Preview Newsletter
ACC AM apr 29
-
(ACC Mentioned) Revised TSCA-Reform Bill Approved With Bipartisan Vote by Senate Committee
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
ith a 15-5 bipartisan vote, a Senate committee approved legislation April 28 that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time in nearly 40 years. Sen. David Vitter (R-La) and other supporters of the bill said the version of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) the Senate Environment ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry, Environmentalists Unite on Toxic Substances Control Act Legislation
Apr 29, 2015 | Design News
By Tracey Schelmetic
The EPA is responsible for chemical safety issues, and it does so under the auspices of the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which is considered to be sufficient by almost no one. Environmentalists often decry the law as too vague and permissive, while the chemical industry criticizes it as too cumbersome, contrary, and ... -
(ACC Mentioned) House Subcommittee to Revise Draft TSCA Reform Bill for May 14 Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
By Mark Duvall
Legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), already introduced in the Senate, has taken a step forward in the House of Representatives as well. On April 14, 2015, the Environment and Energy Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on a discussion draft of the TSCA Modernization Act... -
(ACC Mentioned) Geo-Tech Picks NPE To Show Its New Recycling Technology
Apr 29, 2015 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
It wasn’t quite a Sweet 16, or even a quinceañera, but for Geo-Tech Polymers, NPE 2015 was definitely a coming out party. The company, only 12 years old, exhibited for the first time at NPE. It’s not just the first time at NPE, but it’s the first time anywhere, ever. And it’s part of a strategy to introduce the company — which was born out of a process ... -
(ACC Mentioned) IOP Could Be First Town in S.C. to Ban Plastic Bags
Apr 28, 2015 | The Post & Courier
By Brenda Rindge
Residents and visitors to Isle of Palms will be hauling their purchases in paper sacks or reusable bags in 2016, if all goes according to plan. Council unanimously agreed Tuesday to consider banning single-use plastic bags at its May meeting at the request of residents Rini Kosmos, Kathy Kent, Christy Humphries and Jackie Kilroe. -
Compromise Senate TSCA Bill Clears EPW Over Some Democrat Objections
Apr 28, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
An amended bipartisan Senate bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), representing a compromise between the bill's authors and three Democrats on the Environment & Public Works Committee, cleared the committee in a 15-5 vote April 28, despite objections from the committee's ranking member, Barbara Boxer (D-CA)... -
Could TSCA Deal Signal a Senate Breakthrough?
Apr 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Senators who backed Tuesday’s delicate bipartisan compromise in the Environment and Public Works Committee on the regulation of dangerous chemicals hailed the breakthrough as a model for other gridlocked issues. The 15-5 vote to make the first significant update to the Toxic Substances Control Act since the law was first ... -
40 Years And 1000s Of Untested Chemicals Later – Will Congress Finally Act?
Apr 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sarah Vogel
Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law. Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.” Their testimony made the problem clear: Thousands of chemicals are in use in everyday household products and... -
EU Seeks Comments on Requests for Exemptions to Hazardous Substance Rules
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission is calling for comments through June 19 on six requests for exemptions from the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU), which bans a number of harmful chemicals from electrical and electronic equipment sold in the bloc. -
Experts Discuss Testing Approaches for Skin Sensitisation
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A workshop in Helsinki has heard of six different integrated approaches to testing and assessment (Iata) for skin sensitisation using new non-animal test methods. Although three test methods have been almost finalised for replacing the standard animal test, a key issue now is how to proceed to achieve regulatory acceptance. -
House Bill Would Fund PHMSA at $227M For FY 2016; Obama Requested $62M More
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would be funded at $227 million for fiscal year 2016 under a House appropriations bill released April 28, roughly $62 million below the White House's budget request. The bill by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development would fund... -
Green Groups Push Obama On Arctic Drilling
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
More than a dozen conservation and environmental groups are pushing President Obama to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean. The groups took out an advertisement in USA Today on Tuesday saying drilling in the Arctic is "not worth the risk" of negatively affecting the climate or creating an oil spill in the ocean. -
Shell, Greenpeace Spar Over Arctic Drilling Safety Zones
Apr 29, 2015 | AP (in The New York Times)
Attorneys for Royal Dutch Shell PLC presented testimony to a federal court judge Tuesday that the company needs safety zones around its Arctic drill fleet to prevent Greenpeace USA activists from endangering company workers and themselves. An attorney for Greenpeace told U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason that Shell's request would usurp... -
EU Envoy Says Europe Would Like Greater Possibilities for Energy Exports From U.S.
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
The European Union would “very much like to see greater possibilities for the export of oil and gas” from the U.S. to Europe, EU Ambassador to the U.S. David O'Sullivan said. “It would be very good to have an energy chapter” in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), he said April 28. The U.S. and EU have said they want to... -
Murkowski Files Oil Export Amendment To Senate Bill on Iranian Nuclear Deal
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) filed an amendment April 28 that would repeal the U.S. crude oil export ban, Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the senator, told reporters. The amendment, filed to legislation being considered on the Senate floor related to Iran's nuclear program, would ... -
Murkowski Plans Iran Bill Amendment To End Crude Export Ban
Apr 28, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski promised today to offer an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill that could ultimately lift the U.S. ban on crude exports. The Alaska Republican told reporters she would introduce language that would require the Energy Department to compare and contrast U.S. and Iran crude... -
California Drought Highlights Questions On Using UIC Wells For Gas Water
Apr 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
California’s ongoing drought and fears of future water shortages due to climate change and other factors highlights questions over whether EPA and other regulators might restrict the use of underground injection control (UIC) wells for oil and gas wastewater disposal due to fears the practice could take away much-needed water resources. -
Improving North American Energy Integration, Storage, Distribution Focus of Senate Hearing
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Improved North American energy integration, as well as modernized energy storage and distribution infrastructure, were the focus of a Senate hearing on the White House Quadrennial Energy Review. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz April 28 outlined the Obama administration's Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), released April 21, during a Senate... -
White House Threatens to Veto $35.4 Billion House Energy, Water Appropriations Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Obama administration said April 28 it would veto the House's $35.4 billion energy and water appropriations bill, saying the spending legislation “drastically underfunds critical investments” in clean energy and contains “highly problematic ideological riders” related to the Clean Water Act and other issues. -
White House Issues Veto Threats For First Two GOP Spending Bills
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Shabad
The White House on Tuesday issued veto threats for two GOP-sponsored 2016 spending bills that are scheduled to hit the House floor by the end of the week. The Office of Management and Budget said President Obama’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto bills funding military construction and veterans’ benefits as well as energy... -
Murkowski, Moniz Camaraderie Could Bode Well For Compromise Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey and Nick Juliano
The ongoing collaboration between Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and lawmakers crafting a comprehensive energy bill appears to be paying dividends. Making a cordial visit to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday to tout his department's first Quadrennial Energy Review, Moniz earned effusive praise from Chairwoman... -
Clean Power Plan Points Utilities Toward ‘Inevitable' Low-Carbon Future, McCarthy Says
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A low-carbon future is “inevitable,” and the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan is intended to send utilities the market signals necessary to guide investments, Administrator Gina McCarthy said. “A low carbon future is absolutely inevitable. The question is how quickly will that come out and who will win,” McCarthy... -
NERC's Report is Flawed: We Can Reduce Climate Pollution and Ensure Electric Reliability
Apr 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Michael Panfil
If reducing climate pollution from power plants were a football game, the U.S. team would be halfway to the goal line while fans were still singing the national anthem. That is, we have already gotten about halfway to the expected goals of the Clean Power Plan – before the rule is even final. -
Keystone Foe Steyer To Host Clinton Fundraiser
Apr 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Hillary Clinton’s silence on the Keystone XL pipeline won’t stop her from visiting billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer next week for a fundraiser that suggests the controversial oil artery may be no obstacle in her courtship of greens. The May 6 fundraiser at the home of Steyer and his wife Kat Taylor is billed as an afternoon... -
Senate Panel Advances Bill To Stop EPA From Using Clinical Data In Setting Regulations
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
A Senate panel on April 28 approved a measure that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations based on science that is not transparent and reproducible. The legislation would stop EPA from using clinical data that require protection of patient confidentiality as the agency sets health-based pollution standards ... -
Secret Science Reform Act Approved By Senate Committee on Party-Line Vote
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A sharply divided Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced legislation April 28 by an 11–9 vote requiring a host of Environmental Protection Agency actions to be based on data that are public and available for independent analysis. Republican proponents of the three-page Secret Science Reform Act (S. 544), introduced by... -
Senators Vote To Block EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted Tuesday to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using ‘secret science’ to back its regulations. The vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee came after the GOP-controlled House repeatedly approved the bill. It previous was stalled in the Democratic-majority Senate. -
House Democrats Praise NEPA Climate Guidance
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Council on Environmental Quality provided necessary guidance to federal agencies on how to address climate change considerations when conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews, 54 congressional Democrats said in an April 27 letter. The Democrats suggested the White House direct federal agencies to calculate the climate ... -
Getting Committee Vote Today Would Topple 'Extreme Regulation' -- Whitfield
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last night kicked off a two-day House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of his newly introduced "Ratepayer Protection Act" by painting his bill as a moderate check on a rogue U.S. EPA that is attempting to circumvent the will of Congress. The panel will vote today on the bill, H.R. 2042. -
The Invisible Organisms That Threaten To Make Climate Change Much Worse
Apr 28, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
When we think about greenhouse gas emissions, a few obvious culprits — coal-fired power plants or automobiles — come to mind. But the burning of fossils fuels isn’t the only process spewing carbon into the atmosphere. A much less talked-about, but increasingly concerning source of carbon emissions is the slowly thawing permafrost, or frozen soil,... -
Readying MACT, EPA Floats Federal Plan To Cut Sludge Incinerator Emissions
Apr 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing a federal plan to curb air pollution from existing sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs) in a host of states that appear unlikely to adopt the agency's requirements even as the agency works to revise its air toxics limits for the sources in response to a court ruling that requires a better explanation of its methodology. -
San Joaquin District Seeks More Time, Flexibility for Some Nonattainment Areas
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Air quality regulators in California's San Joaquin Valley have drafted a proposal for Clean Air Act amendments that would give areas with the worst air pollution extra time and flexibility to meet ozone and particulate standards. Discussions are under way with several members of Congress about introducing the bill, Seyed Sadredin, executive... -
(ACC Mentioned) PeopleNet Selected By Quality Carriers As Telematics Provider
Apr 28, 2015 | Field Technologies
PeopleNet, a Trimble company and leading provider of fleet mobility solutions, recently announced that Quality Carriers, Inc., a subsidiary of Quality Distribution, Inc., the leading provider of bulk transportation services in North America, has integrated PeopleNet technology platforms into approximately 2,500 tank trucks. -
Stricter Gas Transmission Proposed Rule Sent to Office of Management and Budget
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A Transportation Department proposed rule that would update safety requirements for gas transmission pipelines was sent to the White House for review April 27. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposal would address repair criteria, assessment methods, certain pipeline data, risk assessments, gathering lines... -
Company Used Unsafe Gas Cylinders, PHMSA Says
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A New York company for nearly 30 years used potentially unsafe high-pressure compressed gas cylinders, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in a safety advisory to be published April 29. Liberty Industrial Gases and Welding Supplies Inc., without PHMSA authorization, tested the compressed gas cylinders ... -
Midland honored with National Achievement Award
Apr 28, 2015 | Bulk Transporter
Midland Manufacturing, part of OPW, is proud to announce it was presented a National Achievement Award at the 2015 Chlorine Institute Annual Meeting & Technology Symposium for its ongoing support of the Chlorine Institute's TRANSCAER Program. The National Achievement Award signifies an individual, company, or organization exceeds...
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Revised TSCA-Reform Bill Approved With Bipartisan Vote by Senate Committee
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
With a 15-5 bipartisan vote, a Senate committee approved legislation April 28 that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time in nearly 40 years.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La) and other supporters of the bill said the version of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved struck the right balance between states' rights and industry's need for business certainty.
“The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is an honest, balanced approach built on compromise, and the important thing to remember is that updating the outdated, inefficient TSCA will better protect the safety of our families and also advance innovation in our economy,” said Vitter, a co-sponsor who has worked toward a bipartisan TSCA-reform bill for two years.
“This isn't a perfect bill, but it is a very good one,” the bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), said in a statement released after the vote. “We cannot let this opportunity to protect our kids from dangerous chemicals pass us by,” he said.
“Bipartisanship is rare in the Senate these days, and even more so on environmental issues,” Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) said in a statement.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, opposed the bill but said the marked up version of S. 697 fixed several concerns raised by state officials; organizations fighting mesothelioma, breast cancer and other diseases; and environmental health organizations.
Nevertheless, “we still have huge opposition to this bill,” Boxer said.
Additional protections of states rights, requirements to address chemicals stored near drinking water and other changes are needed to secure her vote, Boxer said.
The committee's action marks the first time in many years that a TSCA-reform bill has progressed through a House or Senate committee and the first time such legislation secured bipartisan support.
The committee vote also marks a step toward possible modernization of TSCA during the 114th Congress.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, has said that subcommittee will mark up May 14 a narrower bill he has circulated in draft form to modernize TSCA (72 DEN A-13, 4/15/15)
Key Changes Made
The version of S. 697 introduced March 10 was revised by Democrats and Republicans prior to the Environment Public Works Committee's consideration in key ways. For example the revised version would:
• allow chemical manufacturers to request the Environmental Protection Agency to review a larger number of chemicals than the original version would have allowed;
• clarify that state clean air and water laws wouldn't be preempted;
• allow states to enforce state chemical regulations that are identical to federal requirements;
• allow the public to comment on the EPA's decision as to whether a chemical is a low-priority for further review and possible regulation;
• allow the public to legally challenge a low-priority designation;
• direct the EPA as it selects high-priority chemicals for safety assessments to give preference to certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals; and
• increase the use of cellular, computational and other non-animal test methods that are being developed to predict and explain divergent toxic effects that chemicals may have.
Early Support
The committee's approval of S. 697 was praised by the previous hitAmerican Chemistry Councilnext hit, the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) and an animal welfare organization.
“We appreciate the continued work of Senators Vitter and Udall to advance a bipartisan proposal that can garner the support necessary to become law and the engagement of Senators Booker, Merkley and Whitehouse to identify a workable path forward,” Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer for the previous hitAmerican Chemistry Councilnext hit said in a statement the council issued.
Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) worked with Udall and Vitter to negotiate the revisions to S. 697 that secured their votes in the committee along with Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.).
“We look forward to continued progress at today's markup and in the weeks to come,” Dooley said.
Called ‘Important Step' in Modernization
NACD President Eric Byer issued a statement that described the committee vote as “an important step in modernizing the way we assess the safety of chemicals”
“After decades of operating under a poorly written law, the vast majority of industry stakeholders agree: TSCA is not working. Members of both parties worked tirelessly to produce language that improves the process for evaluating chemicals without placing unfair burdens on industry,” Byer said.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine issued a statement voicing support for the revised bill.
“The amended bill, approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today, will help replace and reduce animal-based chemical tests and increase the use of human-relevant methods,” the Physicians Committee said. The organization supports emerging cellular and other methods of evaluating toxicity because it argues they are more effective than animal-based approaches.
Progress Made, More Needed, Advocates Say
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; the Center for Environmental Health; and the Natural Resources Defense Council commended both sides of the aisle for making progress in addressing some concerns they had raised about the introduced version of S. 697 and legislation it stemmed from, called the Chemical Safety Improvement Act.
There are clear improvements in the revised S. 697, wrote Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, in an April 27 letter to Boxer and Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
“Due to several provisions that remain, however, and some of the new changes, we cannot support the overall bill at this time. We support further improvement and look forward to working with both Houses of Congress for the strongest possible reform of TSCA,” Igrejas wrote.
Tenacious Efforts of Senators Cited
The committee's vote should lock in place the significant improvements in the bill that resulted from the tenacious efforts of Booker, Merkley and Whitehouse, Daniel Rosenberg, a senior NRDC attorney, said in a statement.
“NRDC will continue to work to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process, including by eliminating the remaining rollbacks from current law, increasing public health protections, and further ensuring that no EPA could use the bill to weaken chemical safety,” he said.
“The committee today unfortunately rejected several amendments that would have addressed many of these concerns,” Rosenberg said.
Rejected Amendments
Amendments that the committee rejected would have taken actions such as:
• allowing states to regulate a chemical until the EPA issued a regulation controlling its risks (under the bill most state regulations are preempted once the agency begins to assess a chemical's risks);
• directing the EPA to assess the safety of asbestos within two years of the law's enactment and to promulgate a rule concerning asbestos within three years;
• requiring the EPA to consider a chemical's storage near sources of drinking water as a factor that could make the chemical a high-priority for safety assessment; and
• authorizing the EPA to coordinate with other federal, state and local agencies to investigate disease clusters and the environmental pollutants that might be associated with them.
Republicans and Democrats voted 10-10 on both the drinking water and disease cluster amendments, with Inhofe casting the tie-breaking vote to reject those amendments.
-
Apr 29, 2015 | Design News
By Tracey Schelmetic
The EPA is responsible for chemical safety issues, and it does so under the auspices of the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which is considered to be sufficient by almost no one. Environmentalists often decry the law as too vague and permissive, while the chemical industry criticizes it as too cumbersome, contrary, and restrictive. Nearly everyone agrees that the TSCA needs an overhaul.
In some cases, individual states have taken it upon themselves to pass preemptive laws that are more restrictive than the TSCA -- California is a standout example -- which has left manufacturers with a patchwork of state and federal regulations to follow. This complexity costs them money and leaves them at risk of non-compliance, and they face the ludicrous task of manufacturing and marketing products with different formulas within the country.
In an effort to update the TSCA, Congress has introduced two bills with similar goals. In the House, the TSCA Modernization Act was introduced by Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill) and Frank Pallone (D-NJ). That bill is currently with the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. In the Senate, the similar but more comprehensive Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was introduced by co-sponsor Senators David Vitter (R-La) and Tom Udall (D-NM).
The Senate bill would alter the TSCA in several notable ways. It establishes a risk-based prioritization process for testing chemicals for safety -- 25 high-priority chemicals in particular -- and strengthens deadlines for evaluation. It also clarifies that cost considerations can’t be considered a factor in determining the safety of a substance, and codifies rules regarding confidential business information claims. The bill explicitly mandates that chemicals cannot be manufactured until the EPA has approved them.
Both the House bill and the Lautenberg Act have attracted broad support from chemical industry interests. The American Chemistry Council has gone on record supporting the legislation, as has the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA).
MORE FROM DESIGN NEWS: The Growing Problem of e-Waste
Dan Newton, senior manager of chemical risk management policy and advocacy for SOCMA, told Design News the organization is confident of the passage of both bills, though there are some parts that SOCMA believes could benefit from clarification.
“There are a few areas we would like to see improved,” he said. “One major area has to do with preemption, and that ties in to the 25 chemicals that are listed as high priority. The House bill avoids that issue by maintaining preemption, as it is under the status quo. We would support some specific workload requirement, but we’re not sure exactly what that looks like.” (Small adjustments would likely be made during the reconciliation of the two bills before final passage.)
Some environmental groups have criticized the Lautenberg bill’s rule that would prevent states from preempting federal regulation even on substances that have yet to be subject to federal regulation. SOCMA says these concerns are overblown, because the scope of the preemption rules are very narrow.
“It’s important to understand that preemption would only occur for a particular use for that chemical,” Newton told us. “It doesn’t mean that all uses would be preempted. It’s a really narrow scope. I think that’s one thing that’s getting lost.”
It’s a common opinion in the chemical industry that a strengthened TSCA, with enhanced authority, will require some changes to state preemption rules. In the long run, Newton said, a better TSCA would provide states with confidence in the federal law and eliminate the need for state preemption.
Not all environmental groups are opposed to the new bills. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has offered its support of the Lautenberg Act, noting that, “After years of denial, many companies are now willing to accept more regulation to secure a predictable system that restores consumer confidence in the safety of their products.”
The EDF has stated that given the sheer number of chemicals today, the challenge of regulating chemicals is far too big for product companies, retailers, or states to handle on their own.
“We need a robust national program, rather than the current piecemeal approach that leaves many without any protections whatsoever,” the group said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Subcommittee to Revise Draft TSCA Reform Bill for May 14 Markup
Apr 28, 2015 | JD Supra Business Advisor
By Mark Duvall
Legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), already introduced in the Senate, has taken a step forward in the House of Representatives as well. On April 14, 2015, the Environment and Energy Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on a discussion draft of the TSCA Modernization Act,[1] which would reform the nearly 40-year-old federal law regulating chemicals.[2] At the hearing, most of the witnesses and Representatives present indicated at least preliminary support for the narrowly-targeted approach of the discussion draft. Mark-up of the discussion draft is tentatively scheduled for May 14, another indication that TSCA legislation is likely to move fairly rapidly this year.
The discussion draft, captioned the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015,” was released by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee, one week prior to the hearing, on April 7. As compared to the sweeping TSCA reform bills before the Senate—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) (Udall-Vitter bill)[3] and the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act (S. 725) (Boxer-Markey bill)[4]—the House discussion draft is narrow in scope. It targets several discrete issues under the current TSCA program, but would leave much of the existing framework in place. Notably, the bill would not require EPA to undertake a prioritized review of existing chemicals within a designated time frame, as would the competing Senate bills.[5]
If enacted as proposed, the TSCA Modernization Act would:
Limit state preemption. The House discussion draft would preempt state regulation of a chemical substance once EPA determines that the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, or once EPA issues a risk management rule. Distinct from the Udall-Vitter bill, the discussion draft would allow states to establish or continue enforcing a chemical regulation if it is identical to a rule issued by EPA.
Authorize EPA to remove chemicals from the Inventory. EPA would be required to periodically collect information in order to remove from the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory chemicals that are no longer manufactured or processed in the U.S. The Udall-Vitter bill would keep these chemicals on the Inventory, but would deem them “inactive.”
Impose a standard for the regulation of articles. The discussion draft would amend TSCA section 6(a) to require that EPA apply prohibitions or restrictions to articles on the basis of a chemical substance or mixture within that article “only to the extent necessary to mitigate the identified risk.” This differs from the Udall-Vitter bill provision on articles, which would allow regulation only where EPA has “evidence of significant exposure to the chemical substance from such article.”
Modify CBI protections. Under the discussion draft, confidential business information (CBI) claims would need to be resubmitted after 10 years. In addition, CBI could be disclosed upon request to health or environmental professionals employed by state agencies and to treating physicians. While the Udall-Vitter bill requires that state employees and treating physicians keep the disclosed information confidential, the House discussion draft does not impose such a requirement.
Remove the limit on fees. The discussion draft would lift the cap on fees for EPA processing of data submitted under section 4 or 5. Specifically, the discussion draft would remove language limiting fees to $2,500, or $100 in the case of a small business concern. It would still ensure “lower fees” for small business concerns. It does not currently have a provision ensuring that the fees collected would go to fund TSCA implementation rather than to the general fund of the Treasury, but Chairman Shimkus said in response to comments that such a provision would be added.
Alter the requirements for issuing a risk management rule. The existing criteria for issuing a risk management rule, which courts have held to require cost-benefit analysis, would be largely preserved. However, the discussion draft would provide that a risk assessment would not consider information on costs and other factors not directly related to health or the environment. Thus, costs and benefits would only be considered in connection with risk management, not risk assessment. The discussion draft would also add the requirement that the risk management rule be cost-effective. Like the Senate bills, current TSCA language requiring that a risk management rule impose the “least burdensome requirements” would be deleted.
Require EPA to consider protection of subpopulations. The discussion draft would prohibit EPA from determining that a chemical substance will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment if it determines that such a risk is posed to one or more “potentially exposed subpopulations,” a term defined to include groups that are at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from chemical exposure.
Chairman Shimkus said that the discussion draft will be revised and republished prior to a Subcommittee markup scheduled for May 14. Changes to the discussion draft will likely reflect feedback provided by EPA Assistant Administrator Jim Jones during his testimony before the Subcommittee. Jones testified that EPA saw several key issues with the discussion draft, including:
The threshold for conducting risk evaluations. The discussion draft would require EPA to find a reasonable basis for concluding that the chemical has a high enough potential to present an unreasonable risk before EPA can evaluate the potential risk posed by that chemical. According to Jones, this creates a “catch-22,” as EPA must make a finding on risk before undertaking the risk evaluation.
The role of costs in promulgating a risk management rule. Jones noted that the discussion draft is ambiguous on how EPA should incorporate cost when issuing a risk management rule; specifically, it is not clear whether the bill would preserve the existing cost-benefit balancing requirements or merely require the consideration of cost.
Unachievable deadlines for EPA action. Jones explained that EPA would be unable to meet the tight deadlines set by the bill. In particular, EPA would be unable to meet the deadline for completing a risk evaluation requested by a manufacturer (6 months after the request) and for issuing a final risk management rule (6 months after publication of the proposed rulemaking).
The omission of language directing fees to EPA. Jones commented that removing the cap on fees would not assist EPA in administering the chemical management program, as the resources would go to the general fund in the Treasury and not to EPA
The Subcommittee will also consider input from the panel of witnesses that testified at the hearing. The American Chemistry Council requested further guidance on manufacturer-initiated risk evaluations and on the degree to which state governments may adopt and enforce regulations identical to EPA.[6] The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates asked that the Subcommittee adopt certain aspects of the Udall-Vitter bill—including industry-drafted risk evaluations and the development of a list of inactive chemicals in commerce.[7] The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers requested an exemption for replacement parts used to service in-use vehicles that were designed prior to the effective date of chemical restrictions.[8] Finally, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of NGOs, raised concerns that cost-effectiveness analysis may limit EPA’s ability to issue risk management rules and asked that the discussion draft eliminate the threshold for risk evaluations.[9]
-
(ACC Mentioned) Geo-Tech Picks NPE To Show Its New Recycling Technology
Apr 29, 2015 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
It wasn’t quite a Sweet 16, or even a quinceañera, but for Geo-Tech Polymers, NPE 2015 was definitely a coming out party.
The company, only 12 years old, exhibited for the first time at NPE. It’s not just the first time at NPE, but it’s the first time anywhere, ever.
And it’s part of a strategy to introduce the company — which was born out of a process to remove precious metals from polycarbonate fighter jet canopies — to a wider audience.
CEO Ronald L. Whaley, who has been with the company for about a year, says his firm is ready to promote to the world its patented process to remove materials such as coatings, inks, labels, paints and contaminants from the surface of a wide variety of recycled plastics.
Through a combination of heat, friction and chemistry, Geo-Tech’s process is so effective that it can turn used food-grade plastics back into food-grade resin feedstock.
But food is only one market Geo-Tech serves, Whaley said. Automotive, consumer products and electronics also are major markets for the company in Waverly, Ohio.
“The show is sort of our coming out party, because for 10 years the company didn’t advertise. People would find it and thought it was a very good company, but now we are delivering our technology. We’re really a technology-based company. We’re focused on cleaning resins,” Whaley said.
A desire to have a more public-facing approach came with the sale of the company a couple of years ago to Wastren Advantage Inc., which historically has been focused on hazardous and nuclear waste remediation, primarily through contracts with the government.
“They just saw this as a great way to expand into a commercial operation,” the CEO said. “So, really, Geo-Tech is almost a reborn company.”
Along with its more public posture, the company also gained some attention last year when it was given a plastics recycling innovation award from the American Chemistry Council, Whaley said.
Geo-Tech started in Westerville, Ohio, north of Columbus, and still operates a facility there. The company’s Waverly site began a couple of years ago with 50,000 square feet and has expanded to 120,000 square feet due to demand.
“We’re adding more equipment to expand our capacity. We’re close to being capacity constrained. And we’re just staying ahead of that by meeting our customer’s needs by adding equipment and employees,” the CEO said.
The company uses a combination of heat, friction and chemicals to clean and wash resins.
“There are chemicals, there’s no solvents. All of our chemicals are approved by the FDA and they are environmentally sensitive. We don’t use anything that is harsh,” Waverly said. “And that’s really where our patented technology comes in because we have patents on our chemical compounds as well as the cleaning technology.”
Plastics typically are cleaned in batches of 15,000 to 20,000 pounds at a time. “I oftentimes describe it as a very, very large washing machine,” Whaley said.
Winning the award and receiving FDA clearance for its food-grade resin recycling, he said, is “third-party affirmation of what we are doing.”
“The demand for clean, recycled material is basically unlimited right now. Most customers I talk to see things changing. Most of them feel threatened one way or another,” Whaley said.
That’s because companies are anticipating pressure to increase use of recycled plastics in their products in the coming years from governments, retailers and consumers, he said. “More and more companies, I believe, are trying to get ahead of the curve,” Whaley said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) IOP Could Be First Town in S.C. to Ban Plastic Bags
Apr 28, 2015 | The Post & Courier
By Brenda Rindge
Residents and visitors to Isle of Palms will be hauling their purchases in paper sacks or reusable bags in 2016, if all goes according to plan.
Council unanimously agreed Tuesday to consider banning single-use plastic bags at its May meeting at the request of residents Rini Kosmos, Kathy Kent, Christy Humphries and Jackie Kilroe.
The ordinance will require two readings and will have a six-month transition period to allow businesses to exhaust their current inventory, so council members discussed having it go into effect in January. Register|Manage Newsletters
The bags not only cause pollution, but they are also a danger to marine life, Kilroe said.
A recent study by The Citadel estimated more than 7 tons of plastics sit by the water or under tidal water around Charleston Harbor at any given time.
The study, “Plastic to Microplastic: Decomposition of Three Common Plastic Polymers in a Salt Marsh Habitat,” found the load is breaking down within four to eight weeks to microplastics that are absorbed by aquatic food like shrimp, and can kill them.
The island would be the first municipality in the state to impose such a ban, said Kosmos, one of the four women who asked Council to consider the ban.
She said several businesses have already expressed their support, but Harris Teeter, the Island’s grocery store, is not yet on board.
“I am unable to pass along an official statement from Harris Teeter because an official statement must come from Harris Teeter directly,” said Kosmos. The chain has given the women 3,000 reusable bags to pass out as part of their effort.
About 200 municipalities across the country have banned the bags, including the Outer Banks in North Carolina, which outlawed them five years ago.
At the time, the American Chemistry Council, which lobbies on behalf of the plastic industry, says paper bags cost significantly more to produce than plastic bags.
The women provided the Council with model ordinances from other municipalities.
Councilman Jimmy Carroll brought a box of reusable bags made out of recycled products that hold up to 30 pounds and are washable.
“I don’t think you’re going to find anyone against (banning the bags),” he said.
City officials, including the attorney, will look over the proposal before the next meeting, Mayor Dick Cronin said.
-
Compromise Senate TSCA Bill Clears EPW Over Some Democrat Objections
Apr 28, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
An amended bipartisan Senate bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), representing a compromise between the bill's authors and three Democrats on the Environment & Public Works Committee, cleared the committee in a 15-5 vote April 28, despite objections from the committee's ranking member, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and other Democrats.
The amendments to S. 697, introduced as a substitute amendment to the original bill, contain a host of changes aimed at addressing concerns raised by Democrats, environmental and public health advocates and EPA. The amendments are the result of negotiations between Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), who introduced the original bill, and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), who are members of the environment committee.
Those revisions include allowing states to be co-enforcers of chemical regulations, modifying the factors for when EPA designates a chemical as a “high priority,” and changing the safety standard to be consistent with existing law while clarifying the term “unreasonable risk” to be consistent with the standard.
Lawmakers also agreed to changes to the threshold for when EPA may regulate substances in “articles” or finished products; qualitative deadlines for EPA to take action on a chemical that fails to meet the safety standard; changes to confidential business information provisions and a mechanism for the public to challenge low priority designations.
But Boxer, who prepared 27 amendments but only called for a vote on three of them during the April 28 markup, vowed to pursue additional changes to the bill ahead of a floor vote, voting against the amended legislation and saying, “If anybody thinks the fight is over, it is just beginning.”
Boxer acknowledged that the amended bill contains a number of improvements over the original legislation, including allowing states to co-enforce toxics laws on the condition that there are no duplicative penalties and clarifications that state air and water laws would not be preempted. But she suggested that she is likely to filibuster the legislation, saying, “I will stand on my feet until I can't stand on my feet anymore” to ensure passage of a stronger reform bill.
Narrowed Preemption
The revised bill would narrow controversial state preemption language limiting state regulation of chemicals to a period beginning when EPA defines the scope of uses of a chemical and ending when the safety determination is made, with an automatic waiver from the preemption in the event that EPA misses a deadline.
But Boxer suggested the provision would still leave a gap of up to five years during which neither new state nor federal rules would apply. Moreover, Boxer took issue with the waiver provisions, saying the conditions upon which a waiver can be granted might still “force states to go to court.”
Boxer supported an amendment offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), that would have adopted language in a House discussion draft floated by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), preempting state rules only after EPA issues a requirement or a rule for a particular substance. The House draft, though not yet introduced, is believed to have bipartisan support and some environmentalists favor its approach on preemption.
Lawmakers defeated the amendment, however. And Whitehouse, who first raised the concern about a “death zone” during which EPA is still reviewing a chemical but states rules are barred, said the revisions to S. 697 “get rid of the death zone” of seven years during which there were no federal or state rules in place.
Furthermore, Whitehouse said, the revised preemption provisions have been aligned to limit the preemption parameters to what is considered to be in line with constitutional doctrines.
And Vitter pointed out that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) recently introduced S. 1014, a cosmetics bill that would preempt new state requirements for a limited time frame of up to a year when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration announces a review of a cosmetic ingredient -- which Vitter called an “extremely analogous approach.”
The Gillibrand amendment was one of five Democratic amendments offered on the compromise bill, all of which failed to get a majority of votes. And five senators voted against the bill: Boxer, Gillibrand, Ed Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).
States' Co-Enforcement
A major criticism of S. 697 from Boxer, some states, environmentalists and other EPW Democrats has been that it would bar states as “co-enforcers” of TSCA and create a gap of up to seven years in which neither state nor EPA regulations would be in effect on a high priority chemical because the high priority designation would trigger preemption even before the agency takes any regulatory action.
The amendments seek to address those issues, making it clear that states may co-enforce and that only new state programs would be preempted for high-priority chemicals, and only for a limited window. Additionally, the changes say that states may apply for waivers and those must be granted if the requirement does not violate federal law, unduly burden interstate commerce and is based on peer-reviewed science. The new provisions seek to shed light on the waiver process, which currently is in TSCA but has been rarely used given that EPA has taken few final actions on existing chemicals under the current law.
On “articles,” the amended bill removes language some said would "hamstring" EPA's ability to regulate chemicals in articles by requiring the agency to prove that consumers face "significant exposure" to harmful substances in articles before the agency could regulate them. Instead, the new language says that regulatory actions must address the identified risk of the substance from the article determined necessary to meet the safety standard.
But the revisions have not won support from several environmental groups, including Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, whichcontinue to oppose the legislation. “Today's action marks a disgraceful setback to efforts to protect the environment and human health from the thousands of toxic substances that pollute our air, drinking water, lakes and streams, wildlife, thousands of consumer products -- and even the blood of newborn American babies,” EWG said in an April 28 statement. However, Environmental Defense Fund, which has voiced strong support for the S. 697 bill since its introduction, said in an April 28 statement that it represents a “strong, bipartisan compromise,” and Natural Resources Defense Council called the bill “an important step forward” though the group said it would continue to push for additional improvements.
-
Could TSCA Deal Signal a Senate Breakthrough?
Apr 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
Senators who backed Tuesday’s delicate bipartisan compromise in the Environment and Public Works Committee on the regulation of dangerous chemicals hailed the breakthrough as a model for other gridlocked issues.
The 15-5 vote to make the first significant update to the Toxic Substances Control Act since the law was first implemented in 1976 made a strong statement considering it happened in a panel that has often been a forum for partisan firebrands and sharp differences on environmental law over the past decade.
And in fact, shortly after approving the TSCA bill, the panel gave 11-9 party-line approval to a Republican “secret science” bill requiring EPA to base regulations on publicly available scientific data, a measure largely seen as political statement about the EPA.
EPW Chairman Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) — who hopes to move the TSCA bill to the floor soon — also said he plans to swiftly take up a bill to prevent EPA from expanding the definition of waters the agency can regulate.
Still, some committee members hope the wildly complex TSCA deal could create some momentum behind the EPW panel’s upcoming debate over major infrastructure legislation and the full Senate’s efforts over heavy topics such as immigration, trade and the Iran nuclear talks.
“If we come together as Democrats and Republicans on an issue that’s been languishing for so long and an issue that creates great passions on both sides, we can do a lot of good in other areas too as a Congress,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said. “My hope is that our leaders will say, ‘Hmm, look at what the Environment and Public Works Committee has done. We can follow their example.’”
Carper joined three other committee Democrats — Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) — and all 11 Republicans in supporting the bill offered by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) that would expand and cement EPA’s authority over dangerous chemicals.
The TSCA billl had some unique circumstances helping it. The chemical industry backed the effort to update the existing law, offering crucial support and providing cover for even conservative Republicans to get behind the expansion of EPA’s regulatory oversight.
“I’m not sure that’s easy to replicate in a lot of other environmental issues at least,” said Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, the only major environmental organization to back the TSCA deal.
The TSCA is also a legacy issue for the late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who was pushing a compromise just two weeks before he died in 2013 and who the current version is named after.
The compromise approved by the panel is significantly different than the one Lautenberg and Vitter offered two years ago, and it was those changes that attracted the support of several liberals on the EPW panel and in the broader Senate.
“As a new senator with the experience I’ve had in working in partnership and trying to approve something, it has been a very good one and I’m very encouraged by the process,” said Booker, who announced his support for TSCA after changes were made Monday.
Vitter and Udall had secured the backing of 10 Democrats before convincing panel liberals Booker, Merkley and Whitehouse to sign on to the compromise, which was designed to address their objections over how the EPA’s authority would preempt state actions on high-priority toxic chemicals.
“Major environmental laws don’t get passed or updated without bipartisan support, and certainly we have that,” Inhofe said in opening today’s vote on the TSCA bill.
That’s an increasingly rare occurrence on Capitol Hill, and especially in the EPW hearing room these days.
More than a decade ago, the EPW panel included moderate Republicans like former Rhode Island Republican John Chafee, and his son Lincoln Chafee later was a key swing vote on the committee in blocking a 2005 GOP attempt to rewrite clean air laws. Sen. Jim Jeffords in 2001 switched parties to become an independent and handed Democrats the Senate majority after he was promised chairmanship of the committee.
But the biggest Senate critic of the bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), led a mini-revolt Tuesday along with a handful of dissenting Democrats. She aggressively lamented the TSCA bill’s deficiencies, as well as the process leading up to Tuesday’s vote.
“Did we make the bill better? Yes. Am I glad that we followed this procedure on this particular bill? Yes. Do I think it’s a model? No,” Boxer told reporters after the markup. “You shouldn’t have to have secret negotiations over a bill that deals with protecting our people, and you shouldn’t have a series of amendment votes that are partisan in protecting people from deadly chemicals.”
On mostly party-line votes, the panel rejected a series of amendments from Boxer and other Democrats that would have eliminated completely measures that give EPA power to preempt the states’ toxic controls, singled out the need to address asbestos and other changes that Republicans said would undermine the compromise deal.
“It’s a continuation of what I’ve seen since the Republican Party has turned against the environment,” Boxer said.
But she also took credit for the changes that were filed to the bill Monday that were negotiated among Vitter, Udall, Whitehouse, Booker and Merkley.
“Working across party lines is always a good thing and you have to to get anything done … and that’s why I told Booker, Merkley and Whitehouse to definitely negotiate and we got a better bill,” she said. “But those kind of heroic efforts should not have to be made on simple things like protecting the people from cancer from chemicals.”
Boxer said she stepped away from the negotiations after direct talks involving her, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Vitter and Udall reached a dead end.
“We had reached the limit where we couldn’t get anywhere. And I realized that I wasn’t the best person and neither was Ben at this point,” she said. “You have to be willing to take yourself out at the right moment and trust other people, and it worked.”
At the bill’s markup, Vitter made a point to say Boxer was not in the room when the deal was struck.
The reason Republicans shot down the amendments from her and other Democrats “is not because we’re not open minded, it’s because we are and have been open minded,” the Louisiana Republican said.
“Sen. Boxer was not an active part of that process. That’s her right, but that’s what’s been going on for months.”
-
40 Years And 1000s Of Untested Chemicals Later – Will Congress Finally Act?
Apr 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sarah Vogel
Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law.
Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.”
Their testimony made the problem clear: Thousands of chemicals are in use in everyday household products and nobody knows if they are safe. Even dangerous chemicals remain unregulated.
News stories predicted that action was “already underway” to reform the law, also known as TSCA.
The year was 1994. And Congress couldn’t get its act together to fix America’s main chemical law. Nothing would change.
The law that governs most chemicals in commerce was originally passed in 1976. It wasn’t very strong to begin with and for each year that passed, it became increasingly out of date.
It’s now so badly broken that only a small fraction of the chemicals in cleaning products, clothing, furniture and most other products have ever been reviewed for safety.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is virtually powerless to restrict even known dangers such as lead and formaldehyde. 10,000 new chemicals since 1994
Indeed, since the last time Congress tried to fix this law in 1994, things have gotten bad. More than 10,000 additional chemicals have gone on the market with little review of their safety, and only a handful of chemicals already in use have been examined.
States have tried to step in, but since TSCA passed they have only managed to restrict limited uses of about 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals.
The fatal blow for sufficient regulation came in 1991, when EPA’s decade-long attempt to ban asbestos was thrown out by a federal court. Since then, EPA has never tried again to use TSCA to regulate a chemical.
It took more than a decade for legislation to be introduced again. There were bills in 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011, but none even made it to the House or Senate floor. They just didn’t have the bi-partisan support necessary to pass. Millions of babies were exposed
Unfortunately, this failure to act has real, human consequences.
Chemicals in common use are increasingly being linked to diseases such as certain childhood cancers, asthma and diabetes that are on the rise in the American population. Research shows that environmental factors, including chemical exposures, explain a significant part of these trends.
Since 1994, 80 million babies have been born, many or all of whom have come into the world carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies.
This sad history may be about to change.
A strong, bipartisan bill introduced in March that already has 22 cosponsors split evenly among the parties is moving forward after a key Senate committee overwhelmingly approved the legislation this week. The next step is consideration by the full Senate. New, bipartisan bill brings hope
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act requires all new and existing chemicals be reviewed for safety, establishes new funding for EPA through user fees, and gives EPA new authority to require testing.
Most importantly, it sets us on a course toward a system that demands safety as a condition for market access, ending the laissez-faire approach we’ve had for 40 years.
There is a real cost to inaction. A baby girl born during those 1994 hearings would be old enough to have her own child today.
Every year Congress fails to fix our broken chemical law is another year when millions of Americans are unnecessarily exposed to toxic or untested chemicals.
-
EU Seeks Comments on Requests for Exemptions to Hazardous Substance Rules
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Commission is calling for comments through June 19 on six requests for exemptions from the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS Directive, 2011/65/EU), which bans a number of harmful chemicals from electrical and electronic equipment sold in the bloc.
The exemption requests, published April 24, concern five specialized uses of lead in compressors, optical equipment, sensors, high voltage cables and lighting equipment. The sixth exemption request is for both lead and cadmium in optical filters.
The EU RoHS Directive bans lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium and polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers from electrical and electronic goods above a threshold of 0.1 percent by weight. It also bans cadmium above a threshold of 0.01 percent.
Companies that manufacture products containing the substances can apply for an exemption if there is no viable alternative. Calls for public input on exemption requests are published irregularly, with two consultations to four consultations held annually since 2010.
If granted, the exemptions will be added either to Annex III of RoHS, which carries general exemptions, or Annex IV, which features exemptions specific to medical equipment.
Approved exemptions are valid for up to five years, or up to seven years for medical equipment.
-
Experts Discuss Testing Approaches for Skin Sensitisation
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A workshop in Helsinki has heard of six different integrated approaches to testing and assessment (Iata) for skin sensitisation using new non-animal test methods. Although three test methods have been almost finalised for replacing the standard animal test, a key issue now is how to proceed to achieve regulatory acceptance.
More than 40 experts from EU regulatory bodies, member states, NGOs and industry attended the event, hosted by Echa and organised by Cefic’s Long-range Research Initiative, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) and Cosmetics Europe.
The most widely used animal test for skin sensitisation is the local lymph node assay (LLNA), which has set the standard for determining whether chemicals are sensitisers and, if so, their potency. Non-animal alternatives are the OECD's recently adopted direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) TG 442c and KeratinoSens test OECD TG 442d (CW 29 January 2015).
A third test is the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) which has been validated by the EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL Ecvam) (CW 4 March 2015). This is yet to be adopted by the OECD.
But which of these tests to apply to which particular substance, in what sequence and how to treat the results to achieve an acceptable REACH submission has yet to be addressed.
The six Iata case studies presented at the workshop took different approaches: a two-out-of-three weight-of-evidence approach was outlined by Robert Landsiedel of BASF;a sequential testing strategy by Emiel Rorije of the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM);a machine learning approach using an artificial neural network by Takao Ashikaga of the Japanese cosmetics company Shiseido; andan approach based on a Bayesian network by Joanna Jowarska of Proctor & Gamble.
Some of these methods often did not consider the potency of sensitisers identified and were highly complex. The workshop's chairman, David Basketter of consultancy DABMEB, said some of the strategies, such as the BASF's and the RIVM's, were "quite similar" and "could evolve towards a single decision tree”.
Cefic-LRI programme manager Bruno Hubesch told Chemical Watch “We are not going to get a silver bullet today, but we need a single pragmatic decision tree. All these tests are going to also be used by SMEs … If the system is too complex, and they don’t understand it, they are going to say ‘Oh well, I am going to stick with the animal assay’.”
Mr Hubesch also said companies will be looking at the costs of in vitro testing, and that these may exceed those of animal alternatives. Companies also need to be able to decide which tests to perform by spring 2016 to allow enough time for them to be conducted before the REACH 2018 registration deadline.
The breakout sessions at the workshop came to the overall conclusion that although there was substantial progress on testing, an in vitro skin sensitisation strategy has not yet been fully developed.
Echa's Laura Rossi told the workshop there were encouraging trends in the use of adaptations (such as read-across and weight-of-evidence) and alternatives to animal testing in the submission of REACH dossiers. Echa’s most recent report on non-animal testing, published last year (CW 3 June 2014), found that 54 in vitro studies had been submitted, whereas the previous report, two-years before, only identified four. For dossiers submitted up to March this year the total is around 90, Ms Rossi said, although many have not been evaluated. She also promised new Echa guidance on the use of non-animal approaches by summer 2016.
Silvia Casati of EURL Ecvam warned of disharmony in the reporting, evaluation and application of Iatas. She said they should be based on six principles: a defined endpoint;a defined purpose;a described rationale;the description of information sources;how the information is integrated to derive the final assessment; anda description of the uncertainties.
She is leading the preparation of new OECD guidance on skin sensitisation which will consider 12 Iatas proposed for different purposes, including hazard identification, potency categorisation and potency prediction. It is due for completion in June this year.
Dirk Petersohn of Henkel outlined Cosmetics Europe’s research programme to develop a non-animal skin sensitisation assessment method that achieves regulatory acceptance. The cosmetics industry faces particular challenges in testing important product ingredients such as hair dyes, UV filters, preservatives and natural extracts. The programme has prioritised eight test methods and set about collecting data on more than 100 chemicals. Its next step is to evaluate existing test strategies and eventually develop new ones.
-
House Bill Would Fund PHMSA at $227M For FY 2016; Obama Requested $62M More
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would be funded at $227 million for fiscal year 2016 under a House appropriations bill released April 28, roughly $62 million below the White House's budget request.
The bill by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development would fund PHMSA's hazardous materials safety program at $60.5 million, less than the White House-requested $64 million, and fund the pipeline safety program at $145.9 million, significantly less than the president's requested $175 million.
Both the House and the White House proposed to fund $19.5 million of the respective pipeline safety total funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Overall, the bill would boost the agency's funding by $6.9 million over FY 2015 enacted levels to address safety issues, including those associated with energy transportation.
It also includes some key victories for the hazardous materials industry, such as incorporating a policy rider to alter the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) Hazardous Materials Safety Permit Program permit denial process.
The draft bill would provide $17.2 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Transportation Department. That is a $1 billion reduction from enacted levels for FY 2015 and $6.8 billion below the president's request.
Increased Funds for Safety
PHMSA's funding increase—although not meeting President Barack Obama's request—is still unique given the proposed Transportation Department's $1 billion drop in funding from FY 2015 and the overall funding climate in Washington.
The House proposed to boost funding for PHMSA's hazardous materials safety program to $60.5 million from $52 million. It also would leave the agency's pipeline safety program funding at roughly the same level, $145.9 million, with $19.5 million of that coming from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
The bill also would fund the emergency response grants at roughly $28.3 million for fiscal year 2016, with up to 4 percent of that authorized to pay for administrative costs.
In a significant win for the hazardous materials industry, the House bill doesn't include an Obama administration-proposed fee for processing PHMSA special permits and approvals. The White House estimated that this fee would generate $12 million that could go toward funding the hazmat safety program (22 DEN B-8, 2/3/15).
The bill would incorporate under Section 133 a policy rider that would require FMCSA to consider documents provided by the carrier when considering whether to deny a Hazardous Materials Safety Program permit due to the carrier's “out-of-service” rate.
Out-of-Service Rate
The out-of-service rate uses crash rates and vehicle, hazardous material and driver violation rates and, based on the rate, the agency determines whether a carrier's new permit or permit renewal application should be approved or denied. However, the hazmat industry has said carriers don't have equal opportunities to be inspected and that not all violations affecting this rate are equal.
“We could be at the same ‘unsafe' rate, but because your permit expires today you're put out of business, and I continue to operate,” Cynthia Hilton, executive vice president of the Institute of Makers of Explosives, told Bloomberg BNA.
This rider, which was also included in the FY 2015 spending package, ensures that carriers have an opportunity to lay out corrective actions they have taken or plan to take (238 DEN A-24, 12/11/14).
Has Benefitted Hazmat Industry
The rider has already benefited the hazmat industry, Hilton said. The hazmat safety program affects roughly 1,300 carriers, she said, and due to this rider, roughly one permit holder per week isn't automatically denied a permit related to its out-of-service rate. The American Trucking Associations declined to comment on this rider.
The Association of Oil Pipe Lines declined to comment for this article. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's message requesting comment.
-
Green Groups Push Obama On Arctic Drilling
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
More than a dozen conservation and environmental groups are pushing President Obama to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
The groups took out an advertisement in USA Today on Tuesday saying drilling in the Arctic is "not worth the risk" of negatively affecting the climate or creating an oil spill in the ocean.
The ad comes as Shell looks to begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska.
Environmental groups asked the Securities and Exchange Commission this week to investigate whether Shell has done enough to explain the risks associated with drilling there.
Earlier this year, the Interior Department announced a plan to allow drilling in three areas off the coast of Alaska while banning it elsewhere. Republicans have said the plan is too restrictive and called for expanded drilling.
In a blog post, National Resources Defense Council's Beyond Oil director Franz Matzner wrote that drilling in the Arctic would "essentially assume a total failure to address climate change" and be "a reversal of today's clean energy economy." The NRDC was among the groups on the USA Today ad.
"This is a fundamentally dangerous course to set that would require ignoring or contradicting ... stated U.S. energy policy, our international climate commitments, and the promise of the clean energy economy and if embraced would rock our planet to its core by catastrophic, avoidable climate disruption," Matzner wrote.
-
Shell, Greenpeace Spar Over Arctic Drilling Safety Zones
Apr 29, 2015 | AP (in The New York Times)
Attorneys for Royal Dutch Shell PLC presented testimony to a federal court judge Tuesday that the company needs safety zones around its Arctic drill fleet to prevent Greenpeace USA activists from endangering company workers and themselves.
An attorney for Greenpeace told U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason that Shell's request would usurp the maritime authority Congress gave to the Coast Guard and harm free speech rights of Greenpeace activists, who have the right to approach Shell vessels to draw attention to harmful drilling in the Arctic.
Judge Gleason after a seven-hour hearing said will consider additional briefs before deciding whether to grant Shell's request for an injunction banning Greenpeace from approaching Shell's Arctic fleet through Oct. 31, which covers the 2015 drilling season. A ruling could come within a week.
Shell is seeking federal approval to use two drill vessels for exploratory drilling this summer on federal leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast. A Shell manager testified Shell has spent upward of $7 billion on its Arctic project.
Arctic drilling is strongly opposed by conservation groups, including Greenpeace, that say polar regions are being hammered by climate warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet and would be severely harmed by industrial development. The groups say oil companies have not demonstrated the ability to clean up a spill under the best of circumstances, much less in remote, cold waters far from infrastructure such as ports and Coast Guard bases.
An injunction would give Shell a tool to take action against protesters in civil court rather than criminal court.
Attorney Jeffery Leppo told Judge Gleason the company could seek contempt citations for illegal, direct actions taken my Greenpeace, such as boarding vessels in transit.
Activists from Greenpeace International this month boarded a heavy lift ship carrying the Polar Pioneer, a vessel without propulsion that Shell plans to use this summer in the Chukchi Sea, as it crossed the Pacific from Malaysia to a staging area in Washington state. Greenpeace past actions and statements are a concern for future actions, he said.
"These aren't empty threats and puffery," he said.
Shell is seeking a 1,000-meter safety zone around most of its fleet and 1,500 meters around drill vessels.
David George, Shell's Alaska maritime assurance manager, said that much space is needed to safely operate large vessels that don't maneuver well. The Noble Discover is 572 feet long. The Polar Pioneer, a Transocean Ltd. semi-submersible drilling unit, is 300-by-400 feet and taller than the Statue of Liberty.
Towing adds another element that limits maneuverability, George said, and Greenpeace vessels operating close by would be a distraction to crews focusing on safety.
Greenpeace Arctic campaigner Mary Sweeters testified that halting Shell drilling is a top priority for her organization and that peaceful protest that breaks trespass or other laws are a tool used to draw attention to the group's causes. Images of protests shared on social media are powerful tools, she said, and Shell's injunction request would hamper the Greenpeace mission.
"It would make our work very difficult, probably close to impossible," she said.
Shell's proposed safety zones exceed the 500-meter limit that can be granted by the Coast Guard would seriously impinge on the organizations free speech rights, said attorney Matthew Pawa. Shell presented no expert testimony that the larger safety zones are needed, he said.
"All you've got is one guy from Shell who says, 'Trust me. I know better than the Coast Guard,'" Pawa said.
-
EU Envoy Says Europe Would Like Greater Possibilities for Energy Exports From U.S.
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rossella Brevetti
The European Union would “very much like to see greater possibilities for the export of oil and gas” from the U.S. to Europe, EU Ambassador to the U.S. David O'Sullivan said.
“It would be very good to have an energy chapter” in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), he said April 28. The U.S. and EU have said they want to make the TTIP a 21st Century, gold standard trade and investment pact, he said. “It's difficult to imagine not addressing such a critical issue as energy in that context,” he added.
The ninth round of TTIP talks wrapped up April 24 in New York. At a press conference capping conclusion of the round, EU chief negotiator Ignacio Garcia Bercero said TTIP negotiating teams for the first time engaged extensively on elements that could be the subject of specific energy and raw materials provisions in the agreement. No decision has been made about whether a dedicated chapter on energy and raw materials should be included in the TTIP, Bercero said (80 DEN A-17, 4/27/15).
O'Sullivan, who spoke at a meeting with Bloomberg reporters and editors, said there is very strong political will in Europe to complete the TTIP. While anti-TTIP forces in Europe mobilized quickly and effectively, “I think we have caught up,” he said.
O'Sullivan said that TTIP supporters had “ turned a corner on many of the issues.” Public opinion is gradually realizing that much of the dire warnings “frankly had no foundation,” he said. “We want a balanced, ambitious agreement which fully respects the high standards of consumer, environment, labor protection that we have on both sides of the Atlantic,” he said.
The European side has stepped up transparency and made its negotiating mandates and texts public, he said. “We have nothing to hide at the end of the day,” he said.
The sooner the U.S. completes action on trade promotion authority (TPA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the sooner the EU and U.S. can move to the end-game of TTIP talks, he said. “A successful TPP will also be a benefit to us,” he said. TPA renewal legislation, currently pending in the U.S. Congress, would guarantee a straight up or down vote on legislation implementing trade agreements.
“We would wish to conclude this agreement by the end of the Obama administration,” O'Sullivan said. If the time-frame slips because TPP and TPA have taken too long, “it just goes into the next administration,” O'Sullivan said. He said that completion by 2017 or 2018 would be within a “reasonable range” for concluding a major free trade deal. “We would prefer to do it sooner but that's not entirely under our control,” he said.
The ambassador also defended a European Commission legislative proposal that would permit individual EU member states to bar the import and use of genetically modified crops. The draft measure will take at least two years to consider, he said. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has criticized the proposal (78 DEN A-14, 4/23/15).
The draft legislation has been criticized by those who think that the EU should approve GMOs much more quickly and been criticized by those who think the EU should take a much more restrictive view, O'Sullivan said. “So this may indicate that perhaps the commission proposal is somewhere close to the center of gravity,” he said.
-
Murkowski Files Oil Export Amendment To Senate Bill on Iranian Nuclear Deal
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) filed an amendment April 28 that would repeal the U.S. crude oil export ban, Robert Dillon, a spokesman for the senator, told reporters.
The amendment, filed to legislation being considered on the Senate floor related to Iran's nuclear program, would repeal the crude oil export ban after the Energy Department completes a report on Iranian oil exports assessing the access Iranian and U.S. crude has to the global market, according to the amendment's text.
The amendment would require the DOE to complete the report within 60 days of passage of the amendment and the ban to be lifted 30 days after that, Dillon said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Murkowski told reporters April 28 that she had yet to decide whether she would seek a vote on the amendment to H.R. 1191.
“Whether or not we actually push for a vote on this amendment, we are still kind of working all that through,” Murkowski said. “But there are clearly areas of debate and discussion you are going to see.”
The amendment comes as Murkowski, one of the Senate's leading advocates for lifting the 1970s-era trade prohibition, has sought to link lifting the export ban and allowing the export of Iranian oil, arguing domestic oil producers will be hurt if the law isn't changed.
“If we lift the current sanctions on Iran while keeping in place our own domestic sanctions on crude oil exports, America's ability to increase its domestic energy security and that of our allies will suffer,” Murkowski said during a hearing earlier this month.
700,000 Barrels a Day
According to the Energy Information Administration, Iranian oil production could reach 700,000 barrels per day by the end of 2016 and reduce international crude oil prices between $5 and $15 a barrel if allowed onto the world market.
Proponents of lifting the prohibition, which include major oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and independent producers such as Dallas-based Pioneer Natural Resources Co., argue that the export ban is an anachronism of the 1970s that doesn't make sense now that advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led U.S. oil production to rise to near-record levels.
Opponents of changing the law, including independent refiners, such as Delta Air Lines's refining subsidiary Monroe Energy LLC, argue that such a move would raise domestic oil prices and render them unable to compete with refineries overseas.
Murkowski said earlier this month she intends to introduce legislation that would repeal the ban, put in place in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo. But she said in an interview April 28 she had yet to decide whether she would include it in broad energy legislation she is crafting or when it might be released.
-
Murkowski Plans Iran Bill Amendment To End Crude Export Ban
Apr 28, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski promised today to offer an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill that could ultimately lift the U.S. ban on crude exports.
The Alaska Republican told reporters she would introduce language that would require the Energy Department to compare and contrast U.S. and Iran crude exports within 60 days of the bill's enactment. A month after that report is submitted to Congress, the U.S. ban on crude exports would be lifted, although President Obama's authority to limit exports in certain cases to meet domestic needs would remain intact.
At issue for Murkowski is letting Iran re-enter the global crude market and export a million barrels per day.
"What terrorist group might they be funding with those resources?" Murkowski said. "I've got concerns about that."
Obama called for "creative negotiations" this month to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. While the Iranian negotiations may have little to do with domestic energy policy, some Republican lawmakers and conservative groups are hoping to turn the international negotiations into a messaging tool to build support for lifting the crude export ban.
Murkowski joined her Republican colleagues at a hearing earlier this month in linking the international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program to the U.S. energy sector, questioning why Iran would be allowed to export while U.S. producers remain hamstrung by the 1970s-era ban on exporting crude (E&E Daily, April 17).
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade and co-sponsor of a bill to lift the export ban, tied the Iran deal to U.S. crude oil policy at a separate hearing earlier this month. That same day, the Heritage Foundation's David Kreutzer wrote a column calling out Keystone XL pipeline opponents for not opposing the Iran deal for its potential environmental impacts (Greenwire, April 14).
Murkowski today pointed to Energy Information Administration chief Adam Sieminski's comments at a Senate hearing earlier this month that Iran could earn roughly $25 billion annually if current Brent crude oil prices hold steady at about $60 per barrel. Iran, EIA said, could begin exporting about 700,000 barrels of oil per day once the sanctions are lifted and eventually ramp its daily production up to 1 million barrels per day.
But some analysts have said Iran's foray into the global crude market is unlikely even if a nuclear deal can be reached (EnergyWire, April 22).
Murkowski said she's not sure whether she will push for a vote on the amendment but said it begins a critical conversation.
"Whether or not we actually push for a vote on this amendment, we're still kind of working that through," she said. "I think there are clearly areas of debate and discussion you're going to see with this agreement, and appropriately so."
-
California Drought Highlights Questions On Using UIC Wells For Gas Water
Apr 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
California’s ongoing drought and fears of future water shortages due to climate change and other factors highlights questions over whether EPA and other regulators might restrict the use of underground injection control (UIC) wells for oil and gas wastewater disposal due to fears the practice could take away much-needed water resources.
The concerns stem from the fact that disposal to UIC wells -- where water remains stored permanently underground and cannot be re-used -- has become a major method for managing the high volumes of wastewater generated from hydraulic fracturing, though many companies have increasingly moved toward recycling of “gray water” to be re-used in fracking.
“Where the federal government is on water management is a tougher and tougher situation with more and more losers,” one industry source says, noting that EPA’s authority even under the UIC program is somewhat limited for Class II wells, the regulatory category covering oil and gas wastewater disposal, because they are largely governed by delegated states.
But one environmentalist says the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which houses the UIC permitting program, is a “broadly written law.” That source also suggests that a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report urging EPA to review emerging risks related to Class II program safeguards and its ability to enforce those safeguards could provide impetus for increased agency oversight of the program with regard to water management. “I would hope EPA would respond and revisit those regulations.”
Generally, UIC permit writers -- which in most oil and gas states are state agencies -- have the ability to reject permit applications based on siting concerns, the industry source says, but if regulators were to take that step because of water use concerns, they would need to have the infrastructure in place to manage the volume of wastewater generated from the sector.
The industry source points out that in EPA’s March 31 Clean Water Act pretreatment proposal for shale oil and gas wastewater, which would set a zero discharge standard for municipal treatment plants, the agency notes that underground injection is one of the main disposal methods of the shale gas industry.
“It’s kind of an endorsement of the UIC program,” the source says, which is understandable given that it ensures contaminated water stays contained, but “may be a little bit of a blind spot for EPA” in that it does not address water management concerns.
A second environmentalist says that a major problem is that there is “no one agency that looks at water depletion and mitigation impacts” from recycling wastewater as opposed to underground injection, saying that EPA’s forthcoming massive study of fracking and drinking water should examine this issue.
In addition to water management concerns about using UIC wells for gas wastewater disposal, a series of high profile earthquakes linked to UIC wells in Ohio and other states has caused environmentalists to raise concerns about the reliance on UIC wells to manage the sector’s wastes.
California Rulemaking
In California, state Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists are criticizing proposed emergency regulations by state oil and gas officials aimed at bringing the state into compliance with federal UIC rules, citing in part the state’s drought conditions in pressing for the immediate closure of more than 2,000 wells that are allegedly illegally permitted to inject into aquifers that may serve as drinking water sources.
A 2014 GAO report said EPA has not been adequately undertaking annual on-site UIC compliance evaluations of state programs for Class II permits for oil and gas activities -- a failure the environmentalists say has allowed some states to skirt the SDWA and the relevant Class II UIC rules for oil and gas operations.
Earlier this month, California’s Department of Conservation (DOC) announced an emergency rulemaking to regulate underground injection related to oil and natural gas production, which would put in place “concrete steps and deadlines agreed to” by U.S. EPA for DOC’s Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources and the Water Resources Control Board to follow in order to comply with the federal requirements.
The rulemaking will establish a schedule for the agencies to “eliminate all injection into non-exempt aquifers and ensure California oil and gas activities are compliant with” the federal SDWA.
The department may approve the regulations without changes this month, despite the objections from environmentalists and Democratic state lawmakers, so that they take effect April 30, officials indicate, but are still reviewing comments.
EPA in 2014 launched a review in conjunction with California of the state’s delegated UIC permitting program for Class II wells, focusing the evaluation on instances where the state may have allowed injection fluids to be injected into aquifers housing underground sources of drinking water.
Under the emergency regulations, the deadline to stop injecting into aquifers that do not naturally contain oil reservoirs and with water quality of less than 3,000 milligrams per liter/total dissolved solids (TDS) is Oct. 15, 2015, or sooner if it appears that water supplies are possibly threatened, according to DOC.
Injection into all other non-exempt aquifers with water quality of less than 10,000 TDS must cease by Feb. 15, 2017. Injection into 11 other specified aquifers with unclear exemption status must cease by Dec. 31, 2016, if EPA determines they should remain exempt, DOC says.
“Even with those deadlines, there is no guarantee that injection will stop,” a third environmentalist says. “Needless to say, it is inappropriate and inexcusable for our state, in the midst of this historic drought, to be allowing the continued contamination of our groundwater resources in clear violation of the law,” that source adds. And the first environmentalist, noting that even some Eastern states have experienced some drought conditions in recent years, said that industry has begun recycling greater volumes of water for re-use in hydraulic fracturing operations as opposed to UIC injection.
-
Improving North American Energy Integration, Storage, Distribution Focus of Senate Hearing
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Improved North American energy integration, as well as modernized energy storage and distribution infrastructure, were the focus of a Senate hearing on the White House Quadrennial Energy Review.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz April 28 outlined the Obama administration's Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), released April 21, during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.
The review recommends more than $15 billion in new spending programs and tax credits to invest in energy transmission, storage and distribution infrastructure, including accelerating pipeline replacement and maintenance of natural gas distribution systems (77 DEN A-13, 4/22/15).
“We now have a product that I believe could help us as our administration conferences with both chambers on both sides of the aisle,” Moniz said. “Now that we have what we hope to be a road map for much of our discussion, we want to engage in that discussion in both chambers.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the committee, responded that she'd like to incorporate some of the energy infrastructure proposals in a broader energy policy bill she plans to introduce this summer.
“As you know, we're looking to build an energy reform bill that is broader and comprehensive in scope. Many of the proposals that you are outlining in the QER I think we can look to. I know that, on the House side, they are doing the same,” she said. “But we're going to need your leadership on that.”
“We are totally prepared for that and are eager to engage in those discussions,” Moniz said.
North American Energy Integration
The U.S. is planning to work more closely with Canada and Mexico to improve North American energy integration, Moniz said.
“We need to start a strong dialogue” with Canada and Mexico, Moniz said. “It's been nowhere near as robust as it should be.”
Murkowski asked about the status of the proposed oil swap between the U.S. and Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) in Mexico (76 DEN A-20, 4/21/15).
Moniz said that, while he leads the discussion on behalf of the Obama administration, he doesn't make the final decision on the oil swap, wherein the U.S. would trade light oil for Mexico's crude oil.
First Secretary's Visit to Canada in Decade
In terms of U.S. work with Canada, Moniz said that, when he traveled there recently, it was the first time the secretary of the Department of Energy had visited Canada in over a decade.
Murkowski called the dearth of recent DOE secretary visits to Canada “stunning.”
Moniz said that the U.S., Canada and Mexico plan to have at least annual trilateral energy meetings.
He said Mexico and the U.S. recently set up a joint task force, and he chairs the U.S. side. He is meeting with the energy and environment ministers of Mexico in May.
Moniz said the QER is really picking up the pace of the dialogue with Mexico.
“I want to make some progress in the next year and a half on this [U.S./Mexico task force],” he said. “The Mexican delegation also raised a desire to work closely together on methane hydrates. We're getting an agenda mapped out, and now the issue is to go forward.”
Electricity Storage
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) asked Moniz about his views on the potential of power storage.
“What do you see as DOE's role in accelerating this technology sector? It could really change the way we think about energy, change our generation needs, really facilitate time shifting and move us forward to a very different kind of grid from what we've experienced in the past,” Heinrich said.
Moniz called power storage “a game changer.”
“Costs are coming down across the board. Utility-scale storage, distributed storage and transportation systems/batteries—we are working on all of those,” he said.
Moniz said the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is working on electricity storage.
“We are also including storage in our system-modeling activities to see exactly how storage can help us achieve our goals in ways that might otherwise be much more complicated,” he said.
-
White House Threatens to Veto $35.4 Billion House Energy, Water Appropriations Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Obama administration said April 28 it would veto the House's $35.4 billion energy and water appropriations bill, saying the spending legislation “drastically underfunds critical investments” in clean energy and contains “highly problematic ideological riders” related to the Clean Water Act and other issues.
The bill (H.R. 2028), which could be brought to the House floor as soon as April 29, would cut funding for renewable energy research within the Energy Department, while increasing funding for fossil fuel and nuclear energy programs, and would provide funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which is opposed by the White House, the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy.
“The bill drastically underfunds critical investments that develop American energy sources to build a clean and secure energy future; develop and commercialize the emerging technologies that create high-quality jobs and enhance the Nation's economic competitiveness; and improve resilience against current and ongoing climate impacts that threaten our economy, public health, and natural resources,” the statement said. “As a result, it would put at risk U.S. competitiveness in new markets for clean energy industries such as advanced vehicles, advanced manufacturing, energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and domestic renewable energy such as wind, solar, and biomass.”
Overall, H.R. 2028 would appropriate $29 billion for the Energy Department, $5.6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation. It is $1.2 billion more than the FY 2015 enacted level and $633 million below the president's budget request.
Policy Riders Included
The bill also would bar the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from making changes to the types of waters considered to be under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and block funds from being used to develop the Obama administration's National Ocean Policy, established by executive order in 2010 to protect U.S. oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes, among other policy riders.
“The Administration believes that the [Clean Water Act] riders in the bill undermine efforts to protect America's clean water resources, which are critical to American families and businesses,” the statement of administration policy said. “The Administration strongly objects to section 105 of the bill in particular, which would disrupt the Administration's current efforts to clarify the scope of CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and guidance.”
-
White House Issues Veto Threats For First Two GOP Spending Bills
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Shabad
The White House on Tuesday issued veto threats for two GOP-sponsored 2016 spending bills that are scheduled to hit the House floor by the end of the week.
The Office of Management and Budget said President Obama’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto bills funding military construction and veterans’ benefits as well as energy and water development “and any other legislation that implements the current Republican budget framework.”
Obama does not sign budget resolutions adopted by Congress, but must sign spending bills that stem from such a blueprint by Oct 1., when the next fiscal year begins.
House GOP leaders have planned to hold votes this week on a $77 billion bill funding military construction projects and veterans’ benefits and a $35.4 billion bill funding energy programs and water development projects.
The veto threats come months before the deadline to fund the federal government for next year, but signal the looming spending fight between the GOP-controlled Congress and Obama.
Military construction and veterans’ benefits
The White House said the bill “fails” to fund building upgrades on military bases and and expansions to medical facilities used by veterans. While it provides $4.6 billion above the 2015 funding level, it’s $1.2 billion less than Obama’s request.
The administration said it also “strongly objects” to the use of the Pentagon’s war fund to pay for infrastructure investments. In their budget deal, which has yet to be released, House and Senate Republicans want to use the war fund to circumvent sequestration budget ceilings next year to boost defense spending.
“Shifting long-term defense costs to OCO [overseas contingency operations] is bad budget policy and bad defense policy, since it undermines long-term planning,” the White House said. “Moreover, the Administration has made clear that it will not accept attempts to fix defense without non-defense by using OCO as a mechanism to evade the defense budget cap.”
It also slammed a rider in the measure that prohibits the use of funds to be used to construct or expand a facility based in the United States to house prisoners currently held at the Guantánamo Bay prison.
Energy and water development
The White House said the bill “drastically underfunds” investments to develop clean energy and jobs that enhance economic competition. While the bill provides $1.2 billion above the 2015 level, it is $633 million below Obama’s request.
The administration blasted the measure for containing “highly problematic ideological riders” that include provisions that the White House claims undermine efforts to protect clean water.
Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee last week tried to remove those riders through the amendment process, but were unsuccessful. They might try again on the House floor this week.
-
Murkowski, Moniz Camaraderie Could Bode Well For Compromise Bill
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Hannah Northey and Nick Juliano
The ongoing collaboration between Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and lawmakers crafting a comprehensive energy bill appears to be paying dividends.
Making a cordial visit to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday to tout his department's first Quadrennial Energy Review, Moniz earned effusive praise from Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who commended the secretary for all the help he had provided through visits and frequent phone calls.
The relationship will be key as Murkowski tries to take some of the recommendations from the QER and turn them into the first bipartisan, comprehensive energy bill to be signed into law since President Obama's days in the Senate. Following yesterday's hearing, Murkowski said she hoped Moniz and his staff would follow up on the 347-page QER with more specific legislative language that could be incorporated into an eventual bill.
"I do want to see something from the administration," Murkowski said, praising Moniz's practical approach to challenges such as a rickety electric grid and an aging network of oil and natural gas pipelines.
"The secretary is a guy who's not just focused on sending a message," she added. "I think he likes to get things done."
The committee's hearing on the QER provided an opportunity for various senators to probe Moniz on ideas for a comprehensive energy bill, with Republicans homing in on cutting red tape for oil and gas infrastructure, exports and transmission, and Democrats veering toward talk of greening and modernizing the grid.
Murkowski called Moniz an action-oriented secretary even as she gently chided him for omitting from the QER some of her agenda items, namely lifting a decades-old ban on exporting domestic crude and advancing the Keystone XL pipeline. In response to a question on crude exports, Moniz largely reiterated a point he had made directly to top energy CEOs at last week's IHS CERAWeek conference -- that it is tough to justify exports when the United States still imports such a substantial share of the oil it uses (EnergyWire, April 24).
The hearing reflected a push on both sides of the aisle to find areas of compromise as the Senate crafts a larger energy bill, and Murkowski told reporters after the hearing that she's not "fixated" on a large energy bill including a provision to lift the crude export ban. Murkowski signaled that language could take the shape of an amendment or stand-alone bill.
A number of Republicans focused on permitting timelines and questioned the recommendations of the QER.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he appreciated the report's acknowledgement of the need for new pipelines and power lines and federal approval of those projects. But he questioned why the administration chose to call for an uptick in permitting fees and agency coordination instead of tackling long approval times.
"The administration doesn't make mention of establishing deadlines for permit decisions, it doesn't mention repealing duplicative permitting regulations, it doesn't mention limiting lawsuits, which slow the permitting process," Barrasso said.
Moniz replied that DOE is trying to work within its authority, and issues like lawsuits are far outside of the government's control. Focus on the grid
A handful of Democrats on the ENR panel appear to be eyeing legislative proposals to address complex technological changes taking hold of the country's energy system.
New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich quizzed Moniz about whether state regulators have the tools they need to adequately quantify the benefits and costs of distributed generation and storage to make accurate rate cases and what role the national labs could play.
Heinrich expressed concern that the U.S. electric sector could see an unstable business model in the future if such technologies aren't accounted for.
Heinrich said he's been encouraging utilities to get in front of such rapid changes, but he also pointed to the need for good data at the state level.
"I think one of the things we need to see is the ability of states to make very accurate decisions about the costs and benefits, both sides of the ledger, of those things being brought onto the grid," Heinrich said.
After acknowledging that "there's a long way to go," Moniz said DOE needs better formulas to gauge the benefits of such new technologies and services, including in the distribution system. Moniz said the challenge is trying to understand the value of distributed generation and being able to connect to the overall grid.
"I think your idea of getting a lab focused on this would be good," Moniz told Heinrich, adding that the budget includes money for grid modernization. "We could take that on."
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) moved to associate himself with Heinrich's comments on distributed energy and storage with a throwback reference to the 1960s movie "The Graduate," starring Dustin Hoffman.
King referenced a line in the movie in which the young graduate Benjamin Braddock -- played by Hoffman -- is counseled to think about a future in the plastics industry.
"The guy in that movie famously says 'plastics,' famously 'plastics,'" King said. "If it were today, he'd say 'storage, energy storage' that's going to be a huge issue."
King said DOE could help Congress by finding the right "number" to charge homeowners with rooftop solar panels for backup and capacity.
"It's got to be sufficient so other ratepayers aren't bearing the cost, but it can't be so high to unreasonably burden this nascent development, which I think is very important and is going to happen anyway," King said.
-
Clean Power Plan Points Utilities Toward ‘Inevitable' Low-Carbon Future, McCarthy Says
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A low-carbon future is “inevitable,” and the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan is intended to send utilities the market signals necessary to guide investments, Administrator Gina McCarthy said.
“A low carbon future is absolutely inevitable. The question is how quickly will that come out and who will win,” McCarthy said April 28 at Columbia University's Global Energy Summit in New York.
McCarthy said the EPA's proposed rule follows investments utilities have already made in new natural gas-fired and renewable electricity generating capacity. The proposed Clean Power Plan would provide additional market certainty for utilities as they continue to pursue those investments.
“America is already bullish on clean energy and the low carbon economy,” McCarthy said. “That is my argument. That is what money and investments are telling me. EPA simply wants to send the right signal so they can feel sure when they double down it will be profitable to them.”
The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), expected to be finalized this summer, would set carbon dioxide emissions rates for existing power plants in each state. State regulators would develop their own plans to achieve that emissions rate.
McCarthy touted the flexibility the EPA is proposing to give states to develop their own compliance plans. That allows each state to customize their compliance options to meet their unique economic and power needs, she said.
“We're not balancing energy and environment. We're actually marrying them together,” McCathy said.
Emissions Reductions Rest on States
The success of the EPA's proposed rule could hinge on how states develop those compliance strategies and whether the Clean Power Plan affords them the time necessary to develop regional plans, the Bipartisan Policy Center said in modeling results released April 28. The center modeled various compliance scenarios available to states as they plan to implement the rule. How states choose to structure their compliance plans will have a large impact on the rule's costs and the scope of the achievable emissions reductions, the Bipartisan Policy Center said. Its modeling shows the rule could cost $9.7 billion per year when it takes effect in 2020 and as much as $15.7 billion annually in 2030 without energy efficiency measures to keep costs down.
“If [end use energy efficiency] is available and low cost as many studies suggest, it will really have a substantial impact on reducing the cost,” Jennifer Macedonia, senior adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center, told reporters April 28.
The EPA's proposed rule allows states the option of developing their own compliance plans or working collaboratively on regional compliance options. The Bipartisan Policy Center's modeling shows that regional approaches are most cost-effective and allow states more flexibility to adapt to changing markets, including preventing retirement of 7 gigawatts of existing coal-fired generating capacity. But some states have suggested that the EPA's proposal does not provide sufficient time to develop those regional compliance plans (73 DEN A-1, 4/16/15).
Mass Conversion Has Implications
The cost of the plan and the emissions reductions achieve may be determined by whether states chose to stick with the carbon dioxide emissions rate as proposed by the EPA or convert that rate into a mass-based target to facilitate the kinds of emissions trading programs currently in place in California and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states, the Bipartisan Policy Center said.
The mass-based targets tend to lower total compliance costs while the rate-based targets result in lower wholesale electricity costs, Macedonia said.
How states calculate that target could also increase the amount of carbon dioxide emissions permitted under the rule, she said.
The EPA provided states with additional guidance on how to convert their rate-based targets into mass-based targets in November 2014. The guidance offered two options for states to convert to mass-based targets. The first would rely on generation data from 2012 that has been updated to account for increased use of renewable electricity, nuclear generation and energy efficiency programs as part of the EPA's proposed emissions guidelines. Under the second option, the EPA would allow the states to also include new fossil fuel-fired generation sources as well as the 2012 generation data, which could increase the amount of carbon dioxide emissions permitted (216 DEN A-4, 11/7/14).
-
NERC's Report is Flawed: We Can Reduce Climate Pollution and Ensure Electric Reliability
Apr 28, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Michael Panfil
If reducing climate pollution from power plants were a football game, the U.S. team would be halfway to the goal line while fans were still singing the national anthem.
That is, we have already gotten about halfway to the expected goals of the Clean Power Plan – before the rule is even final.
The Clean Power Plan is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) historic effort to place the first-ever limits on climate pollution from our country’s existing fleet of fossil fuel-fired power plants. When it’s finalized this summer, it’s expected to call for a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions compared to 2005 levels — but U.S. power plant emissions have already fallen 15 percent compared to 2005 levels.
That’s because renewable energy, energy efficiency resources, and natural gas generation have been steadily deployed and growing for years. Even conservative estimates forecast continued growth of these resources — which makes last week’s report from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) seem really strange.
NERC’s report about the Clean Power Plan’s impacts on electric grid reliability makes predictions that starkly contrast from the progress we’re already seeing.
How did this departure from reality happen?
It’s due in large part to severely flawed assumptions underlying NERC’s analysis, which yield unrealistic results.
Those flawed assumptions cause NERC to greatly overstate the generation mix changes required to meet the Clean Power Plan. The NERC Assessment’s assumptions regarding energy efficiency, renewable energy deployment, and retirement modeling are at odds with both recent experience and current trends.
Unrealistically low energy efficiency gains
NERC assumes demand for electricity will grow at an average of one percent per year through 2030, even after accounting for growth in energy efficiency investments. That growth rate is more than 40 percent higher than the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts.
It also fails to reflect likely energy efficiency growth. An analysis by McKinsey & Company found that implementing only those efficiency measures that pay for themselves would reduce the nation’s total end-use energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020.
Arbitrary and unrealistic projections on wind and solar expansion
NERC predicts expansions of wind and solar power that are far below those observed in recent years.
U.S. solar capacity stood at 20.5 gigawatts at the end of 2014. The NERC Assessment predicts an addition of 13 to 20 gigawatts of solar energy between 2016 and 2030 — when solar capacity is expected to grow by 20 gigawatts over the next two years alone.
The U.S. wind industry is also expected to add 18 gigawatts of new capacity in the next two years.
NERC’s low-ball assumptions greatly limit renewable energy deployment in their study. This in turn greatly increases the burden on other compliance options, namely coal-to-gas generation shifting.
Failure to account for dynamic grid reliability management tools
NERC assumes the Clean Power Plan will drive coal power plant retirements over its entire life-span. However, numerous studies — including one by the Brattle Group and three by the Analysis Group, show that total output and emissions from coal units can decrease without retiring units that are needed to operate on occasion in order to maintain electric reliability.
There are also numerous tools and processes available to grid operators to ensure reliability in light of dynamic market, technological, and regulatory change, including capacity and energy markets, resource adequacy forecasting, and reliability must-run contracts.
These instruments, for example, have worked well to maintain adequate capacity during the recent wave of coal-fired power plant retirements, so much so the electric grid has added an average of roughly 30 gigawatts of total power every year since 2000. The NERC Assessment, however, finds only 11 to12 gigawatts of total power will be added every year – a significant departure from the past 15 years of evidence.
A history of inaccurate assessments
This report is not the first time that NERC has issued an inaccurate assessment of threats to reliability.
NERC has assessed previous public health and environmental safeguards, each time raising reliability concerns that were not borne out in reality.In 2011, NERC issued its Long-Term Reliability Assessment, which looked at the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, the Clean Water Act Cooling Water Intake Structures rule, and the Coal Combustion Residuals rule. NERC raised numerous reliability concerns about these protections, which the EPA noted at the time were flawed and exaggerated. None of NERC’s concerns have manifested during implementation of these standards.In a 2011 companion study, NERC issued its Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulationsabout the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and a number of other regulations. NERC again raised reliability concerns, none of which have occurred in practice.In its 2007 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, NERC predicted several regions, including New England and New York State, would drop below target capacity margins, threatening reliability. NERC’s prediction was based on a number of factors, including proposed environmental protections. Some power generators used the report to oppose to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. NERC’s predicted reliability shortfalls did not occur, nor has the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative caused reliability issues – even while emissions fell almost 50 percent below the region-wide emissions cap.In 2000, NERC drafted a reviewof EPA’s nitrogen oxide emissions standards for eastern power plants, knows as the NOx SIP Call. Yet again, NERC predicted a number of reliability concerns that did not occur after the rule was implemented.
NERC has repeatedly produced analyses indicating that public health and environmental safeguards will come at the expense of electric reliability – and these analyses have consistently been contradicted by reality. In fact, emission standards have never caused a reliability problem in the more than four decades that EPA has been administering the Clean Air Act.
NERC’s newest report is no better. It gives no solid reasons to doubt that the Clean Power Plan will be compatible with a reliable electric grid.
For a clearer picture of the link between reliability and environmental protections, read this post by my colleague Cheryl Roberto, a former Commissioner of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission and electric system operator.
You might also like EDF’s fact sheet about the Clean Power Plan and the latest flawed NERC report.
The progress made in the past demonstrates our nation is already approaching the goal line under the Clean Power Plan. The tremendous flexibility the Clean Power Plan provides to states and power companies alike, together with time-tested grid management tools, provides the framework we need to reach the goal line — protecting our communities and families from dangerous carbon pollution, strengthening our economy, and providing a steady flow of cost-effective electricity.
-
Keystone Foe Steyer To Host Clinton Fundraiser
Apr 28, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Hillary Clinton’s silence on the Keystone XL pipeline won’t stop her from visiting billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer next week for a fundraiser that suggests the controversial oil artery may be no obstacle in her courtship of greens.
The May 6 fundraiser at the home of Steyer and his wife Kat Taylor is billed as an afternoon “Conversation With Hillary,” and it comes as the former hedge fund manager winds down climate policy work at his nonprofit with a busy 2016 campaign season ahead.
Steyer suggested in September that Clinton could benefit from a left-leaning primary challenger, but his NextGen Climate super PAC welcomed her into the presidential race on Twitter earlier this month.
Yet it may be a mistake to read any anti-Keystone message in Steyer’s hosting a gig for Clinton. The former Secretary of State has underscored repeatedly that she would not weigh in on the $8 billion pipeline before President Barack Obama makes his final call.
And, indeed, the man she hopes to succeed also has stopped by Steyer’s San Francisco home to raise funds while keeping his intentions on Keystone an enduring mystery.
Clinton’s fundraiser with Steyer will be followed on May 7 by an appearance at the home of longtime friend — and vocal Keystone opponent — Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the Esprit clothing company.
-
Senate Panel Advances Bill To Stop EPA From Using Clinical Data In Setting Regulations
Apr 28, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Steven K. Gibb
A Senate panel on April 28 approved a measure that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations based on science that is not transparent and reproducible. The legislation would stop EPA from using clinical data that require protection of patient confidentiality as the agency sets health-based pollution standards for air, water, and soil.
The 11-9 party-line vote on S. 544, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act, clears the way for the full Senate to vote on the measure. The House of Representatives passed a companion bill, H.R. 1030, on a partisan vote of 241-175 last month. The White House has threatened a presidential veto of the legislation.
Republicans are pushing the bill because EPA has objected to their requests for access to raw health data, citing the need to protect the confidentiality of patients’ clinical health information.
The type of data EPA can use as the basis for regulation is especially pivotal for the agency’s air quality standards on ground-level ozone and particulates. The regulations are expensive for industry but reap significant health benefits for millions of Americans.
The chemical, electric power, and manufacturing sectors are heavily impacted by air standards and sometimes request access to the health and economic data that EPA relies on in setting its rules.
GOP members of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee approved the bill over strong objections by Democrats. The legislation’s sponsor, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), says the measure would ensure that EPA uses only the best publicly available science to regulate.
But the bill “would make it nearly impossible for EPA to develop policies, guidance, or regulations informed by the best available science,” says Andrew A. Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The legislation may sound reasonable, but it’s actually a cynical attack on EPA’s ability to do its job.”
Some scientists say the measure is unfair because industry researchers do not have to make their data public, claiming that such results are confidential business information.
Environmental health researchers are concerned that any new requirements on EPA to release confidential health data will constrain their ability to recruit people for future studies.
-
Secret Science Reform Act Approved By Senate Committee on Party-Line Vote
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A sharply divided Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced legislation April 28 by an 11–9 vote requiring a host of Environmental Protection Agency actions to be based on data that are public and available for independent analysis.
Republican proponents of the three-page Secret Science Reform Act (S. 544), introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), said it would enhance the EPA's regulatory process while not imposing any new burdens on the agency or applying retroactively to past agency actions.
Led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the committee, Democrats called the legislation “insane” and “a joke.” They warned it would cost the EPA hundreds of millions of dollars to implement—a claim strongly disputed by Barrasso and others—and said it would hamstring the EPA from finalizing human health and environmental protections.
President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. The House passed a nearly identical version (H.R. 1030) on March 18.
Democrats on the panel raised concerns that no legislative hearing had occurred on the legislation, but Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee's chairman, denied a request from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to delay the markup. Democratic members of the committee made an identical request the day before (81 DEN A-4, 4/28/15).
Would Place Limits on EPA
Barrasso's bill would prevent the EPA from finalizing 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 are publicly available and able to be independently analyzed.
Committee Republicans shot down two amendments from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
One would have altered the bill to require the funding sources behind all scientific work used by the EPA to be disclosed but not necessarily the research itself, while the other would have clarified the agency could use scientific work in its actions even if those data were barred from public release.
Both of those amendments would “completely defeat the purpose of the bill,” Barrasso said.
Committee Blocks Censorship of Terms
The committee did approve by voice vote an amendment from Boxer prohibiting censorship of common terms—including those related to climate change and air and water pollution—in official documents and presentations.
Democrats said they looked forward to a vigorous debate on the Senate floor about the role of science in federal rulemakings, and Boxer said she plans to offer additional amendments aimed at improving the bill.
-
Senators Vote To Block EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’
Apr 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted Tuesday to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using ‘secret science’ to back its regulations.
The vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee came after the GOP-controlled House repeatedly approved the bill. It previous was stalled in the Democratic-majority Senate.
Under the measure, which President Obama has threatened to veto if the Senate passes it, the EPA would only be allowed to use scientific studies whose detailed results are posted publicly online.
“EPA has a long history of relying on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often means that the science is not available to the public, and therefore cannot be reproduced and verified,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the bill’s sponsor, said at a committee hearing.
“What this bill is trying to accomplish is to make sure that we strengthen the scientific information the EPA uses to make regulations, guidance and assessments,” he continued.
But Democrats said the bill would unnecessary cut in half the studies that the EPA can use, because research is often uses proprietary, health-related or otherwise restricted data.
“This bill would force them to use whatever science was available after legal challenges generate from the broad language of this legislation,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
“We should be working to strengthen the scientific information the EPA uses to protect public health and improve air and water quality, not limiting it, as this bill does.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the bill is “insane. It’s just a joke.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called it “laughable.”
The panel voted against a pair of amendments from Markey that would have replaced the public access provision with disclosures about the funding behind research or a peer-review requirement.
It approved by voice vote a Boxer amendment to disapprove of policies that prohibit state employees from using terms like “climate change” and “global warming.” Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) have been accused of instituting such policies in certain state agencies.
-
House Democrats Praise NEPA Climate Guidance
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The White House Council on Environmental Quality provided necessary guidance to federal agencies on how to address climate change considerations when conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews, 54 congressional Democrats said in an April 27 letter. The Democrats suggested the White House direct federal agencies to calculate the climate change impacts of reviewed projects using the social cost of carbon figure. The Council on Environmental Quality's draft guidance, issued in December 2014, directs federal agencies to consider the climate impact of any action that would increase greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually when reviewing projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Six Senate Republicans called on the White House to withdraw the draft guidance in the comments on the document (59 DEN A-3, 3/27/15). The Democrats' letter is available at http://lowenthal.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ceqletterfinal4_27_2015.pdf.
-
Getting Committee Vote Today Would Topple 'Extreme Regulation' -- Whitfield
Apr 29, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Jean Chemnick
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) last night kicked off a two-day House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of his newly introduced "Ratepayer Protection Act" by painting his bill as a moderate check on a rogue U.S. EPA that is attempting to circumvent the will of Congress.
The panel will vote today on the bill, H.R. 2042.
Whitfield said in his opening remarks last night that in crafting its Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, EPA had overstepped the legislative bounds of the Clean Air Act -- which was never intended, he said, to regulate carbon.
"EPA is not a legislative body and is doing it because of a court decision; we in the legislative branch have every right and obligation and responsibility to move forward with a common-sense approach to deal with this extreme regulation," said Whitfield, who chairs the House Energy and Power Subcommittee.
The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the landmark environmental statute provides for the regulation of CO2, and the agency says it is required by law to move forward with the rule it will finalize this summer.
Whitfield's bill would bar EPA from implementing a federal plan to regulate power plant carbon dioxide in states that do not choose to comply with the existing power plant rule. It also would grant all states a reprieve from requirements to submit implementation plans until judicial review of the rule concludes. The bill picked up two Democratic co-sponsors yesterday when it was formally introduced: Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.).
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said in one of the only other opening remarks made last night that he would not vote for the Whitfield measure, despite his reservations about EPA's regulatory approach. While Green said it was important to recognize that human emissions are driving climate change, "that doesn't mean regulating sectors of our economy out of existence."
Green represents a Houston district that features a number of oil refineries. He was instrumental in inserting concessions for the U.S. refining industry into a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade bill in 2009.
Green called for a bipartisan compromise to address "justifiable concerns," and Whitfield said he was open to suggestions.
-
The Invisible Organisms That Threaten To Make Climate Change Much Worse
Apr 28, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
When we think about greenhouse gas emissions, a few obvious culprits — coal-fired power plants or automobiles — come to mind. But the burning of fossils fuels isn’t the only process spewing carbon into the atmosphere. A much less talked-about, but increasingly concerning source of carbon emissions is the slowly thawing permafrost, or frozen soil, in the Arctic.
We know that permafrost is a formidable threat to our changing climate, covering nearly a quarter of all the land surface in the Northern Hemisphere and containing about 1,700 gigatons of stored carbon. We also know the basic processes that can cause it to leak that carbon into the atmosphere. As permafrost thaws, microbes in the ground, including bacteria and other microorganisms, start snacking on the dead plants and other tasty organic matter contained in the soil, releasing methane and carbon dioxide.
But what we haven’t clearly understood until now is how global warming can affect the microbes, themselves.
Now, a new study, published Tuesday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tackles the question of how rising temperatures can change the activity of microorganisms in the Arctic. The study focuses on methane production, rather than carbon dioxide — an important issue to understand because of methane’s potency.
Carbon dioxide may be the more famous (and abundant) greenhouse gas, but methane is the more dangerous: Some estimates rank it at about 25 times more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and the study’s authors indicate that thawing permafrost may already account for up to 10 percent of global methane emissions. On top of this, Arctic temperature projections predict an increase of up to 6 degrees Celsius in the summer and up to 11 degrees Celsius in the winter by the end of the century. Knowing how these changes could affect methane-producing microbes is an important step in predicting how the Arctic landscape — and our atmosphere — might change in the coming decades.
In a worst case scenario, permafrost emissions could lead to a kind of positive feedback loop, in which warming temperatures cause more thawing, which releases more greenhouse gases, which in turn help the climate to continue warming, and then the rising temperatures cause even more thawing. So there’s a definite incentive to understanding how much of an effect temperature changes will have on the microbial community’s behavior.
In fact, the study’s findings are a little concerning: It turns out these microbe communities are surprisingly good at adapting to rising temperatures. And the warmer it gets, the more methane they produce.
This study’s authors focused on the interactions of microorganisms living in anoxic, or oxygen-poor, peat soil in the Arctic. They collected peat samples and incubated them at temperatures ranging from 1 to 30 degrees Celsius, and sure enough, the microbes’ methane production rate increased steadily, and rapidly, as temperature rose.
The researchers also found that at any given temperature, methane concentration increased linearly as time passed, suggesting that the microbes were able to adapt quickly to temperature shifts and keep methane production high at all times.
“There are specific interactions at different temperatures that ensure high methane production, and there are different taxonomic units operating,” said lead author Mette Marianne Svenning, a professor of arctic and marine biology at the Arctic University of Norway. In other words, the researchers found that different types of microbes are more active at higher temperatures, and they interact with each other in different ways.
Several key findings stand out. One is that methane production may already be high in some places, even at low temperatures. The researchers observed that methane production at 4 degrees Celsius was already 25 percent of the production rate at 25 degrees — another surprising finding which “tells us that the organisms in this system are adapted to low temperature conditions, and they are able to produce a lot of methane at low temperatures,” Svenning said.
Another important finding involves the rate-limiting factors in methane production, or the chemical processes that limit how fast methane can be produced. The researchers found that, below 7 degrees Celsius, the rate-limiting step was a different chemical process than the rate-limiting step above it, making 7 degrees a kind of threshold temperature. Above this threshold, the researchers also found that different types of microbes became more dominant, and they used different kinds of chemical processes to produce methane. Since the total amount of microorganisms in the soil remained the same, it was these shifts, and not an increase in microbial biomass, that helped bring about the increase in methane production.
“It’s very important to understand these interactions because they will control the emission rate of methane,” said Kevin Schaefer, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Right now, there aren’t clear data to say whether methane emissions are currently increasing in the Arctic, specifically, Schaefer said. But understanding metabolic interactions within microbial communities can help scientists make better predictions about what the future will bring.
Schaefer also said he believes a better understanding of the microbial community can help scientists predict how much of the Arctic emissions will come out as carbon dioxide and how much will come out as methane. Carbon dioxide is the less potent when it comes to climate change, but current estimates suggest it takes the lion’s share of the greenhouse gases produced through permafrost, according to Schaefer: 97 percent or more.
Since this study focused only on methane, Svenning said she can’t comment on whether carbon dioxide production will also shift with temperature in similar ways. But if we assume the proportion of methane to carbon dioxide production stays the same, even in warmer temperatures, we’re looking at a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions as well.
For Svenning, the logical next step is to scale down and start looking at much smaller temperature changes, so scientists can get a better idea of how minor increases over shorter timeframes might affect microbial behavior and methane output.
In Schaefer’s opinion, the most important thing is for humans to slash our carbon output enough in the coming decades to prevent the thawing permafrost from becoming a major problem at all. Cutting human-produced greenhouse gases could keep global temperatures within reasonable boundaries, slow the thawing of the permafrost and prevent even more emissions from pouring into the air.
But it’s no sure thing — meaning Svenning’s research and our understanding of the microbial greenhouse gas production may become important in our predictions for the future and our decisions about how to deal with them.
-
Readying MACT, EPA Floats Federal Plan To Cut Sludge Incinerator Emissions
Apr 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing a federal plan to curb air pollution from existing sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs) in a host of states that appear unlikely to adopt the agency's requirements even as the agency works to revise its air toxics limits for the sources in response to a court ruling that requires a better explanation of its methodology.
In an April 27 proposal, EPA proposed a federal plan to impose emissions guidelines (EG) on existing SSIs, in lieu of missing or inadequate state plans that would otherwise be required to implement requirements for regulating pollutants, reporting emissions, training incinerator operators and for other purposes.
EPA in 2011 set emissions limits for SSIs covering both toxic and other pollutants under sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act, setting new source performance standards (NSPS) for new and modified sources, and EG for existing sources -- those that commenced construction before Oct. 14, 2010.
NSPS apply emissions limits directly to SSIs and are directly enforceable, while EG are not directly enforceable against sources and require states to first craft their own plans to implement emissions limits and other requirements, such as training and emissions reporting mandates that apply to SSIs. If states fail to supply such plans, EPA can impose a federal plan on states instead.
The federal plan EPA has now proposed will impose limits on 11 pollutants at hundreds of SSIs throughout the country, although an industry source says it does not contain any surprises and simply implements the EG as issued in 2011. The pollutants are: cadmium, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, sulfur dioxide, and fugitive emissions from ash handling.
Section 129 requires that EPA set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions limits for incinerators, which in turn means the agency must set MACT “floors,” or minimum emissions standards. These floors are normally determined using the average emissions of the 12 percent least-polluting sources in a given source category.
However, EPA in the SSIs rule used a statistical method known as the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) to predict the real-world performance of SSIs. Environmentalists say the method is not a true average and is therefore unlawful, challenging its use in several EPA air rules.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) also challenged the SSI MACT regulation, arguing that it is excessively stringent as a consequence of being set under the wrong air law provision. NACWA argued it should have been set under air law section 112, which would have been less stringent than section 129.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its August 2013 ruling in NACWA v. EPA disagreed, finding that EPA correctly applied section 129 to the sector. However, the court appeared sympathetic to arguments from environmentalists intervening in the case over the UPL, remanding EPA's MACT standards in order to have the agency further explain its use of the UPL method to calculate MACT floors.
Rule 'Remains In Place'
In the new proposal, EPA now says that regulatory uncertainty caused by the remand is no reason not to proceed with the rule, which the court never vacated. “EPA is evaluating the Court’s decision and intends to address the Court’s remand in a timely manner. However, the court’s remand requires EPA to provide additional explanation of several aspects of its MACT floor calculations in the SSI rule, and the Agency’s response to the decision may require further evaluation of those calculations,” EPA says in the proposal.
“In the meantime, the agency believes it is appropriate to propose the Federal Plan at this time because the SSI rule remains in place following the Court’s decision and the federal plan is needed to implement the rule in states without an approved state plan,” the agency adds.
Many states have missed their 2012 deadline to submit a plan, or have simply said they will not supply one. Only Indiana currently has an EPA-approved state plan, while New York, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri and Virginia have either submitted plans or draft plans to EPA.
A NACWA source says that the group is disappointed that EPA has not addressed the D.C. Circuit's remand in this rulemaking, and plans to raise this in public comments on the proposal.
Also, “we have a number of implementation concerns,” the source says. For example, EPA is requiring that SSIs conduct performance testing running at 85 percent of their permitted capacity. “Most of our incinerators will never run at even close to that level,” the source says. There are currently about 230 SSIs in the country, the source says, operated by about one hundred different utilities.
One step EPA has taken in the proposed federal plan is to eliminate the “affirmative defense” as an option to shield industry from civil liability in the event of a malfunction. EPA previously allowed such a defense in the 2011 SSI rule for malfunctions the agency considered unavoidable, as an alternative to regulatory exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, which courts have ruled unlawful. However, the D.C. Circuit has also ruled the affirmative defense unlawful, prompting EPA to strip it from various air rules. SSI operators will have one year to comply with the federal plan once finalized. EPA is taking comment on the proposed federal plan until June 11.
-
San Joaquin District Seeks More Time, Flexibility for Some Nonattainment Areas
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Air quality regulators in California's San Joaquin Valley have drafted a proposal for Clean Air Act amendments that would give areas with the worst air pollution extra time and flexibility to meet ozone and particulate standards.
Discussions are under way with several members of Congress about introducing the bill, Seyed Sadredin, executive director of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, told Bloomberg BNA April 28.
“We're optimistic we're going to have a bipartisan introduction of a bill soon,” Sadredin said.
Like the Los Angeles area, the San Joaquin Valley is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone. Meeting the increasingly strict federal health-based ozone standards has become a challenge, Sadredin said. The Clean Air Act needs to be updated to reflect “real-world situations,” Sadredin said.
Tough regional and state regulations have cut ozone pollution by as much as 80 percent, but additional cuts are needed to attain the current standard of 75 parts per billion, and now the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to tighten that standard to between 65 ppb and 70 ppb, he said (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
High background levels of ozone, some of it due to regional and transboundary transport pollution, make reducing air pollution in the valley more challenging than in other areas, Sadredin said.
“We support the well-intended concepts in the Clean Air Act, but some of those well-intended provisions are leading to unintended consequences,’’ he said.
Change in Implementation Sought
Unlike other bills pending in Congress, the district's proposal would not weaken the EPA's authority to set new health-based standards. The goal of the proposal is to change how the law is implemented for the ozone and particulate matter national ambient air quality standards, Sadredin said.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees air quality in the four-county Los Angeles region and shares many of the same challenges as the valley, has not taken a position on the proposal, Sadredin said.
A key provision involves the formula-based attainment deadlines in the law.
Instead of the prescribed deadlines, extreme nonattainment areas would have to demonstrate progress toward achieving the standards by proving to the EPA, every five years, that they are implementing the most effective strategy and control measures that are technologically and economically feasible.
“The formula-based deadlines made sense when there was a lot of low-hanging fruit,” Sadredin said. “It's physically impossible to meet the formula-based deadlines in the act right now even if money were no object. The technology does not exist.”
Another provision would allow states to develop a single attainment plan that harmonizes multiple standards. The reasonable further progress milestones for the prior standards would be updated when a new standard is published.
The proposal also would amend the law to allow states to use alternative approaches to demonstrate equivalent emissions reductions; eliminate the need for contingency measures in extreme nonattainment areas; and allow states to take credit for all transportation control measures and strategies and not punish areas with transportation control actions that achieved reductions earlier than required.
Earthjustice has brought several lawsuits against the EPA and the air district on behalf on environmental and public health advocates to enforce federal and state clean air laws.
“There is so much more that the district, state and EPA could do to meet these standards,” Paul Cort, an attorney at Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. “There is no substance to the complaints about achievability and feasibility. And, the district's gripes about duplicative planning are the result of the district's choices to split these plans up and adopt plans that do not work so that they must be revisited over and over again.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) PeopleNet Selected By Quality Carriers As Telematics Provider
Apr 28, 2015 | Field Technologies
PeopleNet, a Trimble company and leading provider of fleet mobility solutions, recently announced that Quality Carriers, Inc., a subsidiary of Quality Distribution, Inc., the leading provider of bulk transportation services in North America, has integrated PeopleNet technology platforms into approximately 2,500 tank trucks. The new integration provides Quality with more visibility, better driver workflow automation and overall safety improvement features.
Using the PeopleNet Display.4 and TMWSuite, Quality can utilize PeopleNet’s Activity Standards, fault code monitoring, mandatory eDVIR vehicle inspections, onboard event recording, SpeedGauge speed monitoring, and VUSION full service fuel tax analytics.
“We have diligently worked with PeopleNet to integrate its fleet mobility technology into our fleet of bulk tank trucks,” said Cliff Dixon, Vice President of IT at Quality Distribution. “We look forward to realizing the benefits of PeopleNet’s MPG Improvement Program, gaining more visibility to onboard events, and increased safety.”
“We’re excited to continue working with Quality, providing them with the excellent customer service and technical support they have come to expect from PeopleNet,” said Bryan Coyne, vice president of national account sales for PeopleNet. “We look forward to the opportunity for long-term growth in serving Quality’s needs.”
The integration announcement was made at the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) Annual Conference & Exhibits being held in Boston, Mass. from April 26-28, 2015.
About Quality Distribution
Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, Quality operates the largest chemical bulk logistics network in North America through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Quality Carriers, Inc., and is the largest North American provider of intermodal tank container and depot services through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Boasso America Corporation. Quality also provides logistics and transportation services to the unconventional oil and gas industry through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, QC Energy Resources, Inc. and QC Environmental Services, Inc. Quality's network of independent affiliates and independent owner-operators provides nationwide bulk transportation and related services. Quality is an American Chemistry Council Responsible Care® Partner and is a core carrier for many of the Fortune 500 companies that are engaged in chemical production and processing.About PeopleNet
PeopleNet provides fleet mobility technology for North America’s land transportation industry that enables greater levels of safety, compliance, cost reduction and customer service. The company’s fleet mobility system combines network communications, mobility and analytics to create the next-generation standard in technology-driven fleet performance and decision-making management. Its products are used by more than 2,000 truckload, LTL, private, and energy services fleets in the United States and Canada, including several Fortune 500 companies. The company aggressively develops new products that continue to improve fleet management. PeopleNet is a Trimble Company and part of its international Transportation and Logistics Division. PeopleNet was named as a key factor in Trimble’s top ranking by ABI Research’s 2014 Commercial Fleet Telematics Competitive Assessment. For more information, visit www.peoplenetonline.com -
Stricter Gas Transmission Proposed Rule Sent to Office of Management and Budget
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A Transportation Department proposed rule that would update safety requirements for gas transmission pipelines was sent to the White House for review April 27.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposal would address repair criteria, assessment methods, certain pipeline data, risk assessments, gathering lines and potential integrity management program applicability expansion, according to the Transportation Department. Under the rulemaking, PHMSA is re-evaluating the definition of a high-consequence area, which is based currently on an area's population, and is requiring the use of automatic and remote-controlled shutoff valves.
The rule (RIN 2137-AE72) would cost the private sector more than $152 million annually and would “lower the safety risk of all regulated entities,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said. The proposal, which PHMSA Acting Administrator Timothy Butters has called a top priority, has been in the works since January 2011 and has sat at the department's Office of the Secretary for roughly 10 months (204 DEN A-3, 10/22/14).
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Gas Association, whose memberships include companies such as Enbridge Energy Co. and Xcel Energy Inc., previously told Bloomberg BNA they are closely tracking the rulemaking (9 DEN B-6, 1/14/15).
Congress mandated that PHMSA complete this rulemaking under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112–90).
-
Company Used Unsafe Gas Cylinders, PHMSA Says
Apr 29, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A New York company for nearly 30 years used potentially unsafe high-pressure compressed gas cylinders, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in a safety advisory to be published April 29. Liberty Industrial Gases and Welding Supplies Inc., without PHMSA authorization, tested the compressed gas cylinders and then marked them authorized for hazardous materials transportation, the advisory said. Improper inspections could result in structurally inadequate cylinders returning to service and then rupturing, which could cause “extensive property damage, serious personal injury or death,” the advisory notes. The company that is also known as Liberty Industrial Gases and Welding Supply Inc. conducted these practices between April 1986 and October 2014 without holding the necessary PHMSA authorization, the agency said. The Hazardous Materials Regulations violation was identified during a compliance inspection, after the company self-reported that it had improperly marked the cylinders, according to the advisory. Any cylinders authorized by these companies should be vented or discharged and then requalified, the advisory said. The Federal Register notice is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-09937.pdf.
-
Midland honored with National Achievement Award
Apr 28, 2015 | Bulk Transporter
Midland Manufacturing, part of OPW, is proud to announce it was presented a National Achievement Award at the 2015 Chlorine Institute Annual Meeting & Technology Symposium for its ongoing support of the Chlorine Institute's TRANSCAER Program.
The National Achievement Award signifies an individual, company, or organization exceeds in the advocation, demonstration, and implementation of the principles of TRANSCAER at national and regional levels. Steve Herbst, product manager for Midland, accepted the award on Midland's behalf.
"Midland Manufacturing wants to make rail transportation and the movement of commodities via rail as safe as possible," he said. "It's a never-ending journey, but every step increases the safety of our communities and environment."
TRANSCAER (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) is a voluntary national outreach effort to help communities prepare for and respond to a possible hazardous materials transportation incident. TRANSCAER training focuses on educating emergency responders and community leaders on procedures to safely and effectively mitigate hazardous events involving the transport of toxic and explosive commodities such as chlorine, crude oil, and liquefied petroleum gas. In 2014, approximately 55,000 people took part in face-to-face training sessions with TRANSCAER across the United States and Canada.
Midland Manufacturing aided in many of these sessions by providing in- and out-of classroom instruction, as well as, the donation of its industry-leading Emergency Response Kits (ERK). These kits come with high quality, durable and heavy-duty tools, and special capping equipment to quickly and safely cap leaking fittings on the top of pressurized railcars. Print reprintsFavorite EMAILinShare
Please Log In or Register to post comments. Related ArticlesA&R Logistics honored with Safety & Excellence Award from BP Petrochemicals TRB lifetime award named in honor of Charles H Hochman NTTC to honor top driver with new award Groendyke honors Tito Campos for 4 million safe driving miles Carbon Express honors million mile plus drivers Advertisement Current Issue Wash racks help broaden the revenue stream for Heniff Transportation TankerKleen just keeps growing with foodgrade, chemical cleaning in southeastern Minnesota Quala launches new facility in Savannah GA on top of continuing acquisitions CURRENT ISSUE / ARCHIVE Advertisement Connect With Us TwitterFacebookRSS
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested