future nuclear plants. In states currently building new plants — Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina — preliminary reduction targets are higher because the power from those nuclear plants is already assumed to be on the books.
Utilities companies have opposed the move. Jack Bonnikson, a spokesman for Georgia-based utility Southern Co., said the rule “penalizes these states for taking early action and leading in the expansion of new, carbon-free nuclear energy for America.
“If in the final rule EPA insists on setting binding statewide emission rate goals, then we believe under-construction nuclear units should be excluded from the calculation, with the full output available for compliance,” he said in a statement.
Pro-nuclear lawmakers have encouraged the EPA to look more closely at nuclear energy. At the February hearing, both Republicans and Democrats from Illinois pressed McCarthy to reconsider the plan’s strategy. Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors, the most in the nation.
“If the goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon emissions while also ensuring that states can continue to provide reasonably-priced, safe, reliable electricity to its consumers, then nuclear power must play a central role in helping to achieve this objective,” Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said.
Industry and lawmakers have different expectations for how the EPA’s review of the nuclear rules will shake out. Piercy said “it’s hard to imagine a scenario” where the EPA would finalize a rule with the nuclear concerns still on the books. But Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said he worries McCarthy’s comments amount to “Washington-speak for ‘we’re not going to do anything.’ ”
McCarthy has said she is committed to incorporating nuclear into the final climate rule.“I will certainly agree that nuclear power is zero-carbon,” she said earlier this year, “and it is an important part of the baseload for many of the states, and it should be considered by those states carefully in the development of their plans.”
-
Funding Mechanism Uncertain for $15 Billion Proposed in Quadrennial Review, Moniz Says
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Obama administration still needs to work with Congress on how to fund the majority of the more than $15 billion in new spending programs and tax credits proposed in the White House's Quadrennial Energy Review released last week, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said April 27.
The QER outlines methods to modernize and update the country's aging energy transmission, storage and distribution infrastructure.
“For the Department of Energy we have about $450 million in our FY 2016 budget request that is directly connected to QER recommendations,” Moniz said at an event for media held by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington.
But he also noted there are about $15 billion of additional resources “that we are available to discuss with Congress how one might address these infrastructure needs.”
Moniz also noted that there are some projects proposed in the QER that involve more modest resource investments, including two state grant programs to “really help seed grid reliability and more generally energy assurance activities.”
He took an optimistic note toward working with Congress on the proposals in the QER, saying that the reaction from the leaders of the energy committees in both chambers has been “very positive.”
Moniz is scheduled to testify on the QER before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on April 28. This will probably be followed by a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in several weeks, he said.
Cyberattacks, Climate Biggest Threats
Moniz said the greatest risks to the nation's electric grid are cyberattacks and extreme weather. The frequency and source of cyberattacks on energy infrastructure are increasing, he said.
“Internally, one of the first things I did was create a department-wide cybercouncil, which has been important in going across both our civilian energy structure and nuclear security structure,” he said.
He said the DOE has been working closely with EEI, the association of investor-owned electric utilities, and has created a group headed by Tom Fanning, chief executive officer of the Southern Co., a large regional energy company, focused on cybersecurity.
He noted that James Clapper, director of national intelligence, is setting up a group on cyberforensics as well.
“This is a big area. It's one of those areas where establishing a set of static rules doesn't do it because we've got to stay ahead of the bad guys all the time,” Moniz said. “So far, we have not had any major actual disruption of our energy infrastructure. But it ain't for lack of people trying.”
Yucca Mountain Approach
Moniz also said that he thinks Yucca Mountain isn't a good solution for storing spent fuel.
“We continue to feel that Yucca Mountain is just not workable and it is not consent-based. The state continues to strongly resist it. Experience suggests that for nuclear facilities, if you don't have a consent-based approach from community, to state, to federal government, things never seem to get over the finish line,” he said.
He said the administration has supported a consent-based process for siting. They have several options in the works for spent fuel storage, including pilot storage facilities with interest from a private facility in Texas and a public facility in another state (27 DEN A-5, 2/10/15).
-
States: Comment Period on EPA Climate Rule a ‘Sham’
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Fifteen states suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told a federal court that the agency’s public comment period for its land climate rule is a “sham” because it has already made up its mind about the rule.
The states’ late Friday letter to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is part of their effort to convince the court that the EPA has decided to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, a policy the states say is illegal under the Clean Air Act.
It is a key argument to their challenge to the regulation, because courts traditionally can only overturn agency actions that are final, not proposed.
The states, led by West Virginia, drew the judges’ attention to a tweet EPA chief Gina McCarthy sent saying the agency is “committed” to writing the rule, along with a Huffington Post story to the same effect.
“McCarthy’s unprecedented and audacious behavior … lays bare EPA’s goal: to ensure that states sink unrecoverable resources into preparing state plans, while delaying judicial review for as long as possible under the cover of a sham comment period,” the states wrote.
The states presented their case to a three-judge panel of the court April 16.
While the judges were highly skeptical of stepping into the EPA’s process before it makes the rule final, they were more receptive to the states’ argument that comments from McCarthy and other EPA officials show that it has already made up its mind.
At the oral arguments, Judge Thomas Griffith said McCarthy’s previous comments on her goal to finalize the rule “do not help the government's argument at all.”
-
Senate Panel Rebuffs Democrats' Request To Pull Secret Science Bill From Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans to move forward over the objections of committee Democrats to mark up legislation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency's actions to be based on data that are public and available for independent analysis.
“The House has passed this bill twice in the last six months with bipartisan support and it is time to move forward with this legislation,” Kristina Baum, a committee spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA. “Staff are currently reviewing the amendments, and look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans during the markup” on April 28.
Democrats have filed six amendments to the Secret Science Reform Act (S. 544), according to Baum.
Earlier April 27, committee Democrats urged Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the committee, to withdraw the bill from the markup until a legislative hearing is held on the bill.
“The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 would dramatically change what data and scientific research the Environmental Protection Agency could use in fulfilling its mission to protect public health and welfare,” the Democrats on the committee wrote in a letter. “A bill that evokes such serious concerns deserves to be scrutinized through a legislative hearing in advance of its markup.”
The House passed a companion version (H.R. 1030) of the legislation March 18, and the White House has threatened to veto the bill if it reaches President Barack Obama (53 DEN A-6, 3/19/15).
The EPA, under the legislation, would not be able to finalize any risk, exposure or hazard assessment; criteria document; standard; limitation; regulation; regulatory impact analysis; or guidance document unless the data used as the basis for the action is publicly available and able to be independently analyzed.
-
Senate Dems Push Back Against Bill Banning EPA ‘Secret Science’
Apr 27, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are urging their Republican colleagues to stop a bill aimed at improving scientific transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The bill “would dramatically change what data and scientific research the Environmental Protection Agency could use in fulfilling its mission to protect public health and welfare,” said the Democrats, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), in a letter Monday.
The letter comes a day before the panel, led by Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), plans to vote on the measure to stop the EPA from using “secret science” to justify regulations.
The Democrats cited the Obama administration’s objections to the bill, outlined in March when it threatened to veto the legislation.
The administration said the measure “would impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements,” impeding the ability to use science to protect health and the environment as required by law.
The bill therefore “deserves to be scrutinized through a legislative hearing in advance of its mark up,” the Democrats wrote.
Despite the veto threat, the House easily passed the bill in March, as it has done multiple times before.
Supporters of the measure argue that the EPA prevents scrutiny of its science and analysis by hiding it from the public.
Inhofe, who is extremely skeptical of the Obama EPA’s rules on climate change and other environmental matters, has previously expressed similar concerns.
-
Warren Activists Launch New Effort To Coax Environmental Advocates' Support
Apr 28, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jennifer Yachnin
Liberal activists pushing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) to join the 2016 presidential race have launched a new effort to gin up support from environmental advocates.
Ready for Warren campaign manager Erica Sagrans detailed her organization's latest arm -- Environmental Activists for Warren -- in a teleconference with supporters last night.
The effort will showcase the Massachusetts lawmaker's attacks on corporate power rather than promoting her via a checklist of standard policy positions favored by green groups.
The new Ready for Warren subgroup claims a list of more than 1,000 members, Sagrans said. Sagrans also requested participants on last night's call to reach out to their environmental organizations and friends to expand their rolls. She also encouraged participants to submit letters to the editor to their local newspapers to promote the effort.
Sagrans argued that Warren's positions on income inequality have already influenced a Democratic field lead by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, adding, "Imagine if we could do the same with climate change. ... It would be amazing."
Despite repeated statements from Warren that she is not running in the 2016 race, Sagrans said her organization will continue to inundate the senator's office with requests that she do so.
"She said she's not planning on it, but I believe more strongly than ever that we can convince her to get into this race," Sagrans said, referring to efforts by Ready for Warren as well as Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.
Luísa Abbott Galvão, a Ready for Warren volunteer who also serves as a Friends of the Earth climate and energy campaigner, acknowledged that the new draft group should be ready to answer questions about why it favors Warren or other potential contenders, like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I).
"Senator Warren is not really regarded as a climate or environmental champion. It's not really an automatic association that's made in the mainstream, and it takes some connecting the dots," Galvão said. "It's really important that we do more than just run down a checklist of things that she's been good on like Keystone, or trade or green jobs."
She later added: "It behooves us to emphasize Warren's main strength, which is attacking corporate power and looking at issues systemically."
-
Slight Uptick in Coal Ash Lobbying Followed December Release of Final EPA Regulations
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
More than five dozen energy corporations, other businesses, industry groups and environmental advocates reported lobbying on coal ash legislation during the first quarter of 2015, as many of those organizations have urged Congress to step in with legislative fixes to a final Environmental Protection Agency rule on the material, according to a Bloomberg BNA analysis of lobbying records.
The 66 entities that disclosed lobbying on the issue marks an increase from the 50 groups that reported lobbying on coal ash in the first quarter of 2014 but still falls short of the peak of 80 groups that disclosed lobbying on it during the third quarter of 2013.
Most of the groups specifically listed lobbying on the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015 (H.R. 1734), which would prohibit the EPA from ever regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste while also allowing states more leeway in how to regulate the material.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 15 advanced that bill, introduced by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), to likely full House consideration.
The EPA formally published its first-ever national standards for the management and disposal of coal ash on April 18, nearly four months after announcing the final rule in late December (80 Fed. Reg. 21,302).
The agency opted to regulate the residue from coal-fired power plants under the nonhazardous waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 DEN A-4, 4/17/15).
Bloomberg BNA identified entities lobbying on the issue by searching “coal ash,” “coal combustion” and “H.R. 1734” through the Senate lobbying database.
Public Companies Report Strong Interest
While energy producers and other companies were pleased with the agency's decision not to regulate coal ash under the hazardous waste provisions of RCRA, they almost immediately began a push for congressional legislation to address enforcement and implementation concerns surrounding the final rule.
Among the entities that disclosed lobbying on coal ash issues were CSX Corp., Alliant Energy Corp., Duke Energy Corp., American Electric Power, Archer Daniels Midland Co., Waste Management Inc. and NiSource Inc.
Industry groups lobbying on coal ash issues included the American Public Power Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Large Public Power Council and the National Mining Association.
Environmental groups that disclosed lobbying on the issue included the League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice and the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Previous House legislative efforts on coal ash have passed that chamber (but not the Senate) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee responsible for the most recent bill, previously told Bloomberg BNA the full House would act on the coal ash legislation by August.
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are working on their own coal ash legislative efforts in the Senate but have not provided a time frame for introducing their legislation (47 DEN A-4, 3/11/15).
-
Industry Digs in Over Mining Regulations
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Industry groups, congressional Republicans and nearly a dozen states are clashing with the Obama administration over planned regulations meant to crack down on some of the most harmful effects of the controversial mountaintop removal mining process.
The move would update decades-old regulations from the Interior Department designed to protect streams from mining and waste.
But while environmentalists are looking forward to stronger protections for the fish and other animals that depend on streams in Appalachia, the mining industry warns that the regulations could make more than a third of the region’s coal unrecoverable and kill hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The stream protection rule has been the focus of years of political fighting, with Republicans accusing Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of shirking its responsibility to consult with states and cooking the books to hide the number of jobs the rule would kill.
To the GOP, the regulation is yet another piece of what they call President Obama’s “war on coal,” and proof that his ultimate goal is to dramatically reduce its mining and use.
“This 1983 rule has been implemented effectively by the states for 30-plus years,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said in a March hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee. “And yet OSM continues to work on the environmental impact study and rulemaking in secrecy, behind closed doors, without real involvement from the very states that entered into a memorandum of understanding as cooperating agencies with OSM.”
Eleven states cooperating with the OSM on the regulation wrote to House Republicans earlier this year to say that they had not heard from the agency in four years. That served to solidify the GOP’s contention that the Obama administration is going it alone on the rule and avoiding its responsibilities to work with states.
The proposal is now awaiting final review by officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget, where it has sat since March. The draft regulations are expected to be made public sometime this spring.
Mountaintop removal is one of the most controversial mining techniques. The practice involves using explosives to blast apart large pieces of mountains to access coal seams. Waste products are often dumped in or near stream valleys, permanently altering the landscape and harming ecosystems.
The Obama administration has been mostly tight-lipped on the regulation. Officials have said they would seek to apply current science to the agency’s 1983 rule on the matter, which generally prohibited mining activity and waste dumping within 100 feet of important streams, although many states have liberally given waivers to mining companies allowing mountaintop projects to proceed.
“The ’83 rule is over 30 years old, and there’s been a lot of scientific advancements since then,” OSM Director Joe Pizarchik said. “We know a lot more about how to protect streams from the adverse effects of mining than we did then.”
The George W. Bush administration significantly loosened the regulations in 2008, leading Obama to launch a revision effort. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court struck down the relaxed version last year, finding that Bush’s OSM failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the impact to animals in and around streams. The court reinstated the 1983 restrictions.
Environmentalists are hoping for an update that could better protect streams.
“What we’ve got now is a whole lot of studies and information that have happened since that 1983 rule was put into place,” said Don Barger, southeast regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. “What we’ve been doing hasn’t worked.”
Neil Gormley, an attorney with Earthjustice, said some states have been “laggards” in implementing proper stream protections from mountaintop removal, and he wants to see a regulation that brings them in line.
He said he’s also hoping to see better stream monitoring of pollution, more inspections and more rigorous pollution standards and protections against flooding and acid drainage from mines.
Much of the criticism surrounding the forthcoming rules stems from a 2011 leak of draft documents estimating that they would kill 7,000 jobs. Pizarchik maintains the current draft would result in either a net gain or loss of “a couple hundred jobs,” essentially “a wash.”
The OSM, however, received flak for telling the contractor responsible for the 7,000-job-loss estimate to change its economic accounting practices and later cutting off the contract abruptly.
Republicans cried foul and accused the Obama administration of cooking the books, but Interior’s Office of Inspector General said it found “no evidence” of political interference.
The House has voted repeatedly to stop the OSM from going forward with its rule, although the Senate has not voted on the measures.
The National Mining Association (NMA) commissioned its own analysis of the rule after the 2011 leak, and estimated that as many as 270,000 jobs are at risk in mining and related sectors from the regulation, whose reach, it said, would go far beyond Appalachia.
“This is a regulation in search of a purpose that is already fulfilled by state and federal authorities under the Clean Water Act,” said NMA spokesman Luke Popovich, who was quoted by National Public Radio last year accusing the Obama administration of a “jihad against fossil energy.”
-
Refinery Industry Touts Emissions Reductions
Apr 28, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrates that the U.S. refinery industry has significantly cut emissions of ozone precursors and toxic air pollutants since 1990, according to an industry-commissioned analysis. The analysis, conducted by Sage Environmental Consulting on behalf of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, found that the refiner sector's emissions of sulfur dioxide fell by 91 percent between 1990 and 2013. EPA data also show that the sector's volatile organic compound emissions were cut by 69 percent and emissions of hazardous air pollutants decreased 66 percent during that time frame. The sector achieved those reductions even though refineries are now processing crude oil with an increased sulfur content and greater density, the analysis found. Charles Drevna, president of AFPM, said in an April 23 statement that improved efficiencies and investment in technological advancements will drive further decreases in emissions of ozone precursors without the need for more stringent national ozone standards. AFPM has been a critic of the EPA's proposal to revise the current 75 parts per billion ozone standards to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb.
-
9th Circuit Poised To Weigh Novel Questions About CERCLA Air Emissions
Apr 27, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is poised to consider a novel district court ruling that found the deposition of hazardous substances onto land or water stemming from a mining facility’s air emissions constitutes “disposal” under the Superfund law’s arranger liability provisions -- a decision that has drawn interest from the U.S. government, which fears that a reversal could harm cleanup efforts at hundreds of contaminated sites.
The case, Joseph Pakootas, et al. v. Teck Cominco Metals, appears to be the first to directly take on this issue under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA). No other court has “impliedly or expressly” addressed whether air emissions leading to disposal onto land or water are actionable under CERCLA, according to the district court ruling. Rather, the issue “appears to have been treated as a given that if hazardous substances from aerial emissions are ‘disposed’ of ‘into or on any land or water’ of a CERCLA ‘facility,’ response costs and natural resource damages can be recovered” for cleanup or compensation for harm, the district court says.
The case, accepted on interlocutory appeal for review by the 9th Circuit March 25, also puts the appellate court in a position of determining whether the district court decision contradicts the 9th Circuit’s Aug. 20 decision in Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) v. BNSF Railway Company on similar claims made under the federal waste law known as the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA). In that case, the 9th Circuit denied a claim that air emissions from diesel exhaust constitute “disposal” under RCRA.
But the United States in an amicus brief filed with the district court last fall warned against applying Teck’s interpretation of the RCRA ruling to Pakootas, saying that a reversal on the air emissions issue in the Pakootas case could undermine CERCLA’s effect at sites across the country, particularly at smelter sites.
Teck “relies on [CCAEJ] to urge a narrow reading of CERCLA under which polluters effectively would be exempt from federal cleanup liability if their hazardous substances travel through the air at all before reaching land or water,” the United States says in a Nov. 19 amicus brief to the district court. “Teck’s reliance on [CCAEJ] is misplaced and, if adopted here, could significantly undermine CERCLA’s implementation at contaminated sites across the country.”
The interpretation Teck gives of CCAEJ would put many sites beyond CERCLA’s reach, the United States argues. “Discharges to the air from smelters and other industrial enterprises historically have been, and continue to be, identified as sources of extensive contamination at CERCLA sites around the nation,” the brief continues. It points to EPA statistics that more than 400 smelter sites have been contaminated by the deposition of hazardous substances emitted into the air that are being cleaned up under CERCLA, with average cleanups costing more than $25 million per site.
In Pakootas, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington ruled last year that claims could go forward alleging air emissions as a basis of recovery for response costs and natural resource damages.
The district court, while confident in its analysis of the disposal definition, acknowledged “that apparently no court has addressed this issue head-on” and therefore certified the air emissions matter for immediate interlocutory appeal, a rare type of interim appeal where the circuit court considers some legal questions before all pending issues have been decided by the district court..
In its Jan. 9 petition to the 9th Circuit, Teck says the issue it wants the appellate court to settle is whether in light of CCAEJ, the district court erred “in construing ‘disposal’ under CERCLA contrary to the RCRA definition of disposal, which was specifically adopted in CERCLA.”
While the U.S. government has argued Teck’s position would complicate cleanups, attorneys Kevin Haroff and Zachary Kearns, in a legal analysis by the Marten Law firm, argue that if the district court decision is upheld it could effectively expand CERCLA’s scope. They say “it could tie emitters to faraway CERCLA sites, greatly complicating resolution of CERCLA cases and imposing liability on unsuspecting emitters.”
In the case, the state of Washington and Native American tribes allege that air emissions, in addition to discharges that flowed into the Columbia River, from a lead/zinc smelter operated by Teck for more than 100 years just north of the U.S. border in British Columbia, Canada, resulted in the “disposal” of hazardous substances at the Upper Columbia River (UCR) site in Washington, according to the United States in its amicus brief. While the district court had previously determined Teck was liable for releases from millions of tons of smelter waste deposited in the river, the plaintiffs later filed amended complaints implicating the air emissions as well, the brief says.
Under CERCLA’s arranger liability, a party is liable for cleanup costs if it “arranged for disposal or treatment” of hazardous substances.
CERCLA relies on RCRA for its definition of solid waste, but the district court in Pakootas contends the rulings in Pakootas and CCAEJ are distinguishable and not contradictory, rejecting last December an attempt by Teck to convince the court to reconsider its ruling on air emissions because of the 9th Circuit’s ruling in CCAEJ.
Under RCRA, solid waste is defined as “discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial . . . operations.” And under section 7002 of RCRA, any person can bring suit against any other person who has contributed to the “handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.”
Teck had argued that the 9th Circuit’s decision in CCAEJ justified a reversal of Pakootas. In its ruling in Pakootas, the district court agreed with the plaintiffs that the disposal was not the emission from the smelter’s smokestacks, but rather the deposition of the substances at the UCR site, and that the disposal does not have to be to land or water in the first instance, according to legal documents. Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA “requires there be a disposal of hazardous substances ‘at any facility,’” the district court said in its July 29 order denying Teck’s motion to dismiss the air emissions allegations by the plaintiffs. “Here, the ‘facility’ is the UCR Site,” the court says.
Further, the court says, CERCLA section 107(a)(3)’s plain language “does not require, as Defendant suggests, that there be a disposal ‘into or on any land or water’ in the ‘first place’ or in the ‘first instance.’” The court says as long as Teck’s “hazardous substances were disposed of ‘into or on any land or water’ of the UCR Site -- whether via the Columbia River or by air -- Defendant is potential liable as an ‘arranger.’”
But Teck argued in its Sept. 24 motion for reconsideration that “[t]hese points of law now have been resolved by the Ninth Circuit” in CCAEJ. In CCAEJ, the circuit court rejected a claim by environmentalists that diesel particulate matter emitted from locomotives at 16 railyards in California constituted disposal of solid waste under RCRA. The 9th Circuit said RCRA’s definition of disposal only includes “conduct that results in the placement of solid waste ‘into or on any land or water,’” but is not solid waste under RCRA if the substances are first emitted into the air and then travel onto land and water. The court said that disposal, however, does occur if the waste is first placed “into or on any land or water” and then “emitted into the air.”
Teck contended that the 9th Circuit in CCAEJ “addressed the same primary legal arguments raised in the Motion to Strike [the air allegations in Pakootas] and reached the opposite conclusion.” In the Pakootas case, the plaintiffs argued that air emissions can be deemed a CERCLA disposal as long as they eventually land on land or water, Teck says. “But the Ninth Circuit has now directly stated that ‘disposal’ does not include situations wherein waste is emitted to the air and later falls to land or water,” Teck argued. “This conclusion is fatal to Plaintiffs’ position.”
But the district court in its Dec. 31 order denying Teck’s request to reconsider the court’s air emissions ruling distinguished its decision from CCAEJ, particularly noting differences between RCRA and CERCLA. It notes that it did not find that air emissions from the smelter constitute a “CERCLA disposal.” CERCLA’s arranger provisions attach liability for disposal of hazardous substances at a facility where there is a release of hazardous substances. The smelter is not a “facility” under CERCLA, it notes, rather the “facility” is the UCR site in the United States.
The district court says that the “CERCLA disposal” in this case “occurred when hazardous substances from Teck’s aerial emissions and its river discharges were deposited ‘into or on any land or water’ of the UCR Site. This disposal occurred in the ‘first instance’ into or on land or water of the UCR Site and therefore, does not run afoul of RCRA’s definition of ‘disposal’ as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit in CCAEJ.” The district court also says that the RCRA disposal definition cannot be viewed separately from CERCLA’s 107(a)(3) provision regarding liability for cleaning up a “facility,” and notes that “RCRA is not concerned with cleanup of a ‘facility’ and that term is not defined in RCRA.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested