Preview Newsletter
Acc AM May 4
-
Field Hearing: Reducing the Federal Tax Burden for America’s Small Businesses
May 4, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Location: Livingston Parish Council Chambers, 20355 Government Blvd., Livingston, LA/ 8:30 AM CT -
Nominations Hearing
May 6, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Fluor's Countless Global Projects, A Qualitative View
Apr 30, 2015 | Seeking Alpha
By Jennifer Warren
Rarely does a firm play a part in so many countries' little-told industrial histories. Fluor has been involved in many pivotal developments of global economies - helping build the backbone of industry, transportation infrastructure, power generation, and more. They are one of the most diverse global infrastructure powerhouses. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Chemical, SPE Providing Speakers to Plasticity Forum
May 4, 2015 | Recycling Today
The Plasticity Forum, scheduled for June 8-9 in Cascais, Portugal, will feature several speakers from the corporate world and the business and trade association community. Among the speakers who have been announced as added to the roster at the event are: Jeff Wooster, global sustainability leader of Dow Chemical Company, who has... -
(ACC Mentioned) A Flame Retardant That Came With Its Own Threat to Health
May 3, 2015 | The New York Times
By Clyde Haberman
If you closely examine your living room couch, your favorite easy chair or your child’s car seat, the odds are strong that you will find upholstery that is filled with polyurethane foam treated with a chemical flame retardant. Some may find that comforting: Isn’t it desirable to hold an accidental fire at bay, one caused by, say, a burning cigarette or faulty ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Phaseout Urged for Compound Used to Resist Stains, Water
May 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Makers of personal care products are on board with a plan for a federal phaseout of plastic particles known as microbeads, even though they consider the science emerging and hold other industries responsible for the problem as well, a top lobbyist for the industry told a House subcommittee this morning. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Finalizes Antimicrobial Data Guidance
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
As required by the settlement of a recent lawsuit, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an interim guidance document on April 30 to the makers of antimicrobial products. The document clarifies the scenarios in which companies will be required to submit certain types of data to the agency to register their antimicrobial products. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Uphill Battle to Better Regulate Formaldehyde
May 3, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Rachel Abrams
A decade after emergency trailers meant to shelter Hurricane Katrina victims instead caused burning eyes, sore throats and other more serious ailments, the Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of regulating the culprit: formaldehyde, a chemical that can be found in commonplace things like clothes and furniture. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Issue Warning Over Chemicals Common In Carpets, Coats, Cookware
May 1, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Lynne Peeples
In 1961, a DuPont toxicologist warned colleagues that exposure to their company's increasingly popular Teflon chemicals enlarged the livers of rats and rabbits. Studies over the following decades found no safe level of exposure in animals and determined that humans, too, got sick when exposed to the chemicals -- which were also seen to build ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals In Cell Phones, Pizza Boxes, Backpacks Said To Be Health Threat
May 1, 2015 | Yahoo News
By Amy Capetta
Hundreds of environmental scientists have joined forces to begin a public campaign to urge countries around the world — including the United States — to limit their use of a class of chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. While one type of this chemical has been banned for years — studies had shown that the PFAS... -
(ACC Mentioned) 200 Scientists Warn Against Chemicals Commonly Used To Produce Electronics, Pizza Boxes
May 2, 2015 | Medical Daily
By Stephanie Castillo
Chemical manufacturers are under fire (again) for their use of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which are chemicals commonly used to make thousands of products. The concern comes from a group of international scientists featured in the May issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Years ago, The New York... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals In Pizza Boxes Swirls Fear On Risk Of Cancer
May 4, 2015 | Food World News
By Arlene B. Cruz
Chemicals in pizza boxes identified as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl, or PFASs are now on a much hyped alarm after 200 researchers from 38 countries signed a petition for its restriction. These chemicals in pizza boxes are also found commonly in microwave popcorn bags, cosmetics, and carpet treatments are linked to more dangerous... -
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Concerned About Chemicals In Pizza Boxes
May 1, 2015 | AskMen
By Ian Lang
Why Is This Important? Because your delivery pizza may be even less healthy than you think.Long Story Short. A group of over 200 scientists have signed a statement expressing concern over a group of chemicals used to replace other unsafe chemicals in packaging like shoe and pizza boxes. The scientists believe they have not been studied ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Warn Of Chemicals In Pizza Boxes, Cellphones
May 2, 2015 | Armonk Daily Voice
By Stephanie Mojica
Hundreds of scientists are lobbying for communities throughout the world, including Westchester County, to limit the use of potentially dangerous chemicals that are found in many pizza boxes and cellphones, Yahoo! Health reported. Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, are the focal point of concern, according to Yahoo! Health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Warn Against PFAS Chemicals Used In Pizza Boxes
May 3, 2015 | Capital OTC
By Heidi Smith
A paper published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives by the National Institute of Health warns people regarding chemicals used in the manufacturing of boxes used for carrying pizza. Pizza boxes have Polyfluoroalkyl and Perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals in their composition in order to prevent grease from seeping through the boxes. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sofia Martinez and Richard Moore: Udall–Vitter's Toxic Shell Game: We Deserve Better
May 2, 2015 | Silver City Sun News
By Sofia Martinez and Richard Moore
A decade of pressure by parents, doctors, scientists, businesses, and state governments has created momentum to finally fix the broken federal law governing chemicals used in commerce, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which has allowed thousands of hazardous and untested chemicals to be widely used in everyday consumer... -
(ACC Mentioned) "The Human Experiment" Doc Says We're Poisoning Ourselves With Everyday Products
May 4, 2015 | Treehugger
By Katherine Martinko
When you look at the number of unregulated chemicals that surround us in North America, it's not surprising we're sicker than ever - and that could be just the tip of the iceberg. The Human Experiment is an excellent documentary that poses a very disturbing question: “What if the greatest chemical disaster of our time didn’t involve oil spills or... -
(ACC Mentioned) That’s a Wrap: Keeping Bags at Bay with Bans, Fees, Education and Labeling
May 1, 2015 | Waste360
By Elizabeth McGowan
Ah the plight of the much-maligned, single-use plastic grocery bag. Hawaii has essentially banned them and California’s legislation to follow suit has gone to a referendum. Arizona just outlawed such bag bans, and Missouri is considering similar legislation. Meanwhile, New York City and Philadelphia might fall into line with Washington... -
(ACC Mentioned) Boulder Brands Joins GreenBlue’s How2Recycle Label Program
May 4, 2015 | Eco-Business
GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) on April 28 announced that Boulder Brands has joined the organization’s How2Recycle Label program. Boulder Brands is one of the largest natural consumer packaged food companies in the US and is comprised of Earth Balance, EVOL, Glutino, LEVEL, Smart Balance, and Udi’s Gluten Free... -
Despite Clearing Committee, TSCA Bill Has Long Road Ahead, Senators Say
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and John Herzfeld
Two senators behind the landmark bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act said the legislation, despite clearing a Senate committee, still has many hurdles to clear and may not make it to the president's desk for months. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the main backer of the bill, said during a May 1 online town hall that the full Senate's... -
Vote On Chemical Law Reform Expected In June
May 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said his bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws could hit the Senate floor for a vote in June. During a conference call with media and business leaders on Friday, Udall said he’s been in talks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is in line... -
Our Toxic Status Quo Doesn’t Protect Us
May 1, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Ruth Marcus
Today’s topic is toxic substances and the appalling gaps in the current law that is supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals. For example, before a new chemical enters the market, the manufacturer must demonstrate its safety and the substance must win approval from federal regulators, right? Ruth Marcus is a... -
Teflon-Killing Canaries and the American Dream
May 1, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
As a new EWG report shines a light on DuPont’s poisoned legacy in the mid-Ohio River Valley, it’s a good time to look back at Teflon’s canary effect. To this day, cooking with a non-stick pot could kill your pet bird. As far back as 1986, avian veterinarians knew that Teflon or similar non-stick cookware made with chemicals known collectively as PFCs... -
Trade Fight Looms As Key Bills Head For House And Senate Votes
May 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
Congressional committees recently agreed to give President Barack Obama the authority he needs to wrap up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the proposed free-trade pact between the U.S., Japan, and 10 other countries mostly in the Asia-Pacific region. But the real fight over the legislation (S. 995 and H.R. 1890) will occur in the coming ... -
Litigator Describes Ways to Mitigate Liability As Arranger for Disposal of Hazardous Waste
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
To mitigate the risk of Superfund liability as an arranger for disposal of hazardous substances, companies that use or sell such substances or products that contain them should be proactive and carefully draft contracts with customers, distributors and contractors, a Superfund litigator said April 29 in a Bloomberg BNA webinar. -
Federal Ban on Microbeads Would Prevent Patchwork of State Laws, Speakers Testify
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
A uniform, consistent federal ban on products containing microbeads is necessary and preferable to the patchwork of state bans and voluntary phase-outs that has recently emerged, representatives from industry, advocacy groups and state government told a House subcommittee May 1. Several states have taken action to ban the manufacture ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Energy Influence: Murkowski Reels In Energy Funds
May 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
MAJOR CHUNK OF MURKOWSKI Q1 HAUL FROM ENERGY INTERESTS: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, up for reelection next year, brought in $692,000 in the first quarter — with a whopping 32 percent of that from energy interests, according to our review of Murkowski’s FEC filings. -
Greens Pounce On Research Linking Drilling To Quakes
May 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Green groups and lawmakers are seizing on new government research linking earthquakes to oil and gas drilling as evidence of the need for tougher federal regulations. States are currently responsible for oversight of most drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the United States, though environmentalists have long pushed Congress and federal... -
Virginia’s Keystone?
May 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Call it the Keystone next door. A core group of Virginia Republicans and other landowners is leading the charge against a proposed natural gas pipeline near their backyards, and using tactics similar to the environmental crusade against the Keystone XL oil pipeline — the very project Republicans in Congress have elevated into a matter of ... -
Murkowski Hopes Colleagues Provide Energy Bill Ideas This Week
May 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is asking senators to have bills filed by the end of this week to be considered for inclusion in the bipartisan energy bill she would like to have out of committee by the summer. The call for ideas is designed to let the committee hold its remaining legislative hearing -
Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Bill Opposing EPA Carbon Plan, Citing Executive Order
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) vetoed a bill that would have required the state to develop an implementation plan to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, saying an executive order already codified the state's opposition to the carbon limits for power plants. In a May 1 veto message, Fallin emphasized the... -
Capito Flexes Muscles On Power Plant Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit weighs whether to block U.S. EPA's proposed carbon limits for existing power plants, the legal tug of war is taking a road trip to Capitol Hill. West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's clean air subpanel, will... -
GOP Rep Introduces Bill To Gut EPA
May 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Republican wants to cut 13 programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including all of its grants and its ability to regulate ground-level ozone and carbon dioxide. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced a bill, the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act, which he said is a money-saving measure, citing a Heritage... -
EPA’s Approval Of California Air District’s ‘Incentive’ Air Rule May Prompt Suit
May 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA’s approval of a novel California air district’s rule that credits “incentive,” or subsidy, programs for emission reductions under California’s state implementation plan (SIP) for achieving federal air quality standards could prompt litigation from environmentalists who have previously opposed the measure. -
Six States Want Appeals Court to Review EPA Schedule for Sulfur Dioxide Designations
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Six states have asked a federal appeals court to review the approval of a consent decree between the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups that calls for the agency to take a phased approach to making remaining attainment designations for national sulfur dioxide standards (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:13-cv-3953... -
Boston Joins Climate-Smart Cities Program to Prepare for Impacts
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said April 30 the city had joined forces with the Trust for Public Lands Climate-Smart Cities program to help it achieve the climate mitigation and preparedness goals set out in its Greenovate Boston 2014 Climate Action Plan Update. In the 2014 plan, the city said it has made significant progress toward meeting its... -
California, Mexico Outline Strategy For Cooperation on Climate, Energy
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Environment officials from California and Mexico signed off on a plan to implement the bilateral pact agreeing to collaborate on clean energy and climate issues the governments inked last year. Announced at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference in Los Angeles, the plan outlines specific steps for action on climate change, air... -
D.C. Circuit Scraps Generator Air Rule's 100-Hour 'Emergency' Exemption
May 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal appeals court May 1 scrapped a 100-hour exemption from air emissions regulation EPA had granted to “emergency” generators that participate in demand-response programs designed to protect the electric grid, handing a major win to states and environmentalists who say the exemption causes unwarranted pollution, and to utilities who... -
McConnell Vows ‘Same Fight' on Waters Rule That He Has Brought Against Carbon Limits
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is vowing to bring the “same fight” against the proposed waters of the U.S. that he has brought to opposing EPA's carbon pollution limits for power plants. McConnell said in an op-ed published in Somerset, Ky.'s Commonwealth Journal that the regulation, if finalized, would “wreak havoc” on the coal... -
Crude-by-Rail Rule Raises Concerns Over Brake Standard, Car Phaseout, Speed
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Most trains carrying Bakken crude oil will be required to use retrofitted or new tank cars by April 2020, under a Transportation Department final rule announced May 1. The flammable liquids-by-rail rule, which was released alongside the same Canadian tank car requirements, immediately sparked criticism from the energy and rail... -
Dems Criticize Obama’s Oil Train Safety Rules
May 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Obama administration’s new safety rules for oil trains, saying they don’t go nearly far enough to prevent disastrous incidents. While Democrats were appreciative of the Transportation Department’s rules, they said that the phase-out timeline for old tanker cars should be much faster, among other... -
New Oil Train Rules Are Hit From All Sides
May 1, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jad Mouawad
Ending months of uncertainty and delays, federal regulators on Friday unveiled new rules for transporting crude oil by trains, saying the measures would improve rail safety and reduce the risks of a catastrophic event. But the rules quickly came under criticism from many sides. Lawmakers and safety advocates said the regulations did... -
Prodded By Industry, Senate Panel To Take Up Transportation Board Nomination
May 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The Surface Transportation Board is a tiny, obscure agency invisible to most Americans. But as the chief rate regulator of the freight rail industry, the board is intensely watched by shippers and the handful of remaining large railroads. On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will hold a confirmation... -
Mixed Reviews On Hill For Dot Overhaul Of Crude-Shipment Rule
May 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly and Blake Sobczak
With reactions ranging from guarded applause to caustic dismissal, key members of Congress offered mixed responses today to the newly unveiled regulations covering shipments of crude oil on trains (Greenwire, May 1)."We are pleased the Department of Transportation has finally set a stronger federal standard for transporting crude oil ... -
Energy Pipeline: API To Train First Responders On Crude Rail Safety
May 3, 2015 | The Greeley Tribune
By Linda Kane
The American Petroleum Institute wants to make sure the public knows how much it’s focused on safety. That includes making sure first responders are properly trained in the event a rail car transporting crude oil derails. In March, API introduced efforts to enhance the work of first responders who respond to derailments. -
Rail supplier news from Alstom, CIT, Industry-Railway Suppliers, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Kelso and OPW (May 1)
May 1, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
Alstom has completed the modernization of 106 trains along the London Underground's Northern line. The work involved replacing nearly 7 miles of linoleum in the fleet, polishing 15,688 windows to remove graffiti and changing 27,500 seat backs, Alstom officials said in a press release. In total, the company replaced 3.7 million items on the ...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Field Hearing: Reducing the Federal Tax Burden for America’s Small Businesses
May 4, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Location: Livingston Parish Council Chambers, 20355 Government Blvd., Livingston, LA/ 8:30 AM CT
-
May 6, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253/ 10:00 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fluor's Countless Global Projects, A Qualitative View
Apr 30, 2015 | Seeking Alpha
By Jennifer Warren
Rarely does a firm play a part in so many countries' little-told industrial histories. Fluor has been involved in many pivotal developments of global economies - helping build the backbone of industry, transportation infrastructure, power generation, and more. They are one of the most diverse global infrastructure powerhouses.
Fluor, 110th of the Fortune 500, is a global engineering and construction firm that employs about 40,000 people with offices in 25 different countries. The Fortune-recognized "Most Admired Company" is known for its mega-projects and ability to complete projects in the harshest conditions in far-flung places, but also everything in between. At any given point, Fluor (NYSE:FLR) will be planning, procuring for and building about 1,000 projects simultaneously.[1] Fluor's client roster includes mega multinationals, the likes of ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), Shell (RSD.A), and Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW), but also government-sponsored enterprises from the royal House of Saud to China National Nuclear Corp. The 103-year-old firm has a $ 9 billion market capitalization.
Importantly, countries around the globe rely on the "product" of Fluor to help build and advance their economies and better their citizens' lives. This desire for progress and better living standards is a central catalyst for Fluor as a long-term investment choice. If one focuses mostly on the numbers, in Fluor's case, the story will be missed.The Infrastructure cure
In both advanced and developing countries, government and policymakers often see infrastructure projects as a tonic for economic growth and employment. The Obama administration recently highlighted upgrading aging infrastructure as a source of economic renewal and competitive positioning in the global economy.
Fluor notes that the average age of America's bridges are forty-two years, with a service life of fifty years, and $20 billion will need to be invested annually over sixteen years.[2] Besides completing the signature span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, which collapsed after the 1989 earthquake,[3] Fluor is designing and building the three-mile-long New York's Tappan Zee bridge, a $3.1 billion project and the largest single bridge project in New York history.[4] In North Texas, Fluor and partners are delivering on the downtown Dallas Horseshoe Project, including the construction of a signature Santiago Calatrava bridge.[5] These are but a few samplings of Fluor's wares. A new day may be dawning for Fluor in North America.
(click to enlarge)
Over the last decade, the high-impact U.S. shale oil and gas revolution has created a new outlook. Fluor sees great opportunity in terms of natural gas, citing three new large-scale petrochemical projects in the Gulf Coast. From Fluor's firsthand view, they observe a "resurgence of U.S. manufacturing based on low energy prices." A first wave of projects such as petrochemical and liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants are on the books, but a second wave is coming, along the U.S. Gulf Coast in refinery expansions, chemicals and gas-to-liquids plants.[6] Overall oil and gas prospects include upstream, downstream, petrochemical and LNG -worldwide.
Natural gas demand is expected to grow by 30% between 2014 and 2025 and production will increase by almost 40%, notes an IHS study. This demand is driven by power generation and industrial users. With low natural gas prices and ample NGL supply, the American Chemistry Council expects investment of $135 billion in 211 projects; this estimate was upped from a February 2014 estimate of $100 billion and 148 distinct investments.[i]
Fluor is also involved in the highly technical work of nuclear power plants, including their decommissioning. Recently, the company acquired 98% ownership of a nascent nuclear technology called NuScale. Majority-owned by Fluor, NuScale Power, LLC is developing a new kind of nuclear plant considered a safer, scalable version of pressurized water reactor technology, designed with natural safety features.
A big bet, Fluor believes NuScale could revolutionize the nuclear power industry and offer a $400 billion-dollar market.[7] In two decades, the business could be 'huge,' especially with their exclusive rights to build the smaller-scale, modular units. These 50-megawatt (MW) units can be stacked, like six packs, creating a 300 MW plant or more scaled-up plant based on the need. A recent Wall Street Journal article mentioned how the West, and particularly the U.S., is being usurped by China and Russia in nuclear build expertise. However Fluor may capitalize on the trend regardless of who leads the effort given their global footprint and ability to scale nuclear energy in diverse and new ways.
"Fluor is in a class of its own, with few peers, with the exception of Bechtel," says Pete Patel, CEO of Chiang, Patel & Yerby Inc., a Dallas-based engineering firm. "In my opinion, Fluor is more diversified and more capable of managing cutting-edge projects never done before-the difficult and complex that few can touch." - D CEO, 2015
Beyond Bechtel, a like-sized private firm, Fluor's competition becomes smaller in size and diffuse in segment focus. In terms of diversity [of operations] and geographic reach, few peers exist. COO Oosterveer, in the Netherlands office, suggests Fluor operates in more places than most of the competition, with their size supporting the efforts.Far Flung Places
The operations of Fluor are unimaginably far flung - from mining projects in isolated areas of Mongolia and Peruvian highlands to setting up operations for the U.S. military to combat the spread of Ebola in West Africa. The Middle East is a large market for Fluor, historically an 'oil and gas mecca':
Fluor also manages a large Saudi aluminum manufacturing facility and is building one of the world's biggest phosphate mines there. - D CEO, 2015
The original Saudi gas programs in '70s led to the creation of Saudi Basic Industries Corp, or "SBIC," a global leader in chemicals and the largest publicly-traded company in Saudi Arabia.[8] Fluor has a deep relationship with the leadership there and keenly understands the geopolitical challenges.
Fluor's oil and gas segment received nearly $20 billion in new awards for year-end 2014,[9] the lion's share of Fluor's workload.[10] The industrial and infrastructure segment, which includes metals and mining, is the second largest revenue segment for Fluor. The industrial segment includes everything from managing Alcoa's plant and port, to phosphate mines in northern Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, Fluor is the largest non-equipment contractor for the U.S. Department of Defense. In 2014, their backlog was $42.5 billion, up 22% from $34.9 billion in 2013.[ii] Revenue was down to $21.5 billion from $27.4 in 2013, largely because of lower mining and metals business.
(click to enlarge)
Metals and mining projects can be in extremely remote, harsh places, a past project including the 18,000-foot-high Pascua Llama job site in the Andes Mountains, bordering Chile and Argentina. In the inaccessible Gobi Desert, with extreme temperatures, Fluor worked on a $6 billion Oyu Tolgoi copper mine in Mongolia. The mine, one of the largest copper mines in the world, was also an extremely challenging engineering-construction project.[11] Fluor helped develop the mine, along with the original owner, into a bankable project. Fluor and long-time client Rio Tinto, the new owner, finished the job. Metals and mining are part of Fluor's industrial and infrastructure segment.
(click to enlarge)
In the latter part of 2014 EPS guidance was $4.10 -4.30; in 2015 guidance is $4.40 -5.00 per diluted share.
(click to enlarge)Managing Fluor
A most under-appreciated element of Fluor in a long-term investment context is its well-groomed management, loyal employees and service mentality. Fluor's typical program for a client averages 30-36 months; and with 1000s concurrently on the books around the globe, essentially every two and a half to three years Fluor recreates itself. When a project is finished, teams disband and are directed to new projects.
Fluor projects are often of massive scale and intensity. Peter Oosterveer, chief operating officer, describes CEO Seaton as a global citizen with an international mindset, who is also commercially astute and highly networked. All top-level Fluor executives are groomed over years to assume leadership roles; this succession planning is a hallmark of Fluor operations.
Relationships are key at Fluor. Clients must trust Fluor to perform the hardest jobs in the toughest place and protect their capital. Capital efficiency is always king but especially now, given oil and gas firm-clients in a lower oil price environment with tighter margins.
COO Oosterveer notes that Fluor has more international leaders in senior management. For example, top management of their Europe, Africa, Middle East group is European and the Asia group that reports to Oosterveer is of Indian descent, versus U.S. passport holders a decade ago. The importance of this shift to a practiced global senior management team cannot be understated.
Training and professional development is a part of the life force at Fluor. Global human resources consultancy Aon Hewitt recognized Fluor in 2014 for leadership development. Fluor is even seen as the trainer of the industry. The duty of passing along a stronger, more resilient Fluor is engrained day one in employees and management- a legacy-driven mission, if you will.
Corruption is an enormous challenge globally. It also raises the cost of doing business by 10%, suggests the World Economic Forum.
Estimates show that the cost of corruption equals more than 5% of global GDP (US$ 2.6 trillion, WorldEconomic Forum) with over US$ 1 trillion paid in bribes each year (World Bank). It is not only a question of ethics; we simply cannot afford such waste.
-- OECD, 2014 backgrounder.
In 2004, Fluor began their fight against corruption through the World Economic Forum's Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI). Enforcement was needed however to shift this trillion-dollar problem.[12] Current Vanguard chairman, Seaton says the OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría is partnering with the Vanguard group of CEOs to help enforce the laws already on the books of member countries from advanced economies.[13] Seaton wants a level playing field for Fluor as opportunity knocks to modernize countries and compete for projects.
Service matters to the people of Fluor. In 1974, there were many mega-projects on Fluor's books, such as the Alaska pipeline, Saudi's master gas program, SBIC, two refinery projects in Iran, simultaneously. "If you had a pulse, we had a job for you," says Seaton. He noted the numerous 40-year service awards, and two 55-year pins last year. Fluor breeds a unique culture surrounding career. Given the cyclicality of the business and elements of perpetual recreation, more employee transience would be expected. Not some whiz-bang management theory- 'people come to Fluor and feel they can make a difference and have a home here,' notes Seaton.Investment Case Specs
From an investment point of view, a plethora of opportunities abound, but a short and potent list includes:
• Oil and gas infrastructure world-wide;
• Nuclear power developments (and renewables too);
• Infrastructure projects in North America and around the globe; and
• Industrial base development as economies around the globe seek competitive advantages.
The one-year history of the stock's price follows:
(click to enlarge)
Interesting to note is how Fluor trades. It has taken the same punches as energy stocks with declining oil prices, but that is not the whole story. Fluor's energy clients are much more diversified by geography; oil and/or gas-orientation; and upstream, midstream, and downstream areas. This nuance is not really captured in its stock price, recovering to $60 -- from a low of $50 and some change and a high above $80, largely following oil prices ascent. Given its Middle East work, and especially in Saudi Arabia as new leadership asserts its influence, coupled with other major energy producer, the U.S., the demand profile of the next couple of decades is very positive. Also though I cited known energy and chemical multinationals, there are just as many industrial European household names that Fluor serves. And as mentioned, the nuclear option poses outsized potential for gains.
(click to enlarge)
(Yes, I was surprised by Flowserv (NYSE:FLS), but not on second glance in light of a former article.)
The risk to investors lies squarely on the classic risks of infrastructure projects, political or policy risk delaying or cancelling a project. And, economic risks will also hit investors if demand does not materialize as expected in Asia, Africa, MENA and Latin America.
I believe Fluor's investment in people and keeping up with the latest technological developments bodes well for them now and in the future, a competitive edge that offers flexibility to shift wherever energy sources converge and diverge. Fluor's corporate memory and applied knowledge is also a source of advantage. If one believes the globe and economies will continue to modernize, then Fluor is a very good bet. There will be no shortage of activities in their diverse repertoire of offerings that have been adapted over a century.
Though markets tie Fluor's fortunes to oil and gas developments, their story and prospects are of a larger opportunity set, which includes advances in energy, operations management and economic and human development, globally.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Chemical, SPE Providing Speakers to Plasticity Forum
May 4, 2015 | Recycling Today
The Plasticity Forum, scheduled for June 8-9 in Cascais, Portugal, will feature several speakers from the corporate world and the business and trade association community.
Among the speakers who have been announced as added to the roster at the event are:
Jeff Wooster, global sustainability leader of Dow Chemical Company, who has developed and implemented new technology for application areas including stretch film, shipping sacks and fresh-cut produce packaging. Wooster is a frequently invited guest speaker on behalf of Dow on the subjects of sustainability and sustainable packaging.
Willem De Vos, CEO of the Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE), who leads an organization that describes itself as a “knowledge and networking organization active in the plastics industry worldwide.” SPE says it is active in 30 countries and has about 30 divisions and 70 regional sections with members in 84 countries around the world.
Steve Russell, vice president of the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), who will speak on the topic of “Collaborations to develop systems that harness the value of waste.” The ACC says its Plastics Division is “driving efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover plastics, and to provide sustainable solutions to prevent litter, increase recycling and address marine debris.”
Dr. Mike Biddle, founder and a current director of MBA Polymers Inc., who will speak on the topic of “Untangling Systems for Streamlined Material Flow.” Biddle started MBA Polymers nearly 20 years ago from his garage and helped build the company into one a multi-national firm that recovers plastics from end-of-life durable goods, including computers, electronics, business equipment, appliances and automobiles.
Andrew Morlet, chief executive of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, whose presentation is titled “How do we Collectively Scale for the Circular Economy?” Morlet leads the business programs of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which says it “promotes economic development that is restorative and regenerative by design, and which enables the shift to renewable energy.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Flame Retardant That Came With Its Own Threat to Health
May 3, 2015 | The New York Times
By Clyde Haberman
If you closely examine your living room couch, your favorite easy chair or your child’s car seat, the odds are strong that you will find upholstery that is filled with polyurethane foam treated with a chemical flame retardant. Some may find that comforting: Isn’t it desirable to hold an accidental fire at bay, one caused by, say, a burning cigarette or faulty electrical wiring? But studies show that many flame-resistant chemicals loom as potential health menaces, associated with cancers, memory loss, lower I.Q.s and impaired motor skills in children, to name a few woes. Isn’t it just as desirable, some would also say, to keep such substances out of people’s lives?
On the surface, this may seem like a struggle between worthy goals of equal merit: forestalling household fires on one hand, preventing toxic contamination on the other. But this new installment of Retro Report, a series of video documentaries examining major news stories of the past and their consequences, suggests that the surface impression presents a false equivalence. Health risks linked to some of these chemical compounds have been growing while their fire-deterring value has been called into serious doubt.
To frame the issue, the video goes back to the early 1970s and a controversy that older Americans may recognize from a single word: Tris. Chemists know it as Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate. Under the shorter sobriquet, it gained national fame as a flame retardant in children’s pajamas. Its purpose was to buy precious seconds that, in a fire, might spell the difference between survival and death.
But fame turned to notoriety later that decade when research by two scientists, Arlene Blum and Bruce N. Ames, concluded that Tris is a mutagen, a gene-altering agent. The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, a new agency in the ’70s, promptly prohibited its use in the sleepwear. Even though the courts then struck down the ban, children’s clothing manufacturers in effect enforced it by agreeing to keep that form of Tris out of their products. They then did the same with a new version of the compound, chlorinated Tris. But chlorinated Tris itself was never banned. As time passed, it made its way, along with an array of other chlorinated and brominated flame retardants, into the furniture found in most American homes.
The gateway for this development was a 1975 California regulation known as Technical Bulletin 117. Upholstery foam is highly combustible. The California regulation required it to withstand a small flame — from a cigarette lighter, for instance, or a candle — for 12 seconds. To pass that test, furniture makers treated naked foam with large quantities of chemical retardants. By dint of the sheer size of California’s marketplace, the 12-second flame rule effectively became the national standard.
The problem with this mandate, researchers later concluded, was that it did not reflect real life. Who takes a match directly to the foam inside a sofa cushion? What catches fire first is the fabric encasing the foam. And when that fabric is ablaze, the flames are intense enough to overwhelm whatever retardants coat the foam. So much for any fire-deterrence benefit.
As for the chemicals’ health impact, concerns kept growing. That is because the retardants do not chemically bond with the foam. Thus, they do not stay snugly inside cushions and mattresses. They escape into the environment. When someone sits on a couch, air that bears chemical traces is expelled from the upholstery. Those substances settle on household dust, or drift outdoors, or find their way into rivers and even into mothers’ breast milk. Small children, known to put almost anything in their mouths, are particularly vulnerable as they play on floors that have veils of chemically tainted dust.
“Some of the effects that we’re seeing are effects on the developing nervous system,” Linda S. Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, told Retro Report in discussing some of the chemicals. “We’re seeing effects on the developing reproductive system. In a population of children that have been exposed to the flame retardants, those children have lower I.Q., more difficulty in learning.”
Nonetheless, chemical manufacturers assert that flame retardants are proven lifesavers. “The number of reported home fires has dropped by 50 percent since these products were introduced to the market,” said Steve Risotto, a senior director of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group. “Flame retardants delay the start of a fire, you know, by half a minute or longer.”
Other factors, though, also explain the decline in house fires. For one thing, a principal culprit in such fires has long been carelessness with cigarettes. But smoking habits have greatly changed; the share of American adults who puff away dropped to 17 percent in 2014 from 42 percent in 1965, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Also, some cigarettes today are self-extinguishing. Smoke detectors, too, save lives.
A series of articles by The Chicago Tribune in 2012 brought new attention to flame retardants, much of it damning. In the wake of those reports, California (to the chemical industry’s dismay) amended its standard for fire resistance. The test now is whether a couch or chair can withstand not an open flame but, instead, a smoldering object like a cigarette. With this change, the need to pump chemicals into upholstery was reduced. Indeed, some newer furniture being brought to market is retardant-free.
Still, unknowns abound. Regulating chemicals has always been a thorny proposition. More than 80,000 of them are registered for use in the United States, including flame retardants, but federal inspectors have tested only a tiny fraction. Lately, environmental researchers have expressed health concerns about a new generation of chemicals known as PFASs, short for poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, which are commonly found in footwear, electronics, sleeping bags and many other consumer products. Although the chemical industry insists that these materials are safe, Dr. Birnbaum and other scientists have questioned whether that is in fact so.
The prevailing law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, authorizes the government to step in only after a substance’s potential for harm has been demonstrated. The industry is under no requirement to submit its products for federal blessing in advance of marketing them. Nor is the chemical structure of these compounds detailed in consumer labels. In the main, any regulation has been left largely to the states. While legislation now before Congress would strengthen the federal government’s hand, it would also block states from setting tougher regulations of their own.
Not a single flame retardant has ever been banned outright by the government. Any phasing out of a substance like Tris was done voluntarily by the industry, albeit usually only after the hazards were clearly demonstrated. Now, new generations of compounds are in play, pronounced safe by Mr. Risotto of the chemistry council. “If you look at the products that are currently available today,” he told Retro Report, “there is not a scientific consensus that there is an impact on human health at the levels that we encounter in homes.” Of course, one reason for the absence of scientific consensus is that few of those substances have been tested by independent researchers. With newer chemicals, “scientists have struggled to keep pace with studying their health risks,” an article published in Scientific American observed in 2013.
In the meantime, children’s sleepwear must still be treated with flame retardants, one exception being if it fits tightly on their bodies. And countless couches and chairs that consumers bought years ago remain in use, their cushions and padding awash in suspect chemicals. Couches are not, like pajamas, easily tossed out. Families tend to hold on to them for decades. To go by the warnings from scientists like Dr. Birnbaum, people on their sofas have no reason to believe they are sitting pretty.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Phaseout Urged for Compound Used to Resist Stains, Water
May 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Makers of personal care products are on board with a plan for a federal phaseout of plastic particles known as microbeads, even though they consider the science emerging and hold other industries responsible for the problem as well, a top lobbyist for the industry told a House subcommittee this morning.
It's not often that Congress decides to ban specific chemicals or plastic components, but lawmakers of both parties on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health seemed comfortable doing just that. In part, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and other lawmakers said the need to protect the Great Lakes from harmful pollution cuts across party lines.
Under the legislation, H.R. 1321 or the "Microbead-Free Waters Act," federal law would ban the sale and distribution of cosmetics products containing microbeads beginning Jan. 1, 2018.
"Simply put, microbeads are causing mega problems," Upton said as aides displayed a picture of tiny microbeads on the surface of a penny.
Those problems include traveling through water treatment plants because the particles are too small to be captured there, and building up in waterways, where they collect toxins and are eaten by fish, state officials and water advocates from Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois told lawmakers. It's for these reasons that the American Chemistry Council supports the legislation, according to a letter the group sent to the committee.
"While we know that plastics provide many important benefits to modern life, we agree that they do not belong in lakes, oceans or other waterways," the ACC wrote.
New Jersey state Sen. Linda Greenstein (D), a supporter of a recently approved state law banning microbeads, told lawmakers it wouldn't be difficult for companies to comply with the rules. Many are able to employ more natural substitutes -- such as crushed walnut shells, sea salt or pumice stone -- to produce the same effect in personal care products as synthetic microbeads, she said.
"If they can do it in New Jersey, they can do it everywhere else," Greenstein said.
While no one spoke in opposition to the legislation, some noted that it could be made more specific. The bill is two pages long and specifies that personal care products will be banned "if it contains synthetic plastic microbeads."
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the bill's co-sponsor and the Energy and Commerce Committee's ranking member, said he would like to see it address over-the-counter products such as toothpaste, which isn't mentioned in the current proposal. Modifying those regulations is more difficult because the Food and Drug Administration regulates over-the-counter treatments differently than personal care and cosmetics products, Pallone said.
For one, FDA requires an 18-month stabilization period for product reformulations, which could add complications for product manufacturers, Pallone said.
John Hurson, the executive vice president for government affairs at the Personal Care Products Council, which represents 600 cosmetics and personal care companies, said the industry was ready to remove plastic microbeads "out of an abundance of caution," even though scientists were only beginning to sound the alarm and it wasn't clear to him whether microbeads harm human health.
Hurson noted that microbeads may also come from other products, such as clothing fibers, boat paint particles, and plastic bags or bottles that have degraded in water -- issues the legislation did not address. However, he said companies did not want to face a patchwork of state microbeads laws, as seems likely to occur without congressional action. Hurson also said he wasn't opposed to expanding the rules to over-the-counter products, such as toothpastes and acne creams, as long as companies had enough time to reformulate products and sell existing inventories.
"With the right policy framework, we can remain an innovative industry providing our consumers with the safest, high-quality products they expect and deserve while also doing our role to continue to protect the environment," Hurson said.
The apparent consensus was rare these days, Pallone said.
"Maybe we should have a course for the rest of Congress," he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Finalizes Antimicrobial Data Guidance
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
As required by the settlement of a recent lawsuit, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an interim guidance document on April 30 to the makers of antimicrobial products. The document clarifies the scenarios in which companies will be required to submit certain types of data to the agency to register their antimicrobial products. The lawsuit, brought against the EPA by the American Chemistry Council, challenged a rule the EPA issued in May 2013 that placed new data requirements on antimicrobial makers (Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 13–01207, 7/3/13; 78 Fed. Reg. 26,935; RIN 2070–AD30). The council sued shortly after the rule was finalized, saying some of its sections were too vague. As a part of the March 2 settlement between the council and the EPA, the agency had to issue an interim guidance document no later than the end of April (47 DEN A-6, 3/11/15). The settlement also requires the EPA to issue more formal clarifications and corrections to its antimicrobial data rule by August 2017.
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Uphill Battle to Better Regulate Formaldehyde
May 3, 2015 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton and Rachel Abrams
A decade after emergency trailers meant to shelter Hurricane Katrina victims instead caused burning eyes, sore throats and other more serious ailments, the Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of regulating the culprit: formaldehyde, a chemical that can be found in commonplace things like clothes and furniture.
But an unusual assortment of players, including furniture makers, the Chinese government, Republicans from states with a large base of furniture manufacturing and even some Democrats who championed early regulatory efforts, have questioned the E.P.A. proposal. The sustained opposition has held sway, as the agency is now preparing to ease key testing requirements before it releases the landmark federal health standard.
The E.P.A.’s five-year effort to adopt this rule offers another example of how industry opposition can delay and hamper attempts by the federal government to issue regulations, even to control substances known to be harmful to human health.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that can also cause respiratory ailments like asthma, but the potential of long-term exposure to cause cancers like myeloid leukemia is less well understood.
The E.P.A.’s decision would be the first time that the federal government has regulated formaldehyde inside most American homes.
“The stakes are high for public health,” said Tom Neltner, senior adviser for regulatory affairs at the National Center for Healthy Housing, who has closely monitored the debate over the rules. “What we can’t have here is an outcome that fails to confront the health threat we all know exists.”
The proposal would not ban formaldehyde — commonly used as an ingredient in wood glue in furniture and flooring — but it would impose rules that prevent dangerous levels of the chemical’s vapors from those products, and would set testing standards to ensure that products sold in the United States comply with those limits. The debate has sharpened in the face of growing concern about the safety of formaldehyde-treated flooring imported from Asia, especially China.
What is certain is that a lot of money is at stake: American companies sell billions of dollars’ worth of wood products each year that contain formaldehyde, and some argue that the proposed regulation would impose unfair costs and restrictions.
Determined to block the agency’s rule as proposed, these industry players have turned to the White House, members of Congress and top E.P.A. officials, pressing them to roll back the testing requirements in particular, calling them redundant and too expensive.
“There are potentially over a million manufacturing jobs that will be impacted if the proposed rule is finalized without changes,” wrote Bill Perdue, the chief lobbyist at the American Home Furnishings Alliance, a leading critic of the testing requirements in the proposed regulation, in one letter to the E.P.A.
Industry opposition helped create an odd alignment of forces working to thwart the rule. The White House moved to strike out key aspects of the proposal. Subsequent appeals for more changes were voiced by players as varied as Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, as well as furniture industry lobbyists.
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 helped ignite the public debate over formaldehyde, after the deadly storm destroyed or damaged hundreds of thousands of homes along the Gulf of Mexico, forcing families into temporary trailers provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The displaced storm victims quickly began reporting respiratory problems, burning eyes and other issues, and tests then confirmed high levels of formaldehyde fumes leaking into the air inside the trailers, which in many cases had been hastily constructed.
Public health advocates petitioned the E.P.A. to issue limits on formaldehyde in building materials and furniture used in homes, given that limits already existed for exposure in workplaces. But three years after the storm, only California had issued such limits.
Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council have repeatedly challenged the science linking formaldehyde to cancer, a position championed by David Vitter, the Republican senator from Louisiana, who is a major recipient of chemical industry campaign contributions, and whom environmental groups have mockingly nicknamed “Senator Formaldehyde.”
In laminate flooring, formaldehyde is used as a bonding agent in the fiberboard (or other composite wood) core layer and may also be used in glues that bind layers together. Concerns were raised in March when certain laminate flooring imported from China was reported to contain levels of formaldehyde far exceeding the limit permitted by California.
By 2010, public health advocates and some industry groups secured bipartisan support in Congress for legislation that ordered the E.P.A. to issue federal rules that largely mirrored California’s restrictions. At the time, concerns were rising over the growing number of lower-priced furniture imports from Asia that might include contaminated products, while also hurting sales of American-made products.
Maneuvering began almost immediately after the E.P.A. prepared draft rules to formally enact the new standards.
White House records show at least five meetings in mid-2012 with industry executives — kitchen cabinet makers, chemical manufacturers, furniture trade associations and their lobbyists, like Brock R. Landry, of the Venable law firm. These parties, along with Senator Vitter’s office, appealed to top administration officials, asking them to intervene to roll back the E.P.A. proposal.
The White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews major federal regulations before they are adopted, apparently agreed. After the White House review, the E.P.A. “redlined” many of the estimates of the monetary benefits that would be gained by reductions in related health ailments, like asthma and fertility issues, documents reviewed by The New York Times show.
As a result, the estimated benefit of the proposed rule dropped to $48 million a year, from as much as $278 million a year. The much-reduced amount deeply weakened the agency’s justification for the sometimes costly new testing that would be required under the new rules, a federal official involved in the effort said.
“It’s a redlining blood bath,” said Lisa Heinzerling, a Georgetown University Law School professor and a former E.P.A. official, using the Washington phrase to describe when language is stricken from a proposed rule. “Almost the entire discussion of these potential benefits was excised.”
Senator Vitter’s staff was pleased.
“That’s a huge difference,” said Luke Bolar, a spokesman for Mr. Vitter, of the reduced estimated financial benefits, saying the change was “clearly highlighting more mismanagement” at the E.P.A.
The review’s outcome galvanized opponents in the furniture industry. They then targeted a provision that mandated new testing of laminated wood, a cheaper alternative to hardwood. (The California standard on which the law was based did not require such testing.)
But E.P.A. scientists had concluded that these laminate products — millions of which are sold annually in the United States — posed a particular risk. They said that when thin layers of wood, also known as laminate or veneer, are added to furniture or flooring in the final stages of manufacturing, the resulting product can generate dangerous levels of fumes from often-used formaldehyde-based glues.
Industry executives, outraged by what they considered an unnecessary and financially burdensome level of testing, turned every lever within reach to get the requirement removed. It would be particularly onerous, they argued, for small manufacturers that would have to repeatedly interrupt their work to do expensive new testing. The E.P.A. estimated that the expanded requirements for laminate products would cost the furniture industry tens of millions of dollars annually, while the industry said that the proposed rule over all would cost its 7,000 American manufacturing facilities over $200 million each year.
“A lot of people don’t seem to appreciate what a lot of these requirements do to a small operation,” said Dick Titus, executive vice president of the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, whose members are predominantly small businesses. “A 10-person shop, for example, just really isn’t equipped to handle that type of thing.”
Big industry players also weighed in. Executives from companies including La-Z-Boy, Hooker Furniture and Ashley Furniture all flew to Washington for a series of meetings with the offices of lawmakers including House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, and about a dozen other lawmakers, asking several of them to sign a letter prepared by the industry to press the E.P.A. to back down, according to an industry report describing the lobbying visit.
Within a matter of weeks, two letters — using nearly identical language — were sent by House and Senate lawmakers to the E.P.A. — with the industry group forwarding copies of the letters to the agency as well, and then posting them on its website.
The industry lobbyists also held their own meeting at E.P.A. headquarters, and they urged Jim Jones, who oversaw the rule-making process as the assistant administrator for the agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to visit a North Carolina furniture manufacturing plant. According to the trade group, Mr. Jones told them that the visit had “helped the agency shift its thinking” about the rules and how laminated products should be treated.
The resistance was particularly intense from lawmakers like Mr. Wicker of Mississippi, whose state is home to major manufacturing plants owned by Ashley Furniture Industries, the world’s largest furniture maker, and who is one of the biggest recipients in Congress of donations from the industry’s trade association. Asked if the political support played a role, a spokesman for Mr. Wicker replied: “Thousands of Mississippians depend on the furniture manufacturing industry for their livelihoods. Senator Wicker is committed to defending all Mississippians from government overreach.”
Individual companies like Ikea also intervened, as did the Chinese government, which claimed that the new rule would create a “great barrier” to the import of Chinese products because of higher costs.
Perhaps the most surprising objection came from Senator Boxer, of California, a longtime environmental advocate, whose office questioned why the E.P.A.’s rule went further than her home state’s in seeking testing on laminated products. “We did not advocate an outcome, other than safety,” her office said in a statement about why the senator raised concerns. “We said ‘Take a look to see if you have it right.’ ”
Safety advocates say that tighter restrictions — like the ones Ms. Boxer and Mr. Wicker, along with Representative Doris Matsui, a California Democrat, have questioned — are necessary, particularly for products coming from China, where items as varied as toys and Christmas lights have been found to violate American safety standards.
While Mr. Neltner, the environmental advocate who has been most involved in the review process, has been open to compromise, he has pressed the E.P.A. not to back down entirely, and to maintain a requirement that laminators verify that their products are safe.
An episode of CBS’s “60 Minutes” in March brought attention to the issue when it accused Lumber Liquidators, the discount flooring retailer, of selling laminate products with dangerous levels of formaldehyde. The company has disputed the show’s findings and test methods, maintaining that its products are safe.
“People think that just because Congress passed the legislation five years ago, the problem has been fixed,” said Becky Gillette, who then lived in coastal Mississippi, in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina, and was among the first to notice a pattern of complaints from people living in the trailers. “Real people’s faces and names come up in front of me when I think of the thousands of people who could get sick if this rule is not done right.”
An aide to Ms. Matsui rejected any suggestion that she was bending to industry pressure.
“From the beginning the public health has been our No. 1 concern,” said Kyle J. Victor, an aide to Ms. Matsui.
But further changes to the rule are likely, agency officials concede, as they say they are searching for a way to reduce the cost of complying with any final rule while maintaining public health goals. The question is just how radically the agency will revamp the testing requirement for laminated products — if it keeps it at all.
“It’s not a secret to anybody that is the most challenging issue,” said Mr. Jones, the E.P.A. official overseeing the process, adding that the health consequences from formaldehyde are real. “We have to reduce those exposures so that people can live healthy lives and not have to worry about being in their homes.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Issue Warning Over Chemicals Common In Carpets, Coats, Cookware
May 1, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Lynne Peeples
In 1961, a DuPont toxicologist warned colleagues that exposure to their company's increasingly popular Teflon chemicals enlarged the livers of rats and rabbits. Studies over the following decades found no safe level of exposure in animals and determined that humans, too, got sick when exposed to the chemicals -- which were also seen to build up in the body and resist breakdown in the environment.
Nonstick, it turned out, tends to stick around.
By the end of 2015, some of these most notorious polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, will be fully phased out of use in the U.S. But emerging in their place, warn environmental health experts, are another group of PFASs that share many of the same concerning characteristics.
"We know these substitutes are equally persistent. They don't break down for geologic time," said Arlene Blum, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the executive director of the nonprofit Green Science Policy Institute.
On Friday, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published a document known as the Madrid Statement, signed by more than 200 scientists from 38 countries. The statement highlights the potential harm of both old and new PFAS chemicals. You may know them best as the stuff that protects your carpet from stains, keeps your food from sticking to packaging or pans, repels rain from your coat and prevents mascara from running down your cheeks. If you got a pastry with your coffee this morning, a PFAS substance probably even lined the waxy paper it was served on.
"It's a very serious decision to make chemicals that last that long, and putting them into consumer products with high levels of human exposure is a worrisome thing," said Blum, who was also the lead author on the statement.
In an editorial accompanying the statement, Linda Birnbaum, head of the national toxicology program for the Department of Health and Human Services, and Philippe Grandjean, chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, cite the common industry practice of replacing phased-out chemicals with structurally similar ones, such as the recent swap of bisphenol S for bisphenol A. Other experts have pinned this pattern -- what Blum has previously called "toxic whack-a-mole" -- on the nation's outdated toxic chemical legislation, which allows chemicals to remain innocent until proven guilty.
"Companies can currently produce other chemicals without a good idea of their impact on health and the environment," said Alex Stone, a senior chemist with the Washington State Department of Ecology, who signed the Madrid Statement.
The scientists are calling for cooperation around the world to limit production of PFASs and to identify safer alternatives. Industry groups, meanwhile, continue to assert the safety of the newer versions of the chemicals. The replacements carry shorter chains of fluorinated carbon atoms, which experts generally agree lowers the chemicals' toxicity and helps the body excrete them faster.
"There is substantial scientific data supporting the conclusion that short-chain PFASs are not expected to pose a significant risk," wrote Jessica Bowman, executive director of the FluoroCouncil, an arm of the industry group American Chemistry Council, in an emailed statement to The Huffington Post.
Bowman published a counterpoint column in Environmental Health Perspectives on Friday, emphasizing that the unique chemicals are "essential" to "things we take for granted," including products that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in vehicles and coat surgical gowns with a shield against fluid-borne pathogens.
"We don't believe the Madrid statement reflects a true consideration of the available data on alternatives to long-chain [PFASs]," she told HuffPost.
Still, critics contend that not enough information exists to be sure the substitute chemicals are substantially safer than the older versions. "Manufacturers said [long-chained PFASs] were fine for a number of decades," said Blum.
The Madrid Statement cites data that links exposures to PFASs with certain cancers, delayed puberty, decreased fertility, reduced immune response in children and elevated cholesterol, among other health problems. A Danish study published in April adds to the concerns, linking blood levels of PFASs, including the new short-chain versions, with up to a sixteenfold increase in the risk of miscarriage.
When HuffPost asked exactly when it became clear that long-chain PFASs previously used in Teflon and other products were "hazardous to human health," Bowman said only that member companies had started working with the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators to phase them out "a decade ago."
A decade ago, in 2005, the EPA assessed a $16.5 million fine, its largest ever, to DuPont, saying the company had withheld decades of information concerning the hazardous health effects of PFASs. That's according to a helpful reminder from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group in a separate report also published on Friday. They note that internal documents revealed DuPont had long known the chemicals "caused cancer, had poisoned drinking water in the mid-Ohio River Valley and polluted the blood of people and animals worldwide."
"Even when the EPA manages to punish a company, it's not big enough a deterrent. A couple years' more production easily eclipsed the amount of their fine," said Bill Walker, co-author of the group's report, which was accompanied by a consumer guide for avoiding potentially dangerous PFASs. The group recommends bypassing nonstick pans in favor of stainless steel or cast iron, for example, and popping corn the old-fashioned way -- on the stovetop.
DuPont spokeswoman Janet Smith said in an email that the group's report contained "a number of inaccurate and misleading comments." When asked to specify the inaccuracies, Smith told HuffPost that she was "not able to discuss" because of "active litigation."
Patagonia is among the companies currently phasing out use of long-chain PFASs. But rather than simply embracing their short-chain cousins, spokesman Adam Fetcher suggested that his company is "working really hard to find an alternative" to fluorinated chemicals. He highlighted Patagonia's recent investment in Beyond Surface Technologies, a Swiss startup that's developing plant-based replacement chemicals. "We see a huge amount of potential," said Fetcher.
Stone even pointed to the potential use of biomimicry to offer surface protection without the use of chemicals. "Certain designs in leaves actually help water bead up and run off," he said.
In the end, none of the alternatives may end up quite as effective as today's synthetics. But, as Blum noted, that might be good enough, at least in some cases.
"If you're going to climb Mount Everest, then maybe you need that degree of water repellency," said Blum, who was the first American woman to attempt to ascend the mountain. "But do you need it to go to the beach?"
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals In Cell Phones, Pizza Boxes, Backpacks Said To Be Health Threat
May 1, 2015 | Yahoo News
By Amy Capetta
Hundreds of environmental scientists have joined forces to begin a public campaign to urge countries around the world — including the United States — to limit their use of a class of chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs.
While one type of this chemical has been banned for years — studies had shown that the PFAS formerly found in Teflon products may have contributed to higher risks of cancer — scientists have reason to believe that the replacement PFASs could also be toxic.
And, according to the scientists, this is a huge cause for concern, since these chemical are found in thousands of products used in everyday life by millions of consumers.
PFASs enable objects to be resistant to high temperatures, ultimately increasing durability and in some cases, preventing fires in wiring and gauges found in vehicles such as cars and planes. A few of the other items that contain these PFASs include pizza boxes, sleeping bags, electronics (like cell phones and hard disk drives), as well as backpacks, footwear and even hospital equipment (it can be found in stents, needles and pacemakers, along with hospital gowns and divider curtains). A complete list can be found here.
“Research is needed to understand the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to the short-chain PFASs, especially regarding low-dose endocrine disruption and immunotoxicity,” wrote the authors Linda S. Birnbaum, from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program and Philippe Grandjean, from the Harvard School of Public Health, in an article published in the recent edition of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
“In parallel, research is needed to find safe alternatives for all current uses of PFASs. The question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in the meantime, given their persistence in the environment? And, in the absence of indisputably safe alternatives, are consumers willing to give up certain product functionalities, such as stain resistance, to protect themselves against potential health risks? These conundrums cannot be resolved by science alone but need to be considered in an open discussion informed by the scientific evidence,” wrote the author
However, the American Chemistry Council states that these chemicals were deemed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. “But we just believe based on the 10-year history of extensive studies done on the alternatives, that the regulatory agencies have done their job of determining that these things are safe for their intended uses,” Thomas H. Samples, DuPont’s head of risk management for the division that manufactures these chemicals, told The New York Times. DuPont is one of the lead manufacturers of this chemical.“It’s likely they’re going to have some health effects, it just may take us a while to figure out what it is,” said Thomas F. Webster, a professor of environmental health at Boston University’s school of public health, also told The New York Times. “It might take five or 10 years to really do the research.”
-
May 2, 2015 | Medical Daily
By Stephanie Castillo
Chemical manufacturers are under fire (again) for their use of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which are chemicals commonly used to make thousands of products.
The concern comes from a group of international scientists featured in the May issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Years ago, The New York Times reported, manufacturers like DuPont banned the use of PFASs after studies showed they linger in the body and increase risk for cancer and other health problems. Now, scientists find the replacement chemicals are merely “short-chain PFASs with similar structures.”
“PFASs are found in the indoor and outdoor environments, wildlife, and human tissue and bodily fluids all over the globe,” scientists explained. “They are emitted via industrial processes and military and firefighting operations, and they migrate out of consumer products into air, household dust, food, soil, ground and surface water, and make their way into drinking water.”
In animals, PFASs have been shown to cause liver toxicity and disrupt metabolism and immune system. And some PFASs have even been listed under the Stockholm Convention as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In which case, scientists called for global action.
The action plan would be a five-pronged approach: scientists, governments, chemical manufacturers, product manufacturers, and consumers would all play a roll in eliminating the use and spread of PFASs. For example, scientists would need to assemble and collaborate with industry and governments to develop analytical methods to identify and quantify the families of PFASs, as well as their replacements or alternatives.
“Research is needed to find safe alternatives for all current uses of PFASs,” Linda S. Birnbaum, the head of the national toxicology program for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement. “The question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in the meantime, given their persistence in the environment?”
The American Chemistry Council, the Times cited, counterpointed the EHP’s warning by saying scientists “ignored the fact that such chemicals use ‘essential technology for many aspects of modern life,’ and that tests, reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency, concluded that these alternatives were safer than the chemicals they were replacing.” Not to mention the use of these chemicals contribute to the billions of sales manufacturers, like DuPont, make.
“We don’t dismiss the right of folks to debate this,” Thomas H. Samples, DuPont’s head of risk management for the division that manufactures these chemicals, said. “But we just believe based on the 10-year history of extensive studies done on the alternatives, that the regulatory agencies have done their job of determining that these things are safe for their intended uses.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals In Pizza Boxes Swirls Fear On Risk Of Cancer
May 4, 2015 | Food World News
By Arlene B. Cruz
Chemicals in pizza boxes identified as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl, or PFASs are now on a much hyped alarm after 200 researchers from 38 countries signed a petition for its restriction.
These chemicals in pizza boxes are also found commonly in microwave popcorn bags, cosmetics, and carpet treatments are linked to more dangerous health implications such as exposing one to higher cancer risk, the International Business Times reported.
The study done by the group of international scientists is calling to ban the use of PFASs, which are normally used chemicals in pizza boxes. They urged to explore the use of other safe options as the chemical is not only dangerous for humans, but also to the environment.
The group of international scientists presented their National Institutes of Health study that was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives on Friday.
Although chemicals in pizza boxes can extend a product's shelf-life and make it sturdier, it can bring more health risk including thyroid disease and kidney cancer.
"Research is needed to understand the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to the short-chain PFASs, especially regarding low-dose endocrine disruption and immunotoxicity," wrote by authors Linda S. Birnbaum, from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program and Philippe Grandjean, from the Harvard School of Public Health.
PFASs are not only the chemicals in pizza boxes, it has been widely used in several products including cars and planes, footwear, electronics (cell phones), backpacks, sleeping bags, and even hospital equipments.
The study that has become a year debate already made the DuPont, chemical manufacturer to stop using PFASs, the chemicals in pizza boxes to be used in their Teflon products, the New York Times reported.
However, the study was counteracted by the American Chemistry Council, the industry trade association, saying that the chemicals PFASs are "essential technology for many aspects of modern life."
The association said that chemicals in pizza boxes make the boxes remain sturdy even when grease soaks into them.
In the earlier studies in years 2003 and 2005, it was detected that PFASs remain in the bodies of people after their exposure to it. This happening links to increase exposure to certain cancers.
However, even many manufacturers have already replaced PFASs in their products it has been found that these chemicals like the chemicals in pizza boxes have the same structure as the PFASs so it is still feared to cause some health hazards.
Thomas F. Webster, a professor of environmental health at Boston University's school of public health said that, still it is safe to prevent PFASs products like chemicals in pizza boxes as much as possible.
© 2015 Food World News. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Concerned About Chemicals In Pizza Boxes
May 1, 2015 | AskMen
By Ian Lang
Why Is This Important?Because your delivery pizza may be even less healthy than you think.Long Story Short
A group of over 200 scientists have signed a statement expressing concern over a group of chemicals used to replace other unsafe chemicals in packaging like shoe and pizza boxes. The scientists believe they have not been studied enough.Long Story
If you wonder why anyone would think to use a cardboard box to carry something wet like a pizza, thank poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs. They give cardboard moisture-resistant properties, but scientists learned years ago that they also happened to give humans things like cancer. Now, the debate has resurfaced as over 200 scientists have expressed concern for the safety of the chemicals manufacturers have used to replace the PFASs.
The manufacturers, namely DuPont, believe that the chemicals are safe and that regulatory agencies have thoroughly vetted them. However, both Linda S. Birnbaum, the head of the national toxicology program for the Department of Health and Human Services and a group of over 200 chemists disagree. Until these new PFASs have been rigorously studied, their use should be limited.
“Research is needed to find safe alternatives for all current uses of PFASs,” Birnbaum wrote in an editorial published Friday in Environmental Health Perspectives. “The question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in the meantime, given their persistence in the environment?”
An industry trade association known as the American Chemistry Council responded by saying that the EPA’s tests found that these chemicals are safer than the old PFASs. Their also ubiquitous in use, and make a lot of money for the companies that produce and sell them.
“We don’t dismiss the right of folks to debate this,” Thomas H. Samples, the company’s head of risk management for the division that manufactures these chemicals told the New York Times. “But we just believe based on the 10-year history of extensive studies done on the alternatives, that the regulatory agencies have done their job of determining that these things are safe for their intended uses.”
Some of the chemicals, especially one called GenX, have been linked to symptoms like eye and skin irritation in humans. While the chemicals are still legal for now, scientists say that humans should avoid products that contain them whenever possible.
“We call on the international community to cooperate in limiting the production and use of PFASs,” the statement said.Own The Conversation
Ask The Big Question: Who do you trust — the scientists that question these chemicals, or the government agencies that allow them?
Disrupt Your Feed: Looks like I’m ordering Chinese tonight.
Drop This Fact: DuPont is over 200 years old, having been founded in 1802.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Warn Of Chemicals In Pizza Boxes, Cellphones
May 2, 2015 | Armonk Daily Voice
By Stephanie Mojica
Hundreds of scientists are lobbying for communities throughout the world, including Westchester County, to limit the use of potentially dangerous chemicals that are found in many pizza boxes and cellphones, Yahoo! Health reported.
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, are the focal point of concern, according to Yahoo! Health.
The chemicals are also found in backpacks, shoes, some hospital equipment and sleeping bags, Yahoo! Health reported.
Not every expert agrees with the group of scientists touting the dangers of PFASs – the American Chemistry Council’s position is that the chemicals are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and therefore are safe, according to Yahoo! Health.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scientists Warn Against PFAS Chemicals Used In Pizza Boxes
May 3, 2015 | Capital OTC
By Heidi Smith
A paper published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives by the National Institute of Health warns people regarding chemicals used in the manufacturing of boxes used for carrying pizza.
Pizza boxes have Polyfluoroalkyl and Perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals in their composition in order to prevent grease from seeping through the boxes. According to this new study this could be the cause of a series of health conditions.
PFAS chemicals are usually used because they are resistant to high temperatures and help increasing the durability and the shelf life of the items. These chemicals are also used as water and oil repellents. Although companies which use PFAS chemicals claim that they are safe to use, scientists have lately raised concerns based on previous studies.
Teflon is the most well-known product which uses PFA chemicals. More than fifty years ago it was discovered that Teflon used in pans and pots was the cause of enlarged livers in rabbits and rats.
200 scientists from 38 countries signed the published statement which urged the restriction of these chemicals. A year ago DuPont stopped using PFAS chemicals in Teflon products because people were concerned about the chemicals which linger in the body and increase the risk of developing cancer. In 2005 the company received a $16.5 million fine from the US Environmental Protection Agency.
More PFAS chemicals will be eliminated this year. However the researchers are not sure whether the compounds which will replace them will be better or will cause the same concerns. Linda Birnbaum, official from the Health and Human Services, remarked that in order to find a safe alternative for PFAS chemicals research needs to be conducted. She also added:
“The question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in the meantime, given their persistence in the environment?”
According to Arlene Blum from the University of California the authorities have the responsibility to pass decision which last long instead of recurring to uncertified replacements.
The industry trade association the American Chemistry Council claimed that the statement did not take into account the fact that these chemicals make use of technology which is essential for many aspects of modern life and that tests conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency proved that alternatives are safer than the chemicals which they are replacing.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sofia Martinez and Richard Moore: Udall–Vitter's Toxic Shell Game: We Deserve Better
May 2, 2015 | Silver City Sun News
By Sofia Martinez and Richard Moore
A decade of pressure by parents, doctors, scientists, businesses, and state governments has created momentum to finally fix the broken federal law governing chemicals used in commerce, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which has allowed thousands of hazardous and untested chemicals to be widely used in everyday consumer products.
Unfortunately, while TSCA reform is desperately needed to protect the lives of millions from harmful chemicals, reform efforts in Congress have been hijacked by the chemical industry. A new proposal by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) claims to be a step toward fixing TSCA. In reality, the bill could delay action on hazardous chemicals even further than the current law and give the chemical industry a free pass to continue endangering our children. Senator Udall's bill also fails to address legacy contaminants and the many environmental justice communities fighting off toxic facilities or waste dumps in their neighborhoods.
While Senator Udall has said "EPA has lacked the tools to protect our most vulnerable — infants, pregnant women, children and the elderly," he fails to mention the disastrous impact his bill may have on the nation's 3.8 million people living fence-line to many of these facilities, including facilities in New Mexico. Gaping loopholes in the bill are so enormous they seem to have been left by design.Advertisement <a href="http://psa-d.openx.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=4ec6d94f14679&cb=naG9mJuEoH" ><img src="http://psa-d.openx.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=34589&cs=4ec6d94f14679&amp;cb=wHtcBo2OlT" border="0" alt=""></a>
On March 6, the New York Times reported that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) "spent more than $4 million during the 2014 election cycle on television and radio spots to help their allies in Congress," including Senator Udall. According to the Times, "Mr. Udall had never before received a contribution from the Chemistry Council," but during the last election cycle the industry "donated tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns and sponsored a television ad that praised his leadership." On March 16, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that when the electronic version of the draft Udall-Vitter bill was examined the paper found "the 'company' of origin to be the American Chemistry Council."
When it comes to regulating toxic chemicals, we believe Senator Udall should be listening to New Mexican families more than the chemical industry.
Although the bill proposes some needed improvements to TSCA, at the same time it would create new barriers to federal action and strip states of their right to restrict hazardous chemicals even if EPA isn't doing anything. State leadership on this issue is essential for progress. Over the past decade, 35 states have enacted more than 150 policies addressing some of the worst chemicals in broad categories of household products.
New Mexicans can now buy furniture, televisions, infant formula, baby bottles, baby food, and many other products made without highly toxic chemicals like bisphenol-A and several polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) because of reforms enacted by other states that caused product manufacturers to broadly phase out these toxic chemicals from their products sold nationwide. Today, New Mexico children and families are safer because of these actions by other states.
In contrast, the proposed Udall-Vitter bill would require EPA to initially review just 10 out of over 84,000 available chemicals, with no requirements or deadlines for adopting actual restrictions, using a process that will in practice take at least 7 to 15 years to complete, while immediately blocking actions by states.
That's a pretty sweet deal for the chemical industry.
We know TSCA must be reformed, but Senator Udall's effort would take us backwards. Giving away the ability of states to protect their residents, while creating new barriers to federal action, in exchange merely for EPA review of a handful of chemicals with no guarantee of restrictions isn't necessary compromise, it's bowing down to the chemical industry when we need to be standing up for justice.
Sofia Martinez is the president of Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound and Mora County. Richard Moore is the coordinator of Los Jardines Institute (The Gardens Institute) in Albuquerque.
-
(ACC Mentioned) "The Human Experiment" Doc Says We're Poisoning Ourselves With Everyday Products
May 4, 2015 | Treehugger
By Katherine Martinko
When you look at the number of unregulated chemicals that surround us in North America, it's not surprising we're sicker than ever - and that could be just the tip of the iceberg.
The Human Experiment is an excellent documentary that poses a very disturbing question:
“What if the greatest chemical disaster of our time didn’t involve oil spills or nuclear meltdowns? Instead, it was much lower levels of exposure, inflicted over several generations and affecting several generations.”
The film suggests that we in North America are slowly poisoning ourselves and subsequent generations through persistent chemical exposure. We are surrounded by toxic chemicals, from personal care products, furniture, and building materials to clothing, cleaning products, plastics, and pollution. The human body absorbs and retains these toxins and, while certain small doses of chemicals may do little harm, there is great cause for concern that the cumulative effect of all these chemicals is creating a population that’s sicker than ever.
The Human Experiment follows several women whose lives have been changed by chemical exposure. One was diagnosed with breast cancer, despite being a young, healthy athlete. One has a non-verbal brother with autism. Another has polycystic ovarian syndrome and struggles to get pregnant. A woman who works as a house cleaner became terribly sick from the chemicals, primarily bleach, that her employer made her use.
Many of the individuals featured in the film have become activists in the U.S. Congressional debate about whether or not to reform the archaic 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which requires a chemical to be proven dangerous before taking it off the market. The debate serves as a focal point for the film, and shows the clash between the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the well-meaning senators who wish to pass the Chemical Safety Improvement Act.
The ACC, unsurprisingly, does not like The Human Experiment’s message. In response to the film’s initial release in 2013, it told ABCNews:
“[The film] paints an incomplete and distorted picture of current chemical regulation while ignoring the essential role that chemistry plays in making modern life safer, more convenient and more fulfilling.”
As long as safety is up for debate, any assurances of “convenience” and “fulfillment” coming from the ACC still don’t make me want to take any risks. The film reinforces many of the things I already know about chemical exposure and that I’ve written about for TreeHugger. Hopefully the film’s re-release will spur a greater number of people to action – to read labels, to learn which ingredients should be avoided, and to choose brands very carefully. There is a list of resources on the film’s website.
The Human Experiment was first released in 2013 and then re-launched in time for Earth Day of this year. It was produced by Emmy Award-winning journalists and filmmakers Dana Nachman and Don Hardy, and narrated by Sean Penn.
-
(ACC Mentioned) That’s a Wrap: Keeping Bags at Bay with Bans, Fees, Education and Labeling
May 1, 2015 | Waste360
By Elizabeth McGowan
Ah the plight of the much-maligned, single-use plastic grocery bag. Hawaii has essentially banned them and California’s legislation to follow suit has gone to a referendum.
Arizona just outlawed such bag bans, and Missouri is considering similar legislation.
Meanwhile, New York City and Philadelphia might fall into line with Washington, D.C.; Boulder, Colo.; and Portland, Maine; by charging shoppers a fee of a nickel or a dime for each bag.
Impassioned legislators rant as if the choice between paper and plastic is embedded somewhere in the Constitution. Conservationists fret that these long-lived petroleum products not only clog rivers and oceans but also sully tree branches and landscapes when they become airborne. And ordinary homeowners lament that they will be denied trashcan liners and dog poop scoopers.
How is it that these flimsy fragments of film, these urban tumbleweeds, send so many into paroxysms? “People get really emotional about their bags,” says Julie Lawson, director of Trash Free Maryland, an alliance of more than 60 like-minded local organizations. “They’re on autopilot about lots of things and really resistant to change.”
That recalcitrance is why unflappable heads such as Lawson and Nina Butler, managing director at Sonoma, Ca.-based Moore Recycling Associates, deploy a mix of psychology, math and carrots to change behavior and keep plastic in its place.
“The ideal scenario is that we educate people about recycling all film beyond plastic bags,” Butler tells Waste 360 in an interview. “We recognize it’s a valuable material. We should be putting it back into the economy because the market demand is huge. And that doesn’t mean we encourage using film in a cavalier way.”
For instance, Butler says, most people are clueless that collection bins outside grocery stores and retailers also accept air-filled packing pillows; sandwich, bread, drycleaner and newspaper bags; and the plastic that seals bulk cat food cans and rolls of paper towels and toilet tissue. It’s crucial that all bins and film be clearly labeled, she adds.
Research by Moore, which receives funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), reveals that plastic bags and wraps were a mere 13 percent—149 million pounds—of the 1.14 billion pounds of post-consumer film collected in this country in 2013. Butler is convinced that total can be doubled to 2 billion pounds by 2020 by boosting awareness and access and curing apathy.
That’s why she’s a force behind the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), launched in 2013 by the ACC’s Flexible Film Recycling Group. WRAP encourages collaboration among communities, businesses, universities, hospitals, retailers and materials recovery facilities (MRFs). For instance, a Wisconsin pilot program has significantly increased commercial access to film recycling.
Butler and Lawson agree that curbside collection of film is disastrous because it is so easily contaminated and gums up MRF machines.
Likewise, they view bag fees as benevolent, especially when the money is directed toward education, anti-pollution efforts and promoting reusable totes. Lawson, who was instrumental in initiating a five-cent bag fee in the nation’s capital in 2010, says household bag use has dropped 60 percent there since 2009.
Statewide bans on plastic bag bans are irksome because they prevent progressive communities from solving a specific trash headache, Lawson says.
“We talk about a choice between paper and plastic at the grocery store,” she says. “Shouldn’t people have a choice about how their communities deal with plastic bags?”
Butler fears outright bans will choke off some of the estimated 18,000 collection sites now accessible to most citizen recyclers. For instance, after California banned plastic bags in 2014, a Moore spotcheck of 88 grocery and retail stores statewide found that 39 percent of the stores had removed collection bins.
“What’s good about them is what’s bad about them,” Butler says about plastic bags. “They’re lightweight, which is what makes film the best material if you’re shipping anything and want to reduce loss. But if they’re not handled properly, they can have a lot of negative consequences. It’s complicated.”
Statistics gathered by Moore show that 48 percent of the used film collected nationwide in 2013 was turned into composite lumber and 43 percent was reborn as new film. Butler has no doubt that industry is champing at the bit for recycled feedstock to churn out even more lumber, benches, playground equipment, containers and pipes.
Lawson understands the need for useful plastic.
“I’m not opposed to plastic, I’m opposed to stupid plastics,” she emphasizes. “It’s way too versatile to be used for 12 minutes as a bag and then thrown away. At the end of the day, my job is to prevent these bags from polluting the water.”
It’s wonderful, Lawson says, that people are learning that storefront receptacles can accept a range of film products. However, she had a hearty laugh recently when a plastics recycler admitted that some bread bags they received still contained not just crumbs—but entire loaves.
Clearly, the educating isn’t finished.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boulder Brands Joins GreenBlue’s How2Recycle Label Program
May 4, 2015 | Eco-Business
GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) on April 28 announced that Boulder Brands has joined the organization’s How2Recycle Label program.
Boulder Brands is one of the largest natural consumer packaged food companies in the US and is comprised of Earth Balance, EVOL, Glutino, LEVEL, Smart Balance, and Udi’s Gluten Free Foods.
Boulder Brands joins more than 35 How2Recycle members dedicated to helping consumers recycle their products the right way with clear and simple on-package instructions. The company will be the first to label polyethylene bread and baked good bags.
“Boulder Brands is thrilled to be working with How2Recycle to encourage recycling among our consumers,” said Kyle Heberle, SVP for Operations & Supply Chain for Boulder Brands.
“Reducing our environmental footprint is a key goal for our company, and as a packaged goods manufacturer we also take our responsibility seriously to educate our consumer on relevant issues. Our partnership with How2Recycle will help us increase transparency and awareness on our packaging and the importance of recycling. Boulder Brands is particularly pleased to have the opportunity to be the first How2Recycle member to start labelling polyethylene bread and baked goods bags in the months ahead in partnership with the American Chemistry Council’s Flexible Film Recycling Group.”
Consumers will begin to see the label appear on-package this summer and Boulder Brands will increase the use of the label as they undergo packaging refreshes throughout the year. About How2Recycle
How2Recycle is a program of GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC). The SPC’s goal is for the How2Recycle Label to appear on the majority of consumer goods packaging by 2016 and to provide participating companies with detailed information regarding the recyclability of their packaging. How2Recycle sponsorships are available for the use of the Store Drop-off Label. These sponsorships are made possible through the support of the Flexible Film Recycling Group(FFRG) of the American Chemistry Council. Any company interested in joining How2Recycle or obtaining a fee sponsorship should visit www.how2recycle.info/how2join and contact Anne Bedarf at anne.bedarf@greenblue.org.
For How2Recycle program updates, follow us on Twitter @How2Recycle. About GreenBlue and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition
GreenBlue® is a nonprofit that shapes the business of sustainability. We arm the agents of change with the science and resources needed to make business more sustainable. The organization’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition® is a membership group that brings together business, educational institutions, and government agencies to collectively broaden the understanding of packaging sustainability and develop meaningful improvements for packaging solutions, and holds two conferences each year to further this goal. For more information follow us on Twitter @GreenBlueOrg. About Boulder Brands, Inc.
Boulder Brands, Inc. (NasdaqGM: BDBD) is committed to offering food solutions that give consumers opportunities to improve their lives – one product at a time. The company’s health and wellness platform consists of brands that target specific health trends: the Glutino® and Udi’s Gluten Free® brands for gluten-free diets; the Earth Balance® brand for plant-based diets; the Level Life™ brand for diabetes-friendly diets, EVOL foods for consumers seeking simple and pure ingredients; and the Smart Balance® brand for heart healthier diets. For more information about Boulder Brands, Inc., please visit www.boulderbrands.com.
-
Despite Clearing Committee, TSCA Bill Has Long Road Ahead, Senators Say
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and John Herzfeld
Two senators behind the landmark bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act said the legislation, despite clearing a Senate committee, still has many hurdles to clear and may not make it to the president's desk for months.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the main backer of the bill, said during a May 1 online town hall that the full Senate's consideration of the bill could last three to six weeks because other senators want to add amendments to it.
In addition, Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) told Bloomberg BNA that the president needs to throw his support behind the bill to help ensure its passage.
However, there will be no action on the bill in the Senate for at least several weeks. According to Udall, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told him that S. 697, the bill to overhaul TSCA, “could be on the floor of the Senate in June.”
The bill, which would be the first major change to TSCA in nearly 40 years, cleared the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 28 on a 15-5 vote. The bill had the backing of four Democrats and 11 Republicans (82 DEN A-9, 4/29/15).
The majority leader's office did not respond to our requests for comment in time for this story.
President Should State Position
Another key proponent of the TSCA reform bill, Carper, said the bill would benefit from the White House stating its position on the legislation.
In a May 1 interview with Bloomberg BNA, Carper said he'd like to see a Statement of Administration Position signaling that President Barack Obama would sign any bill reasonably close to the Senate version.
Carper said he plans to support the committee bill on the Senate floor and through any House-Senate conference proceeding.
One amendment that failed in committee would have required the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the proximity of a chemical's storage to drinking water sources in determining whether to give it a high-priority assessment.
That vote on that amendment, backed by environmental and health groups, was “a jump ball” in committee, Carper said. If the measure is offered on the Senate floor, it would be another close call.
Pointing to concerns that such an amendment would kill the bill, Carper said the challenge will be “figuring out how to address this legitimate need.” Bill supporters are “looking for a compromise” that would meet the goal of protecting drinking water, either through this legislation or by other means.
Central to the drinking water issue is whether oversight by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health Service is sufficient as currently structured, or whether new legislative authority under TSCA is needed to bring in the EPA.
“The question is: Is it being addressed now?” Carper said, saying he hoped it would be answered “based on the facts, not emotion.”
What he wouldn't support, however, is any “poison pill” amendment, he said, one that would sabotage Senate passage of the bill or cost it so many votes that either the House or the president won't back it.
If the bill passes the Senate with 80 votes, “that would send a very strong message to the House that we're serious about this,” Carper said. By contrast, he said, Senate passage with 50 to 54 votes wouldn't be enough to bring the House along.
Friendship With Boxer Ended
The role of states in regulating toxic chemicals remains controversial, Carper said, with the business community pleading for a single national standard to replace a “patchwork quilt” of 47 state laws.
Carper said the push for a single national approach had drawn vociferous opposition from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the committee's ranking Democrat, who sought to protect the role of California's regulatory program in the TSCA scheme.
With his support for the bill, he said, his and Boxer's friendship of more than 30 years “basically ended.”
He defended the committee bill as having offered an “elegant compromise” to the states’ rights issue by allowing states to enforce their regulations if they match federal requirements, Carper said.
The bill had won bipartisan committee passage by satisfying concerns raised by three Democratic members, Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Carper said.
While not every environmental and public health organization backs the committee bill, he said, support is growing and some stakeholders have signaled they'll stay neutral as it moves forward. Senior EPA officials, he said, have privately told him they commend the committee's work.
Former Governor's View
Asked to comment as a former two-term governor on the states’ rights aspects of the debate, Carper said that the constitution reserves powers to the states where the federal government “fails to meet a legitimate need.”
But in the 21st century, he said, it's hard for companies to follow separate regulatory regimes for each state. The answer, he said, is to “use common sense, get a lot of ideas from everybody, and communicate, compromise and collaborate.”
Congress has failed to revise TSCA for more than 35 years, Carper said, and if differences can be set aside to get it done now, it may provide a “template” for bipartisan cooperation on other issues, ranging from trade and immigration to transportation and cybersecurity.
-
Vote On Chemical Law Reform Expected In June
May 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said his bill to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws could hit the Senate floor for a vote in June.
During a conference call with media and business leaders on Friday, Udall said he’s been in talks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is in line for a vote.
The legislation he introduced with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) in March is one of two bills to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It’s named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenbeg (D-N.J.), who led the reform effort before his death in 2013.
The bill, however, was first criticized for for restricting states’ rights to issue their own protections for dangerous chemicals and for failing to ban asbestos.
But after weeks of negotiations, the bill passed through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by a 15-5 vote with changes that allow states greater flexibility to regulate chemicals the EPA has not acted on and lets states enforce rules along with the federal government, among other compromises.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) has introduced a similar bill in the House. Udall said that proposed legislation, the TSCA Modernization Act, is scheduled for markup next week.
“We’re moving in tandem,” he said.
If the House bill passes, Udall said Congress would then need to iron out the differences between the two.
-
Our Toxic Status Quo Doesn’t Protect Us
May 1, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Ruth Marcus
Today’s topic is toxic substances and the appalling gaps in the current law that is supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals.
For example, before a new chemical enters the market, the manufacturer must demonstrate its safety and the substance must win approval from federal regulators, right? Ruth Marcus is a columnist and editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics and domestic policy.
Not even close.
When it comes to new medications, the Food and Drug Administration conducts a rigorous review. Same for pesticides and the Environmental Protection Agency. But chemicals — even chemicals used in everyday household products — are presumed safe until proven otherwise. Companies don’t even have to test chemicals before using them in consumer products.
Not only that: The EPA, which is responsible for overseeing chemical safety, is all but toothless even when serious questions are raised about substances already in use. If you think this is hyperbole, consider the example of asbestos, classified as a “known human carcinogen.” It’s banned, right?
Nope.
In 1989, after studying the issue for 10 years and concluding that asbestos posed “an unreasonable risk to human health,” the EPA moved to prohibit most products that contain asbestos. Two years later, it was shot down by a federal appeals court, which concluded that the agency had overstepped its authority.
Since then, the EPA has not proposed regulating a single additional toxic substance. Not a single one, despite the emerging evidence that an alphabet soup of chemical substances — BPA in plastic baby bottles, PFCs in nonstick surfaces for pans, PBDEs in flame retardants for furniture — collect in the human body and are linked to health problems, particularly in children.
The fundamental difficulty, and the reason I’m writing about this topic today, is the ineffectiveness of a 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, that was supposed to regulate such materials. When the law was passed, some 60,000 chemicals were listed as being in use in household or industrial products. Since then, the EPA has only been able to require testing on just over 200; only five have been banned or even restricted.
When the toxic substances law was passed, the prevalent scientific thinking was that, unlike pharmaceuticals or pesticides that are at risk of being ingested, chemical compounds are not intended to be biologically active and therefore not likely to cause harm. That has turned out to be dangerously incorrect.
“We now know that hundreds of chemicals have properties of concern to human health. And, moreover, we have evidence that we are being exposed to them in ways that we were not decades ago,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Here’s the good news: An astonishing bipartisan coalition of senators, assembled by David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), is pushing an overhaul of the law, the culmination of a decade-long effort launched by the late senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved it last week by a vote of 15 to 5. When Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) agree on something beyond what to name a post office, that’s an achievement.
The confluence of interests that produced this progress stems from the ramped-up activity of state regulators in the absence of federal oversight, and the chemical industry’s preference for a federal rule rather than patchwork, and potentially more burdensome, state edicts.
But this impetus for action also reflects the biggest disagreement over the proposal — over the degree to which the federal law would preempt state regulation. This dispute has split the environmental movement and spurred the environment panel’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), not only to vote against the measure in committee but to threaten a filibuster on the floor.
The chemical industry would prefer to have a federal law that entirely preempts state regulation. The compromise worked out by Vitter and Udall would allow existing state protections against hazardous chemicals to remain in place; states would remain free to impose additional regulations unless and until the EPA decided to launch a review.
Not perfect but about as good as it is going to get with a Republican Congress that isn’t disappearing anytime soon. Meanwhile, as with the blowup of climate change legislation in 2009, congressional failure now could mean no action for years.
“The risks are substantial that we will likely lose the best opportunity we’ve had in a generation,” said the defense fund’s Denison. Then, he said, “we go back to a status quo that everybody agrees is a failure.”
And that would be truly appalling.
-
Teflon-Killing Canaries and the American Dream
May 1, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
As a new EWG report shines a light on DuPont’s poisoned legacy in the mid-Ohio River Valley, it’s a good time to look back at Teflon’s canary effect.
To this day, cooking with a non-stick pot could kill your pet bird.
As far back as 1986, avian veterinarians knew that Teflon or similar non-stick cookware made with chemicals known collectively as PFCs (for perfluorinated chemicals) could produce fumes and particles that are highly toxic to birds. The phenomenon even has a name – “Teflon toxicosis.” It has killed hundreds of birds.
When the cookware heats to more than 500 degrees, the coatings begin to break down; when temperatures climb to more than 660 degrees, the chemicals significantly decompose, emitting highly toxic fumes that are deadly to birds. Although they are imperceptible to humans at low levels, the fumes float into and through the lungs of birds, which die of scorched lungs and ruptured blood vessels.
DuPont long knew that PFCs were harmful. A review of studies published back in the 1950s shows that the company had learned that even at relatively low levels the fumes could cause an acute illness known as “polymer fume fever.” In 1962, DuPont scientists actually gave 40 human “volunteers” Teflon-laced cigarettes to study polymer fume fever, otherwise known as “the shakes.”
DuPont even advised housewives to move pet birds out of the kitchen. DuPont still has this warning on its website:
Because birds have extremely sensitive respiratory systems, bird owners must take precautions to protect them. Cooking fumes, smoke and odors that have little or no effect on people can seriously sicken and even kill birds, often quite quickly… Bird owners should take steps to protect their pets, such as keeping their birds out of the kitchen, never leaving cookware unattended, never allowing pots and pans to overheat, and making sure that their kitchen is properly ventilated at all times.
You can read more about this phenomenon in EWG’s 2003 report, “Canaries in the Kitchen.”
Another product to keep an eye on is the popular BBQ Grill Mat. While it's best to avoid using these products, keep pets and kids away from the fumes if you grill on these non-stick sheets.
A key chemical formerly used in making Teflon products, called C8 or PFOA, is due to be phased out by the end of this year. However, little information is available about the subsequent generations of PFCs, which remain in wide use. Very little testing data is available because manufacturers regularly hide their results as confidential trade secrets. Should we wait decades to find out if they’re safe or heed the warning of the proverbial “canary in a coal mine?”
Just like that classic harbinger of danger, the threat that PFCs pose to canaries in the kitchen is a warning sign.
-
Trade Fight Looms As Key Bills Head For House And Senate Votes
May 4, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
Congressional committees recently agreed to give President Barack Obama the authority he needs to wrap up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the proposed free-trade pact between the U.S., Japan, and 10 other countries mostly in the Asia-Pacific region.
But the real fight over the legislation (S. 995 and H.R. 1890) will occur in the coming weeks when the controversial measure comes up for final votes in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The trade promotion bill would allow President Obama to submit the completed TPP deal to Congress for an up-or-down vote, rather than allowing lawmakers to amend it.
Without this fast-track procedure, analysts say that no trade partner will make concessions to U.S. negotiators because Congress could pick the deal apart.
The chemical industry, one of the nation’s top exporting sectors, supports both the legislation and the TPP.
“For U.S. chemical manufacturers to succeed in today’s global economy, we must be able to compete effectively in international markets,” says Michael P. Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade association.
The fast-track mechanism will “help open markets and ensure the U.S. chemical industry can capitalize on its massive export potential,” Walls adds.
But the legislation faces strong opposition from the labor movement and its Democratic allies, who argue that trade agreements have caused an outflow of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to other nations.
-
Litigator Describes Ways to Mitigate Liability As Arranger for Disposal of Hazardous Waste
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
To mitigate the risk of Superfund liability as an arranger for disposal of hazardous substances, companies that use or sell such substances or products that contain them should be proactive and carefully draft contracts with customers, distributors and contractors, a Superfund litigator said April 29 in a Bloomberg BNA webinar.
In addition, businesses should perform due diligence before acquiring another company and be aware of the historical practices and properties that may be related to hazardous substances, attorney John J. DiChello, with Blank Rome LLP, said.
DiChello said many things can be done through contract to mitigate risk. Such measures include requiring distributors and contractors to keep facilities safe and adequate for storing hazardous substances and requesting periodic access to those facilities.
In addition, customers, distributors and contractors may be contractually required to acknowledge and agree that they are aware of the risks of handling, storing and using the product, and to fully comply with all laws regarding hazardous substances, he said.
Parties can also specify in the sales agreement that it's a sale of a product and not a disposal, he said. “It's not going to be a conclusive point. But it could be used in a persuasive way to counsel against intent,” he said.
Companies can also require that customers and distributors agree to indemnify, defend and hold them harmless from any claims related to disposal of hazardous substances.
And businesses shouldn't accept authority to control hazardous substances after sale, he said.
DiChello also urged that companies avoid words such as “scrap” or “disposal” in internal documents discussing these transactions that could be interpreted as supporting intent.
“Another way to mitigate risk is to treat sales and disposals in completely different ways,” by using different vendors, procedures and processes, he said.
He also advised that if a company becomes aware of spills by customers or distributors, it should take steps to reduce the possibility of future spills. “Don't just turn a blind eye,” he said.
Finally, DiChello said, companies should “treat used but useful products containing hazardous substances as assets on their balance sheet.”
-
Federal Ban on Microbeads Would Prevent Patchwork of State Laws, Speakers Testify
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
A uniform, consistent federal ban on products containing microbeads is necessary and preferable to the patchwork of state bans and voluntary phase-outs that has recently emerged, representatives from industry, advocacy groups and state government told a House subcommittee May 1.
Several states have taken action to ban the manufacture or sale of personal care products and over-the-counter drugs that contain microbeads, which are minuscule bits of plastic found in products, such as exfoliants, soap and toothpaste.
“Just in a very short period of time, three new laws were signed and there's a bunch on governors' desks. So it does look like pretty soon we'll have 50 different laws,” New Jersey Sen. Linda Greenstein (D) told the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health.
The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 (H.R. 1321), introduced by Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) March 4, would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 361) to ban the sale or distribution of products containing microbeads, starting Jan. 1, 2018 (43 DEN A-3, 3/5/15).
Need for Federal Action
Microbeads have been found in all five of the Great Lakes and in the stomachs of fish and fish-eating birds. They can absorb other pollutants and are too small to be filtered out by water filtration systems.
New Jersey banned microbeads March 25 (57 DEN A-9, 3/25/15).
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a bill March 26 phasing in the ban on microbeads (62 DEN A-19, 4/1/15).
Maryland's General Assembly sent a bill banning the manufacture or sale of microbeads to the governor for signature April 13 (72 DEN A-11, 4/15/15).
“We need a federal standard to cover all those states that have not taken action, and I think the consistency of federal legislation, both in terms of the timing and definitions, is going to be extremely helpful,” John Hurson, executive vice president of government relations at the industry group Personal Care Products Council, said at the May 1 hearing.
No ‘Sell-Through’ Period
H.R. 1321 would ban the sale of cosmetic products containing microbeads as of Jan. 1, 2018.
Hurson noted that in the model state bill, which was developed in Illinois and used as a framework for other states' legislation, the ban on the manufacture of products containing microbeads kicks in Jan. 1, 2018, but the ban on the sale of those products begins a year later to account for a period of “sell-through.”
Recent bills passed in Maryland and signed in Colorado also follow that timeline, though the Colorado version allows over-the-counter drugs to sit on the shelf until Jan. 1, 2020.
Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble and other manufacturers have made recent commitments to phase out microbeads, typically used in products as an abrasive. Naturally derived abrasives such as ground nuts, oatmeal or sea salt are often cited as potential alternatives.
The bill, which is only 16 lines long, would ban a product “if it contains synthetic plastic microbeads.” However, further defining “synthetic plastic microbeads” would be left to the Food & Drug Administration.
The cosmetic industry, which supports phasing out microbeads, hopes to see a more precise definition in the legislation.
“It is especially important to carefully define synthetic plastic microbeads in the statute to avoid inadvertently prohibiting the use of natural alternatives and to make sure the prohibition provides clear direction to companies regarding reformulation,” Hurson said, adding that having the FDA promulgate the definition may also delay the ban.
Greenstein agreed with the need for clear definitions and the preference that those definitions would be included in the legislation rather than left to a regulatory agency.
Molly Flanagan of environmental organization Alliance for the Great Lakes, testified that terms such as “synthetic” should be clearly defined to ensure that permitted products are truly biodegradable.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Energy Influence: Murkowski Reels In Energy Funds
May 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
MAJOR CHUNK OF MURKOWSKI Q1 HAUL FROM ENERGY INTERESTS: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, up for reelection next year, brought in $692,000 in the first quarter — with a whopping 32 percent of that from energy interests, according to our review of Murkowski’s FEC filings. As of the end of March, she had on hand $1.5 million. That’s already a better showing than where she was at this point in 2009, when Murkowski raised $438,000 in the first quarter and had $734,000 on hand.
PAC to the future: Energy PACs are coming out in force for Murkowski. Her roster of Q1 contributors includes PACs connected to BP, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, Anadarko, Chesapeake Energy, Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, Peabody Energy, Tesoro, Pioneer Natural Resources, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, the Williams Companies, TECO, Covanta, ITC Holdings, AGL Resources, Atmos, Murphy Oil and Concho Resources. Trade group PACs that gave to Murkowski include the American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Edison Electric Institute, National Mining Association, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and National Ocean Industries Association.
Who’s who: Quite a few prominent individuals also turned up on Murkowski’s Q1 donor list: ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance, Anadarko Chairman R.A. Walker, Hess Corp. CEO John Hess, Southern Co. CEO Thomas Fanning, Alaska Oil and Gas Association President and CEO Kara Moriarty, Electric Power Supply Association President and CEO John Shelk, National Mining Association chief Hal Quinn, NRECA CEO Jo Ann Emerson, Hilcorp Energy founder Jeffery Hildebrand, and Texas Crude Energy Chairman and CEO Peter Fluor. Also on the list is Kaleb Froehlich, a vice president at Cassidy & Associates who worked for Murkowski on the Senate energy committee from 2009 until last year.
Is Murkowski in any danger? No one has forgotten her infamous primary defeat in 2010 to Joe Miller — or her impressive write-in comeback. It’s early enough in the cycle that it’s not clear who will be challenging Murkowski, either from within her own party or among Democrats. Despite her ultimate 2010 victory, last’s year surprise primary defeat of Eric Cantor is surely proving to be a harsh reminder for Murkowski and other lawmakers of what can happen without aggressive campaigning.
WELCOME TO ENERGY INFLUENCE, our newsletter for Pro subscribers on campaign finance and lobbying in the energy world. The calendar may say it’s 2015, but here at Energy Influence we are all about 2016, baby. In this edition, we stop by the Pelican State, find out which House chairman is raising more money these days and which is raising less, and find out which clients stuck with former House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo as he starts his own firm.
Have tips or suggestions? Email me at aguillen@politico.com, or follow me on Twitter: @alexcguillen.
BAYOU BUZZ — VITTER LANDS CASH FROM KOCH, ARCH, HILCORP, CB&I: Sen. David Vitter has raised major dough from energy companies and offshore services firms early in his gubernatorial run in Louisiana, state records show. While Louisiana doesn’t require individual donors to list their employer or occupation, a review of financial disclosures shows Vitter has raised at least $103,000 from energy companies or offshore services firms with major oil and gas activities (unlike at the federal level, companies can give directly to state candidates). Vitter has gotten checks from Koch Industries, Arch Coal, Hilcorp Energy, CB&I, Hornbeck Offshore Operations, Arena Energy, Stroud Energy, Justiss Oil and the Stupp Corp. Nustar Energy’s PAC gave him $10,000, while a subsidiary company gave another $5,000.
— Vitter has raised $4.6 million for his gubernatorial campaign and as of April 17 had $4.2 million on hand.
BUT THE REAL MONEY is in super PACs, and Vitter’s got a big one. His Fund for Louisiana’s Future — which last year successfully challenged in court a state law that limited contributions to $100,000 — pulled in $420,000 from energy interests in 2014 and so far this year. That includes $70,000 from Joel Broussard, the owner of Gulf Offshore Logistics, plus $10,000 from the company itself; $60,000 from Hilcorp Energy; $50,000 apiece from the American Chemistry Council and Harvey Gulf International Marine; and smaller amounts from Texas Petroleum Investments Co., Denbury Resources, AGL Resources, Dupre Energy Services and Atmos Energy’s PAC.
CHAIRMAN WATCH
Bishop: Murkowski isn’t the only one seeing an increase in fundraising. Rob Bishop, who only just took over the House Natural Resources Committee in January when Doc Hastings retired, has gotten his own modest bump from the new gavel. Bishop’s numbers are relatively low due to his safe GOP seat in Utah, but he raised $167,000 in Q1, up from $110,000 over the same period of 2013. His campaign had just $167,000 on hand at the end of March. His Q1 contributors include PACs affiliated with NRECA, ANGA, API, AGA, BP, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, IPAA, MDU Resources, MidAmerican Energy, Murphy Oil, National Fuel Gas Co., NOIA, PG&E, Pinnacle West, EEI, Spectra Energy, Tesoro and the Williams Companies.
Upton: House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton’s figures are down compared to the same point in 2013, though he’s now proven several times that he can easily survive Democratic challengers. In Q1, Upton raised $409,000, and had $278,000 on hand at the end of March. (In Q1 2013, he raised $476,000 and had $389,000 in the war chest.) His Q1 contributors included PACs connected to EEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Occidental Petroleum, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, DTE Energy, AEP, Dominion, PG&E, Edison International, Energy Future Holdings, Southern Co., Pinnacle West, Duke Energy, NextEra Energy, Marathon Petroleum, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Allete. Upton also got $2,500 checks from EEI President Tom Kuhn and Energy Future Holdings CEO John Young.
SLOW START FOR KOCH PAC, BUT QUICKENED IN MARCH: Koch Industries PAC started out the year slowly, sending just $23,500 to candidates in January (including Marco Rubio’s Senate campaign, as well as to Sen. Pat Toomey, House Ag Chairman Mike Conaway and Mitch McConnell’s Bluegrass Committee) and only $10,500 in February (to Sen. Johnny Isakson, Rep. Glenn Grothman and the Pennsylvania Business Council PAC). But the typically high-spending Koch PAC got back to business as usual in March, when it spent $320,000 on a long list of Republican candidates. Beneficiaries included House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster, House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Sens. Rand Paul, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, Ron Johnson, Richard Burr, Tim Scott, John Thune and Jerry Moran, as well as Reps. Ed Whitfield, Greg Walden, Mia Love, Dan Benishek, Andy Harris, Cresent Hardy, Kristi Noem, Marsha Blackburn, Bruce Poliquin, Mike Pompeo and Steve Scalise.
STEYER’S LIST — ALL QUIET AT NEXTGEN: Tom Steyer’s NextGen PAC hasn’t raised much money so far this year, bringing in just a few tiny checks. That’s not too surprising, given the PAC is likely to become more active once Steyer decides on which races to get involved in, and once primaries and the general are closer. One expenditure of note: NextGen spent $178,000 buying an unidentified list — likely voter data and demographics — from Bruce Braley’s Senate campaign.
FORMER BOEHNER AID LOBBIES ON 111(d) RULE: Michael Catanzaro, a former senior energy adviser to House Speaker John Boehner, will lobby on EPA’s carbon rule for existing power plants for PPL Energy Supply, an electricity generator in the northeastern and western U.S., according to a recent filing. Catanzaro, a former Bush EPA official who is now a partner at the CGCN Group, will also lobby on EPA’s Water of the United States rule, as well as coal ash, nuclear waste, ozone and Dodd-Frank issues, the registration says. Catanzaro’s other energy clients include Koch Companies, Halliburton, Devon Energy, Encana, Hess, America’s Natural Gas Alliance and the American Chemistry Council.
POMBO CARRIES XCEL TO NEW FIRM: Former House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, who recently left Sellery Associates to hang a shingle as Gavel Resources, brought along client Xcel Energy, for whom he lobbies on energy production tax incentives. Pombo also carried over the Northern California Power Agency, as well as Cadiz, a California “renewable resource company.”
-
Greens Pounce On Research Linking Drilling To Quakes
May 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Green groups and lawmakers are seizing on new government research linking earthquakes to oil and gas drilling as evidence of the need for tougher federal regulations.
States are currently responsible for oversight of most drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the United States, though environmentalists have long pushed Congress and federal agencies to impose stronger restrictions. Their concerns about fracking have generally focused on the chemicals used in the process.
But a government report released in April raised a new issue: wells meant for disposing wastewater in oil and gas production are causing small earthquakes in drilling fields across the country.
“We feel there is pretty much a preponderance of evident now that these earthquakes in Kansas and Oklahoma and Texas, Colorado, are being triggered by this wastewater injection,” said Bill Leith, the senior science adviser for earthquake hazards at the United States Geological Survey.
Oklahoma put out a statement of its own, acknowledging that the hundreds of quakes it’s experienced over the last few years can be tied to its oil and gas operations.
The new research is tied to traditional oil and gas drilling, but it raised a red flag for those opposed to fracking, a process by which liquids are injected at high-pressure into the ground to release oil and gas.
Food and Water Watch is releasing a report of its own on fracking-induced earthquakes next week and Emily Wurth, the group’s water program director, said the new research “has kind of really become conclusive and it does call for some kind of larger action at the federal level.”
At least for now, that doesn’t look likely to happen. The Environmental Protection Agency sets what Leith called a “foundational level” of regulations on disposal wells but it delegates most of the enforcement to the states. The EPA released new disposal well placement guidelines in February, but at an event last week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy brushed off a question about whether the earthquake report would lead to any new federal oversight.
“I was pretty proud of Oklahoma, standing up and recognizing the challenge,” she said. “They have some excellent people working in that state, and they're prepared for this challenge, as are we. I think they have every reason to be able to address this challenge themselves.”
But pro-environment lawmakers on Capitol Hill said federal regulators should do more.
“This would be, certainly, a new issue of concern that should make them reopen some of the conversations,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who said members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus had recently met with Obama administration officials and pushed them on fracking issues.
Oil and gas operations are exempt from provisions in certain laws, including one that deals with the disposal of toxic chemicals. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-N.M.) said he’s writing a bill to close those exemptions.
“Setting a benchmark, nothing wrong with that,” he said. “It’s not about more regulation, it’s about the carve-outs and the lack of capacity on the part of states to monitor, evaluate, control and prevent some of those things.”
Regulations at the state level are a patchwork of different standards. Arkansas, for example, put a moratorium on disposal wells in an area that saw earthquake activity in 2010-11. It included seismic activity standards in its disposal well permitting process in 2012.
In Texas, operators applying for new disposal wells need to search a database of seismic activity to see if there is a history of earthquakes around a well site. Regulators there have the right to shut down a well if they determine it contributed to seismic activity.
Last year, after a fracking-related earthquake, Ohio instituted new regulations requiring seismic monitors at injection wells or fracking sites linked to earthquakes over magnitude 2.0. Any further quake there over magnitude 1.0 leads to a well shutdown and inspection.
The state also requires monitors on any new drilling near fault lines or areas of seismic activity.
“We have had multiple instances where they’ve proven useful, but we’ve also been very proactive about it,” said Eric Heis, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
Heis said oil and gas companies have generally accepted the regulations, even installing several seismic monitors of their own to feed information to the state.
After the USGS report came out last week, the American Petroleum Institute said, “experts in our industry contributed to this report, and we support continuous efforts to study any new geological data that can be used to manage risk factors related to seismicity.”
Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it’s usually easier for states to update their regulations than for the federal government, given their proximity to the drilling set-ups. But she said, “they still haven’t gone far enough” to strengthen their standards.
“That doesn’t mean that federal action is not vitally crucial, because there are loopholes in numerous federal environmental laws that should be closed,” she said. “The federal laws should be the backstop, wherever you are in the country.”
Any new law is unlikely this Congress. Republicans are comfortable with giving states the lead role in regulating their own oil and gas operations.
“Experts with knowledge of regional geology are best suited to minimize any potential risks,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Science Committee. “States have demonstrated that they have the expertise and track record to successfully administer federal regulations on their own.”
“If you’re talking about more regulation from the federal government? Overreach. They’ll screw it up,” House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) added. “But do the states need to do that? Yeah, they do. Do they need to make sure they are dealing with fault lines? Yeah, they are. But they can easily handle it.” -
May 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
Call it the Keystone next door.
A core group of Virginia Republicans and other landowners is leading the charge against a proposed natural gas pipeline near their backyards, and using tactics similar to the environmental crusade against the Keystone XL oil pipeline — the very project Republicans in Congress have elevated into a matter of national economic survival.
Financial services super-lobbyist Phil Anderson is joining other politically active Republicans in carrying out a well-funded campaign against Dominion’s $5 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would cross Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley while running 550 miles from West Virginia’s fracking fields to North Carolina. They’re calling the effort “All Pain, No Gain,” which echoes the “All Risk, No Reward” coalition that Keystone opponents formed two years ago.
“Job One is to stop this route — it would be a tragedy for the state of Virginia,” said Anderson, whose family has owned land for more than a century along Atlantic Coast’s proposed path 20 miles west of Charlottesville. His allies include other landowners in the area, as well as George H.W. Bush administration national security staffer Tom Harvey and Taylor Keeney, a former spokeswoman for Republican ex-Gov. Bob McDonnell.
The pipeline opponents say their fight is neither Republican nor Democratic, and Anderson said his campaign against Atlantic Coast is “not mutually exclusive” with the overwhelming GOP support for Keystone. He notes that Dominion could use condemnation to acquire access to private property for the project if it can’t work out agreements with the owners.
“A lot of conservatives oppose this pipeline — eminent domain for a pipeline that’s not providing any true public utility,” Anderson said. He added: “The XL debate obviously has raised talking points about pipelines to a higher level, but in many ways they are not germane to this issue in Virginia. It’s a different type of pipeline, a different sort of need.”
Still, Atlantic Coast’s opponents acknowledge the parallels with the anti-Keystone push that has pitted President Barack Obama against a chorus of GOP lawmakers in Washington. The dispute is also a reminder of how Keystone has changed the politics of pipelines nationwide, offering a template that activists from New England to Minnesota and Wisconsin are using to grind projects to a halt.
“In some ways, I think we’re not too far from the crowd of folks who say, ‘No pipelines, nowhere,’” said campaign co-Chairwoman Charlotte Rea, an Air Force veteran and self-described independent. “We have a lot of common ground with those folks, more common ground probably than we do differences.”
The activists leading the fight against the Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL project say: Welcome aboard, Virginians.
“Any effort to slow the building of new fossil fuel infrastructure is a blow for climate sanity at this point,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of the group 350.org.
“I am happy to see Republicans got their backbone back after selling out landowners along the Keystone XL route for the very same risks and concerns about property rights and water,” said Nebraska anti-Keystone activist Jane Kleeb. She added, “If the K Street lobbyists want to learn how to run a grassroots campaign to protect property rights and water, they can come visit us in Nebraska.”
Anderson, whose firm Navigators Global has represented big-name clients such as AIG and AT&T, said his main concern is blocking Atlantic Coast’s current route — not necessarily “nuances of opinion about subsequent routes [or] having no pipelines at all.” He complained that Dominion “consulted with no one” before choosing the path.
He also contends that Virginians have no guarantee that they would benefit from either the fuel the pipeline would carry or the jobs it would create, saying that “there is very little gain for the citizens of Virginia from this pipeline.” That’s pretty much Obama’s slam on Keystone, which he has said would be “very good for Canadian oil companies” but not even “a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.”
Atlantic Coast’s foes are aiming their political pressure at Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, all of them Democrats, and have been running television and radio ads in the Virginia heartland urging people to contact the senators. Anderson said the campaign aims to grab the politicians “by the shoulders and say, ‘Let’s have a conversation about how this thing should go.’”
Fundraising for All Pain, No Gain is halfway to organizers’ $1 million goal, Anderson said. The Global Environment & Technology Foundation, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that Harvey chairs, is the vehicle for donations to the campaign.
Although McAuliffe was among Atlantic Coast’s earliest backers, activists still hope to convince him to shrug off what Anderson quipped is Dominion’s “letter jacket.” McAuliffe spokesman Brian McCoy seemed to offer little hope for a change of heart, underscoring his support in a statement that said the governor “has no role in the planning of the project” but “has urged the companies involved to proceed with as much deference to the concerns of landowners and local communities as possible.”
But the longtime ally of the Clintons suggested new caveats for the pipeline on Thursday in an interview with Richmond radio station WRVA. McAuliffe told a caller that the state should “pick the best route that doesn’t affect the homeowners. I want a route that doesn’t affect our pristine environmental areas.”
Warner and Kaine have steered clear of any firm stance on the project, although both have spent weeks urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend its initial public comment period before starting an environmental review.
Kaine and his aides have met with landowners and environmentalists about Atlantic Coast, and the senator “believes their concerns are worthy of careful consideration,” a spokeswoman said. Warner remains “committed to listening to the concerns of constituents, taking into consideration the environmental impacts, and carefully monitoring the final pipeline route to ensure it is in the best interest of the state,” spokeswoman Rachel Cohen said by email.
The campaign has stirred a battle royal with Dominion, the state’s dominant electricity supplier, which is a 45-percent partner in the Atlantic Coast project with Duke Energy, Piedmont and the Atlanta-based energy services company AGL. Dominion began its own ad campaign in support of Atlantic Coast even before All Pain, No Gain’s ads started. It has also prepared a “Myth vs. Fact” sheet that seeks to counter the opponents’ arguments, including their contentions that the pipeline would be used export fuel as well as criticisms of gas as bad for the climate.
Dominion wants “to find the route with the least impact to the environment, to historical and cultural resources, and that’s what we believe we’re doing through conversations with landowners,” spokesman Jim Norvelle said. He added that the green movement “also wants to close coal-fired power stations,” which makes Atlantic Coast’s gas important for power companies that “still have a responsibility to keep the lights on.”
Norvelle acknowledged that fewer landowners in Rea’s home of Nelson County have given Dominion access to their land than in any of the other Virginia counties where surveying for the pipeline is underway — although he added that they seem willing to “bring reporters on their property.”
All Pain, No Gain co-Chairwoman Nancy Sorrells countered that Dominion would be unable to find any “alternate responsible routes” for the pipeline through Augusta County, where she lives, or in Rea’s county. “Our economy is too dependent on things that would be harmed,” she said.
Sorrells, who like Rea is an independent, said they want Dominion and its partners to show a demonstrated need to ship 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas through their state every day. (Atlantic Coast’s annual capacity is more gas than Virginia consumed last year, according to the Energy Department.) They also have significant questions about the safety of building a 42-inch pipeline across Nelson and Augusta counties, which depend on agriculture and tourism.
Meanwhile, Republicans in neighboring states are pressing FERC to sign off on the project. West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito urged the agency last week “to proceed without further delay” on the review, while North Carolina Sens. Thom Tillis and Richard Burr called for “a robust and transparent public process” in a letter that hails the economic benefits of Atlantic Coast.
Those benefits would include $377 million in lower annual energy bills for Virginia and North Carolina customers, according to a Dominion-commissioned study released earlier this year.
Glen Besa, director of the Sierra Club’s Virginia chapter, said his group’s activists and the new crew of plugged-in Atlantic Coast opponents have indeed found an agenda they can share. They’re “all pushing to minimize the impact of any pipeline that’s built, and from our perspective stop any pipeline from being built,” he said.
“In one sense,” Besa added, “there’s a common enemy: Dominion Virginia Power.”
-
Murkowski Hopes Colleagues Provide Energy Bill Ideas This Week
May 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Nick Juliano
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is asking senators to have bills filed by the end of this week to be considered for inclusion in the bipartisan energy bill she would like to have out of committee by the summer.
The call for ideas is designed to let the committee hold its remaining legislative hearings on the bill this month, begin marking up components of the bill after the Memorial Day recess, and have something out of committee before the August recess. It remains to be seen how quickly a bill could come to the floor -- especially as attention to the 2016 campaigns accelerates in the fall -- and aides acknowledged that the committee schedule could still slip, too. The committee missed its self-imposed target of scheduling committee hearings at least a month in advance; May began last Friday, but no energy bill hearings have yet been noticed.
ENR and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is assembling companion legislation, held a pair of hearings last week assessing various proposals that could become the efficiency title of an energy bill. Murkowski plans three additional titles in the bill covering infrastructure, supply and accountability issues. Similar subjects are expected to be addressed in the lower chamber, although there will be little public activity there this week because the House is on recess.
The Senate's efficiency hearing last week was a relatively friendly affair, although the parallel session in the House revealed some sharp divisions between Democrats and Republicans over a few aspects of the draft legislation being considered there (E&E Daily, May 1).
To be sure, the toughest issues lie ahead, and no one yet knows whether the two parties will be able to set aside their differences and find areas where they can work together.
Murkowski has homed in on the need to reform permitting and siting constraints that can slow construction of infrastructure such as oil and gas pipelines. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that as an area to be addressed when he testified on the Quadrennial Energy Review last week, and Murkowski said she hopes the administration follows up with some more specific legislative proposals (E&E Daily, April 29).
Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) is working with several other Democrats on the committee preparing various legislative proposals related to modernizing the electric grid and bolstering energy storage. Others involved in the effort include Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Ron Wyden of Oregon, all of whom are Democrats, as well as Maine independent Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with them (E&E Daily, April 27).
Several senators also have floated legislation related to siting electric transmission lines -- signaling priorities that may be difficult to reconcile.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) wants to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "backstop" authority to step in and authorize projects that face too many delays from state or local regulators. Arkansas Republican Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton earlier this year put forward a competing proposal to add a layer of required state-level approvals before the Department of Energy could invoke eminent domain to advance transmission projects (E&E Daily, April 24).
Additional bills introduced by the end of this week should provide a general indication of the boundaries within which negotiations over an energy bill will continue, and not every proposal considered at an energy bill hearing is guaranteed to make it into the final package, said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski.
Murkowski is approaching the exercise in a spirit of compromise. She and Cantwell have held dozens of listening sessions in Washington, D.C., and in their home states during last month's recess. Top aides to the two senators also have participated in joint meetings with various stakeholders throughout the process, a move that struck participants as an indication of bipartisanship.
Dillon said the bill will not include overwhelmingly controversial items such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, despite Murkowski's support for such a proposal, and he suggested that Democrats would be unlikely to gain much support for their most ambitious ideas, such as establishing a nationwide renewable energy standard.
"They're going to have to compromise, and we're going to have to compromise if we're going to do something bipartisan," Dillon said.
While neither party should be expected to abandon its principles, Murkowski and her House counterpart, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have said all year that they are more interested in advancing legislation that could pass and be signed into law than in engaging in partisan theatrics on an energy bill.
Republicans are still going to try to use their House and Senate majorities to implement campaign trail promises to rein in the Obama administration's climate change agenda, but those efforts are likely to remain quarantined from the energy bill if it can achieve bipartisan buy-in. Attempts to restrict high-profile rules coming out of U.S. EPA or the Interior Department would more likely be handled through the appropriations process, where Murkowski also chairs the subcommittee in charge of those agencies.
Standalone legislation to block controversial proposed regulations such as the Clean Power Plan or the "Waters of the United States" rule also remains an option, but Democrats almost certainly have the votes necessary to sustain the presidential vetoes that would be virtually assured to greet any such bills that would pass.
-
Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Bill Opposing EPA Carbon Plan, Citing Executive Order
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) vetoed a bill that would have required the state to develop an implementation plan to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan, saying an executive order already codified the state's opposition to the carbon limits for power plants.
In a May 1 veto message, Fallin emphasized the executive order issued April 28 already prohibits Oklahoma from submitting a state plan.
“The executive order issued earlier this week offers the state the clearest path to fighting these EPA carbon mandates,” she wrote.
The bill (S.B. 676) was heralded by state officials as a means of protecting businesses and consumers from what they called overreach by the federal agency, passing the Oklahoma House April 23 in a 68-21 vote (80 DEN A-18, 4/27/15).
Bill Would Have Provided Legislative Oversight
The bill would have allowed for legislative oversight of carbon dioxide emissions plans submitted to the EPA to ensure the plan complies with the Clean Air Act.
Critics of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Sierra Club, decried the measure saying the bill would give the attorney general and the Legislature executive powers they weren't intended to have—allowing the pair to have the final word in Oklahoma's environmental policy regarding the Clean Air Act.
“I stand with our Legislature and our attorney general in opposing the EPA's unconstitutional and ill-conceived power-grab,” Fallin said in a May 1 release issued by the governor's office.
S.B. 676 would have required the Department of Environmental Quality to develop a plan, the state said, “under the assumption that the attorney general will then rule it unconstitutional.”
“However, we do not need to spend a lot of time and money to develop a plan that we have no intention of implementing and every intention of rejecting, which is what this bill requires,” Fallin said.
Clean Power Plan
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), proposed in June 2014, sets a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for each state. States would develop their own plans to comply with the rule. The EPA expects the proposal will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels when it is fully implemented in 2030.
The governor noted in her veto message that development of such a state plan “involves dozens of state and private entities and thousands of hours of study and negotiations,” noting that it would require “the commitment of untold amounts of financial and time resources.”
On April 28, the governor signed an executive order declaring that Oklahoma won't file a state implementation plan with the EPA regulating carbon dioxide emissions from Oklahoma power plants (84 DEN A-19, 5/1/15).
Under Fallin's executive order, “the state remains unambiguously opposed to the development of a [state implementation plan] and committed to fighting the EPA's carbon emission mandates in court,” the governor's office release said.
-
Capito Flexes Muscles On Power Plant Rule
May 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit weighs whether to block U.S. EPA's proposed carbon limits for existing power plants, the legal tug of war is taking a road trip to Capitol Hill.
West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's clean air subpanel, will head a hearing this week on the legal issues surrounding the so-called Clean Power Plan.
Capito ran for the Senate promising to fight the Obama administration's agenda affecting coal, and she secured a list of key committee assignments to make her case (E&E Daily, March 26).
In March, she helped host a hearing in West Virginia, where she blasted several administration actions, including new power plant mercury standards and climate proposals.
And this week, she'll be questioning formidable figures on both sides of the debate over EPA's Clean Power Plan, particularly concerning its legal underpinnings.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is scheduled to testify, also ran on an anti-EPA platform and has become a national leader on fighting the administration's climate actions since taking office in 2013.
Last month, Morrisey was a key figure in Washington, D.C., when the appeals court heard oral arguments on the rule. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), also testifying, is an ally in the litigation.
Although EPA has yet to finalize the rule, critics say states are already having to prepare for it, making it ripe for litigation. Plus, say critics, the agency is proceeding on shaky legal foundation (Greenwire, April 16).
Also on tap for the hearing is Sidley Austin LLP attorney Roger Martella, a former EPA general counsel who has expressed strong doubts about the agency's proposed rule surviving court scrutiny, whether now or after it is finalized.
On the other side of the argument will be Kelly Speakes-Backman, chairwoman of the Maryland Public Service Commission, appointed by former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who has said her state is well positioned to comply with the proposal.
Georgetown University Law Center professor Lisa Heinzerling will likely be the most forceful voice in the Clean Power Plan's defense. Formerly with the administration, she's considered an architect of EPA's climate agenda.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, May 5, at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia attorney general; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general; Roger Martella, Sidley Austin LLP partner; Kelly Speakes-Backman, Maryland Public Service Commission chairwoman; and Lisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University Law Center professor.
-
GOP Rep Introduces Bill To Gut EPA
May 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House Republican wants to cut 13 programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including all of its grants and its ability to regulate ground-level ozone and carbon dioxide.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) introduced a bill, the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act, which he said is a money-saving measure, citing a Heritage Foundation forecast that it would save $7.5 billion over 10 years.
“As a fiscal conservative, I believe Washington should be respectful of taxpayers’ dollars and live within its means,” Johnson said in a Thursday statement.
“American taxpayers certainly don’t need to be paying for the EPA’s empty and unused buildings and its wasteful programs,” he said. “This bill does right by the hardworking folks in my district and across the country and is part of my ongoing effort to get our fiscal house in order.”
The measure would force the EPA to close all of its field offices, sell or lease certain properties, cut various climate change programs and stop its environmental justice activities.
It would also stop the EPA from regulating ground-level ozone and from limiting the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants, the subject of the most controversial EPA programs recently.
-
EPA’s Approval Of California Air District’s ‘Incentive’ Air Rule May Prompt Suit
May 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA’s approval of a novel California air district’s rule that credits “incentive,” or subsidy, programs for emission reductions under California’s state implementation plan (SIP) for achieving federal air quality standards could prompt litigation from environmentalists who have previously opposed the measure.
If such a challenge were successful, it likely would complicate how California can show it will meet various federal air standards in the coming decades, as the incentive rule is a key part of the San Joaquin Valley district’s air plan.
Earthjustice attorneys have indicated in the past that they planned to sue EPA if it approved the district’s rule in the California SIP. A source with the organization did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
EPA in the April 9 Federal Register published its formal approval of the district’s Rule 9610 in the California SIP, which credits emission reductions achieved as a result of various industries participating in voluntary “incentive” funding programs that pay for new or retrofitted engines, among other uses. SIPs are air quality blueprints detailing how states and localities will comply with federal air programs such as ambient air quality standards.
Some of the incentive programs cited in the district’s program are the California Air Resources Board’s Carl Moyer program, Proposition 1B funding, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture & Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
EPA in its final approval of the district’s rule rejects arguments made by Earthjustice attorneys who claimed in comments on the proposed approval that the district’s Rule 9610 violates the Clean Air Act. Environmentalists say that the air law mandates that emission reductions resulting from incentive programs must be “quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and permanent,” but that there is no way to ensure air pollution cuts under the district’s program.
While EPA agrees that the Clean Air Act requires emission reductions to meet these criteria, the agency disagrees with Earthjustice’s contention that the definitions of the terms in Rule 9610 “represent an attempt by the district to redefine the Clean Air Act’s requirements for SIP creditability,” the approval document states.
While EPA is not approving any of the specific guidelines the district and state use to quantify emission reductions under the programs, “the definitions of the terms ‘quantifiable,’ ‘surplus,’ ‘enforceable’ and ‘permanent’ in Rule 9610 generally represent the four fundamental ‘integrity elements’ defined in EPA guidance for discretionary economic incentive programs and other innovative emission reduction programs, provided the district interprets these terms consistent with our interpretations in this rulemaking, which are the bases for our limited approval of the rule,” the agency says.
EPA also disagrees with Earthjustice’s contention that the agency should withdraw its proposed approval of Rule 9610 because it will “create legal confusion over the requirements that must be met for approval of voluntary incentive measures into” SIPs, the rule adds no value to SIPs and EPA’s proposal does not fully identify all of the “legal defects” in the rule, according to the approval document.
“We believe Rule 9610 is consistent with the flexibility accorded states in incorporating discretionary, innovative and non-traditional emission reduction programs in their SIPs,” EPA states, citing two sections of the Clean Air Act. “We believe the criteria and procedures in Rule 9610 establish a useful starting point for the district’s development of such programs and for public participation in the district’s development of air quality plans that rely on such programs.”
-
Six States Want Appeals Court to Review EPA Schedule for Sulfur Dioxide Designations
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Six states have asked a federal appeals court to review the approval of a consent decree between the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups that calls for the agency to take a phased approach to making remaining attainment designations for national sulfur dioxide standards (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:13-cv-3953, notice of appeal filed, 5/1/15).
The states May 1 filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alerting the court that the states had asked for an appeals court review of the approved consent decree between the EPA, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The six states that signed the notice are Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Nevada and Texas.
The consent decree, approved in March, requires the EPA to promulgate rules making area designations for the 2010 national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide three times between July 2016 and December 2020. The July 2016 deadline is for the EPA to make decisions on areas that have violated the sulfur dioxide standards based on three years of air quality monitoring data and contain stationary sources that meet a certain emissions threshold (42 DEN A-19, 3/4/15).
Several of the states that filed the appeal previously opposed the consent decree, which they alleged constituted a violation of the EPA's Clean Air Act authority. The district court rejected state arguments that the phased approach exceeds the three-year deadline for the EPA to make area designations after an air quality standard is revised and “reads out” of the Clean Air Act the unclassifiable designation that the EPA is to use when it does not have sufficient data to make a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
The EPA has already moved ahead on complying with the consent decree, sending letters to environmental commissioners in 28 states alerting them that they have areas in their states that meet the threshold for inclusion in the 2016 round of designations (56 DEN A-3, 3/24/15).
The appeal was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the petition for review was not immediately available.
-
Boston Joins Climate-Smart Cities Program to Prepare for Impacts
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said April 30 the city had joined forces with the Trust for Public Lands Climate-Smart Cities program to help it achieve the climate mitigation and preparedness goals set out in its Greenovate Boston 2014 Climate Action Plan Update. In the 2014 plan, the city said it has made significant progress toward meeting its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, but said it must also prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. The Climate-Smart Cities program works to help municipalities address climate challenges through conservation and design. The program focuses on four aspects of assisting cities in addressing climate change, including connecting walk and bike corridors, planting trees and creating parks and establishing “water smart” parks and green alleys that manage storm water naturally to reduce flooding and save energy. It also works to help establish shoreline parks and buffers to protect low-lying cities from sea-level rise and coastal storm surges. The Climate-Smart Cities program is available at https://www.tpl.org/services/climate-smart-cities. The Greenovate Boston plan is available at http://www.cityofboston.gov/eeos/pdfs/Greenovate%20Boston%202014%20CAP%20Update_Full.pdf.
-
California, Mexico Outline Strategy For Cooperation on Climate, Energy
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Environment officials from California and Mexico signed off on a plan to implement the bilateral pact agreeing to collaborate on clean energy and climate issues the governments inked last year.
Announced at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference in Los Angeles, the plan outlines specific steps for action on climate change, air quality, clean vehicles and wildfires as “priority action areas.”
The action plan is to ensure the July 2014 memorandum of understanding delivers tangible results, the California Environmental Protection Agency said in a written statement.
“We are anxious to be moving ahead,” California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriquez said.
Mexico has demonstrated leadership in addressing climate change internationally, Rodriquez said.
In late March, Mexico became the first developing nation to make a commitment to the United Nations to reduce greenhouses gas emissions beyond 2020. The pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 22 percent by 2030 compared to business-as-usual levels came in Mexico's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, its officials submission to the UN that will be used at the end-of-year global climate talks in Paris (60 DEN A-16, 3/30/15).
Rodolfo Lacy, undersecretary for Mexico's Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, said the nation has been “craving” a close partnership on climate and energy issues for many years.
‘North American Carbon Market.'
Rodolfo said the collaboration across the border will increase low-carbon development in Mexico and California.
“We will use carbon markets to reach our climate goals,” Rodolfo said. “I hope that in two or three years we can talk about a North American carbon market.”
In building a low-carbon future, Mexico will require some financial assistance from the UN and elsewhere, Rodolfo said.
The memorandum of understanding required the two governments to establish work groups and set goals to share information and technology.
Rodriquez said the action plan focuses on sharing information on how to set a price on carbon, monitoring and verifying emissions, vehicle emissions standards and inspections, wildfire suppression and forest health management and border air pollution issues.
“In the next couples of weeks we're going to be transferring some air monitoring equipment” to Calexico, Calif., and then across the border to Mexicali to begin working on air pollution issues, Rodriquez said.
-
D.C. Circuit Scraps Generator Air Rule's 100-Hour 'Emergency' Exemption
May 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal appeals court May 1 scrapped a 100-hour exemption from air emissions regulation EPA had granted to “emergency” generators that participate in demand-response programs designed to protect the electric grid, handing a major win to states and environmentalists who say the exemption causes unwarranted pollution, and to utilities who say the exemption undermined their competitiveness and grid reliability.
In a unanimous opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Delaware Department of Natural Resources, et al. v. EPA, Judge A. Raymond Randolph says that the 100-hour exemption from emissions control requirements for generators “was arbitrary and capricious” on at least three separate grounds. The court vacates the exemption but otherwise leaves EPA's air rules for generators in place.
The exemption is contained in EPA's 2013 rules setting air toxics limits and new source performance standards (NSPS) for other pollutants from reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) -- primarily diesel generators.
First, EPA failed to properly respond to the “well-founded concerns” of utilities on efficiency and reliability of the energy grid, Randolph writes.
Second, EPA based its exemption on “faulty evidence” regarding an apparent requirement that generators be able to operate for up to 60 hours per year in demand-response programs operated as part of electric generating “capacity markets” such as that run by the PJM Interconnection grid operator, when in fact the 60-hour requirement could apply to groups of generators operating together.
The court also faults EPA for failing to consider an alternative plan floated in public comments on its rule that EPA limit the exemption to parts of the country not served by organized capacity markets. Had EPA done so, it could have avoided “perverse” effects of the exemption that serve to undercut utilities by discouraging investment in power plants, thereby weakening, not strengthening, grid reliability, the court says.
“EPA also did not consider the alternative of limiting the exception to parts of the country not served by organized capacity markets,” Randolph writes. “Because EPA too cavalierly sidestepped its responsibility to address reasonable alternatives, its action was not rational and must, therefore, be set aside.”
Nor did EPA properly consult the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) -- bodies charged with oversight of grid reliability -- on the effects of its rule on the grid, he writes. “We should further note that EPA did not obtain the views of FERC or NERC on the reliability considerations upon which EPA based the exemption.”
The court rejects, however, Delaware's challenge to a regulatory exemption for “remote” generators, on the grounds that the state cannot show standing to sue. Standing is based on a petitioners' ability to show concrete injury from a federal agency action, and the state fails to show how it is adversely affected by remote generators, the court finds.
The court further says that petitioners' claims of standing to sue over the general 100-hour exemption are “thin,” but then goes on to use its discretion under D.C. Circuit precedent to consider factors that would give a party standing. Factors that give Delaware standing in this case are the state's participation in the PJM capacity market and also its presence in the Ozone Transport Region under the Clean Air Act, an area granted special status to regulate ozone more strictly than elsewhere because of its problems with ozone originating from out of state.
Grid Reliability
EPA granted the 100-hour exemption under pressure from “aggregators” of generator power, who sought to use the engines in demand-response programs in capacity markets such as that run by PJM. In capacity markets, participants participate in auctions to meet future electric demand at an agreed price by pledging to either generate additional power or cut back on their electricity use. When generators kick in, they can take buildings' demand off the grid, easing a situation of high electric demand.
However, critics including state air regulators say this results in “behind the meter” generation by uncontrolled sources not subject to emissions controls, which taken together emit pollution at a greater rate than power plants that are subject to controls.
While true demand-response -- actually reducing electricity use -- is beneficial, such use of generators is harmful because of the pollutants they emit, such as ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx), critics say. Diesel NOx emissions exacerbate high ozone, which tends to occur at periods of peak power demand on hot days when the weather conditions are already conducive to ozone formation.
The court, however, focuses not on health issues caused by pollution, but on the market distortions it says result from exempting generator power from emissions controls. This in effect gives generators an unfair competitive advantage in capacity markets, critics say. Traditional utilities rely on revenue to form capacity markets to reinvest in their power plants. Deprived of such revenue, utilities will invest less in generating capacity, thus making generation shortages more likely, the court finds.
The court says that EPA “missed the forest for the trees” when responding to public comments on the reliability issue, saying, “the overriding concern of these comments was the perverse effect the 100-hour exemption would have on the reliability and efficiency of the capacity and energy markets, not the specific clean energy alternatives that could supply the grid instead of backup generators.”
Further, “An undercurrent coursing through this case has been that, while EPA justifies the 2013 Rule on the basis of supporting 'system reliability,' . . . grid reliability is not a subject of the Clean Air Act and is not the province of EPA. There is no indication that either FERC, the federal entity responsible for the reliability of the electric grid . . . , or NERC, FERC’s designated electric reliability organization . . . , was involved in this rulemaking or submitted their views to EPA,” the court finds.
The court says EPA justified its rule on the grounds of protecting electric grid reliability, yet deflected some concerns raised over reliability impacts as being outside of its regulatory realm and within FERC's purview.
EPA failed to properly consider the argument raised by the Electric Power Generation Association in comments on the 2013 rule that the 100-hour exemption could have been tailored exclusively to rural areas not participating in capacity markets, the court finds. EPA instead promulgated a single national standard, articulating a “vague desire for uniformity” that was insufficient to justify its action, the court says.
'Non-Emergency' Exemption
This point may prove crucial to the court's ultimate decision in related litigation brought by environmentalists and utilities over a 50-hour regulatory exemption for generators being used in explicitly “non-emergency” capacity. Petitioners claim in that case, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) , et al. v. EPA, that the 50-hour exemption is driven by EPA's desire to maintain grid reliability in rural areas with vulnerable “radial” transmission lines.
While petitioners claim the exemption applies explicitly to non-emergency situations, EPA in justifying the measure says it is legitimate to consider near-blackouts to be emergencies worth of intervention. Petitioners in CLF claimed in briefing that “EPA provided no justification whatsoever for adopting a national 50-Hour Exemption that will exempt generators in rural areas and urban areas alike from emissions controls necessary to prevent serious public health hazards."
EPA “failed to give any meaningful consideration” to industry suggestions that the agency limit the 50-hour exemption to rural areas only, the agencies' critics argue. Briefing in that case is due to conclude July 1.
A Delaware state regulator says of the May 1 ruling that even though the court focused on reliability and market issues, not health concerns, “I think the court reached the right conclusion,” and “ultimately public health is going to benefit.” Delaware in the challenge to the 100-hour exemption had argued that the 2013 rule was flawed because EPA did not evaluate the adverse health effects of allowing uncontrolled use of generators. However, “we are disappointed with the remote area exemption,” the source says. Delaware, a litigant in CLF as well, is still evaluating the implications of the ruling for that case, the source says, noting that EPA used “some of the same rationale” for its 50-hour exemption.
-
McConnell Vows ‘Same Fight' on Waters Rule That He Has Brought Against Carbon Limits
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is vowing to bring the “same fight” against the proposed waters of the U.S. that he has brought to opposing EPA's carbon pollution limits for power plants.
McConnell said in an op-ed published in Somerset, Ky.'s Commonwealth Journal that the regulation, if finalized, would “wreak havoc” on the coal, agriculture, construction, real estate, contracting and commercial development industries. He said he would “fight” to pass legislation outlining specific guidelines for restricting the rulemaking in the Senate. The rule was proposed (RIN 2040-AF30) by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in April 2014, and a final draft is under review at the White House (79 Fed. Reg. 22,188).
“I'm determined to stop” the so-called waters of the U.S., McConnell wrote in the April 29 op-ed. “The EPA has caused serious damage in our state with its War on Coal. As Senate Majority Leader, I've fought it at every turn. I'll bring the same fight to Waters of the U.S. This is a promise I campaigned on last year, and it's a promise I intend to keep.”
McConnell co-sponsored legislation—the Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140)—introduced April 30 from Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) that would bar any revision made to the regulatory definition of the waters of the U.S. unless that change follows explicit guidelines outlined in the bill (84 DEN A-19, 5/1/15).
Under the bill, the agencies would have to rewrite the clean water rule to include only streams with enough flow to transport pollutants at levels that would impair traditional navigable waters. That rewritten rule would have to be completed no later than Dec. 31, 2016.
‘Another War.'
McConnell described the joint federal agency effort to clarify the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction as a “another war” and said it “threatens to bring the heavy hand of the federal government into nearly every backyard and business.”
That Senate legislative push comes as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced May 1 his chamber would complete consideration of the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act (H.R. 1732) during the week of May 11. That bill would require the agencies to withdraw the clean water rule within 30 days of the legislation's enactment.
McConnell had previously vowed to attack the waters of the U.S. rulemaking, but had not voiced support for a legislative vehicle until S. 1140 (03 DEN A-3, 1/6/15).
-
Crude-by-Rail Rule Raises Concerns Over Brake Standard, Car Phaseout, Speed
May 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Most trains carrying Bakken crude oil will be required to use retrofitted or new tank cars by April 2020, under a Transportation Department final rule announced May 1.
The flammable liquids-by-rail rule, which was released alongside the same Canadian tank car requirements, immediately sparked criticism from the energy and rail industries, members of Congress and public interest groups. While many groups praised the department for finalizing the rule, groups immediately opposed the phaseout timeline for older tank cars, the electronic brake requirement for certain larger flammable liquid trains, and other requirements.
CHART
The U.S. rule is expected to cost roughly $2.5 billion over 20 years and bring about benefits of between $912 million (based on the current U.S. safety record) and $2.9 billion (based on predictive analytics) during that time frame.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration final rule aims to prevent and mitigate flammable liquid by rail accidents, a practice that has increased in recent years but garnered increasing amounts of public scrutiny following a July 2013 crude oil derailment in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, that resulted in 47 deaths. The rule would limit these trains' speeds and strengthen tank cars to lower the risk of derailment, tank car puncture or pool fires that could result in fires or explosions.
The North American governments worked together to address tank car requirements and phaseouts in part because trains carrying flammable liquids move across the borders frequently. The new flammable liquids tank car requirements for the U.S.'s DOT-117 and Canada's TC-117 cars are the same; however, Canada will require a slightly quicker phaseout of unjacketed DOT-111 tank cars from the most hazardous flammable liquids.
The PHMSA rule's requirements apply to high-hazard flammable trains, which are trains that have 20 or more tank cars of the Class 3 product such as crude oil and ethanol in a continuous block or that move 35 or more tank cars of these products. They also apply to high-hazard flammable unit trains—single trains with 70 or more tank cars loaded with flammable liquids traveling at speeds higher than 30 miles per hour.
Tank Car Requirements
Both Canada and the U.S. require that after Oct. 1, tank cars made for moving flammable liquids via rail must meet new tank car requirements such as improved pressure relief valves and bottom outlet handles, a thicker 9/16-inch shell and distributed power or end-of-train braking systems.
Notably, new tank cars require use of the Association of American Railroads top-fittings protection specifications, rather than the more stringent toxic inhalation hazard top fittings protection. The toxic inhalation standard's effectiveness didn't justify its cost, the final rule said.
The high-hazard flammable unit trains would be required to install industry-opposed electronic controlled pneumatic brakes. The Federal Railroad Administration estimated that more than 80 percent of all crude oil and more than 40 percent of all ethanol is transported on these unit trains, none of which currently operate with electronic controlled pneumatic brakes.
Roughly 250 to 300 trains domestically would qualify as high-hazard flammable unit trains in crude oil and ethanol service, the rail agency told Bloomberg BNA.
Phaseout Timeline
The Transportation Department will implement a tiered-approach to phasing out and/or retrofitting older tank cars from high-hazard flammable train service, taking the least protective tank cars out of the highest risk flammable liquids rail transport first.
Non-jacketed DOT-111 tank cars transporting flammable liquids with the highest hazards (Packing Group 1), including most Bakken crude oil, will be phased out of U.S. service by March 2018, with a reporting requirement taking effect in 2017 for which tank cars have been retrofitted and which haven't. For Canada, these cars will be phased out of crude oil service by May 2017.
All DOT-111 tank cars will be phased out of Packing Group 1 service, or crude oil service in Canada, by March 2018. By April 2020, no non-jacketed CPC-1232 tank cars (an earlier rail industry tank car standard) could be used for these respective services.
Then, in phases ending in July 2023, DOT-111 cars and non-jacketed CPC-1232 cars would be phased out of ethanol service in Canada and, in the U.S., phased out of Packing Group 2 service that includes most ethanol. The rest of the jacketed CPC-1232 tank cars used across North America in Packing Groups 1 and 2, as well as all tank cars in other flammable liquid transport by rail, would be phased out by May 2025.
Electronic Brake Retrofits
Electronic brakes would need to be installed in high-hazard flammable unit trains carrying at least one car of Packing Group 1 flammable liquids by January 2021, and for all others in this category by May 2023
Under the final PHMSA rule, all trains with DOT-117 tank cars could move at a speed of 50 miles per hour; however, trains that included one or more older tank cars would be limited to a speed of 40 miles per hour speed in 46 cities and surrounding areas. This speed restriction is already in place through the rail agency's recently issued emergency order(84 DEN A-11, 5/1/15).
The rule would also implement rail routing risk assessment and information access requirements and add steps for ensuring unrefined petroleum-based products are properly classified.
U.S. rail and energy industry groups, environmental groups, federal safety boards and members of Congress immediately conveyed concerns ranging from the retrofit timeline to tank car upgrade requirements, while many congratulated PHMSA on finalizing its rule (61 DEN A-4, 3/31/15).
Outside Groups, Congress React
Ed Hamberger, the president of the Association of American Railroads, and Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, individually expressed concerns regarding whether there was enough evidence that electronic brakes would produce the stated safety benefits.
Gerard also questioned the viability of the retrofit and phaseout schedule, while Hamberger emphasized that a 30-mile-per-hour speed limit for unit trains as a threshold for requiring electronic brakes would mean a slowdown for the rail system.
Railway Supply Institute President Tom Simpson agreed with concerns over the electronic brake requirement; however, he called the tank car phaseout “aggressive, but appropriate.”
Meanwhile, Earthjustice and eight other citizen and environmental groups said the rule doesn't phase out older tank cars quickly enough, lacks adequate requirements for crude oil shipments not captured under the high-hazard flammable liquids definition and allows the covered trains to move too quickly in too many high-population and other areas.
The National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement that it would review the rule and called the announcement “a significant step toward improving the safety of transporting crude oil and ethanol by rail.” The Transportation Safety Board of Canada also indicated support for the standards.
Congress Concerns
Many members of Congress who have taken leading roles on addressing crude-by-rail in Congress, such as Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), said they were reviewing the PHMSA proposal.
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said they would review the rule. However, the two chairmen expressed concern regarding “unintended consequences” the rule could cause for the rail network, including for products and services outside of flammable liquids transportation.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also weighed in on the rule, saying it is more of the status quo, doesn't do enough to address tank car puncture risks and has too slow of a phaseout of the older tank cars. It also doesn't address volatility of the crude oil, Cantwell said.
-
Dems Criticize Obama’s Oil Train Safety Rules
May 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Congressional Democrats are criticizing the Obama administration’s new safety rules for oil trains, saying they don’t go nearly far enough to prevent disastrous incidents.
While Democrats were appreciative of the Transportation Department’s rules, they said that the phase-out timeline for old tanker cars should be much faster, among other problems.
“There is good news here and bad news here,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement after the rules were unveiled.
“The good news is that the standards for tank cars are tough and provide certainty, but the phase-out timeline lets the industry take too long to implement it,” he said.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, objected both to the timeline for getting old tank cars out of crude oil service and to the lack of regulations on the volatility of oil being transported.
“The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars,” she said in a statement.
“It’s more of a status quo rule than the real safety changes needed to protect the public and first responders.”
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx unveiled the suite of new rules Friday morning.
Later this year, newly built tank cars for oil service will need thicker shells, enhanced braking capabilities, and new shields to protect their ends and valves, among other features.
The oldest existing tank cars must be off the rails in 2017, but it will be 2023 before all of the existing fleet must be phased out, a timeline that some Democrats found unacceptable.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) took issue with the timeline and with the specific speed restrictions only for certain urban areas, which would not include the area around Albany, N.Y., in his district.
“I am disappointed that DOT is applying additional speed restrictions to only High-Threat Urban Areas, which do not include any municipalities in the Capital Region,” he said. “Also, the phase out of older, inadequate tank cars is too slow.”
Green groups similarly argued that the rules are weak.
A coalition, including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council, said old tank cars need to be banned immediately.
“Allowing hazardous tank cars to remain in crude service for 5 more years is disgraceful,” Patti Goldman, an Earthjustice attorney, said in the statement.
Not all Democrats were critical. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) called the rules “a needed and important step to improve the safety of transporting crude oil on the rails — which I have been pressing the agency to release.”
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) call the rules “a crucial initial step not only for first responders, but for residents who live and work in close proximity to freight rail lines who are watching an ever-increasing volume of volatile substances being transported near their homes and businesses.”
Republicans and the oil and railroad industries were also generally supportive, saying the rules provide an aggressive, yet achievable, set of standards and enough time to comply with them.
-
New Oil Train Rules Are Hit From All Sides
May 1, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jad Mouawad
Ending months of uncertainty and delays, federal regulators on Friday unveiled new rules for transporting crude oil by trains, saying the measures would improve rail safety and reduce the risks of a catastrophic event.
But the rules quickly came under criticism from many sides. Lawmakers and safety advocates said the regulations did not go far enough in protecting the public, while industry representatives said some provisions would be costly and yield few safety benefits.
More than two years in the making, the rules followed a spate of derailments, explosions and oil spills around the country that highlighted the hazards of shipping large quantities of potentially explosive material on rails. The regulations introduce a new tank car standard for oil and ethanol with better protections, and mandate the use of electronically controlled brakes.
Facing growing pressure from members of Congress as well as local and state officials, the Department of Transportation has taken repeated steps in the last two years to tackle the safety of oil trains and reassure the public. Last month, for example, it set lower speed limits for oil trains going through urban areas.
Under the new rules, the oldest, least safe tank cars would be replaced within three years with new cars that have thicker shells, higher safety shields and better fire protection. A later generation of tank cars, built since 2011 with more safety features, will have to be retrofitted or replaced by 2020.
Oil trains — with as many as 120 cars — have become common sights in cities like Philadelphia, Albany and Chicago as they make the slow journey from the Bakken region of North Dakota, where oil production has surged in recent years.
Local and state officials have complained that rail-friendly rules make it difficult to predict when trains will pass through.
But regulators retreated from a provision that would have forced railroads to notify communities of any oil train traffic. Instead, railroads will need to have only a “point of contact” for information related to the routing of hazardous materials.
Several members of Congress, particularly those representing states like Washington, Oregon, North Dakota and New York that have seen a surge in train traffic, said the rules did not go far enough and signaled that legislation might be needed.
Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon said they were disappointed that transportation officials had not expanded public information about oil train routes.
“Instead of providing first responders more details about oil shipments, railroads will simply be required to give our firefighters a phone number,” they said.
Railroads said they welcomed the new regulations but objected to a provision that would require tank cars to have electronically controlled pneumatic brakes by 2021. The Department of Transportation said the new brakes, known as E.C.P., are more effective than air brakes or dynamic brakes that are currently being used.
“The D.O.T. couldn’t make a safety case for E.C.P. but forged ahead anyway,” Edward R. Hamberger, the president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement. “I have a hard time believing the determination to impose E.C.P. brakes is anything but a rash rush to judgment.”
The railroad association has estimated in comments filed to the Transportation Department last year that installing the new brakes would cost $9,665 per tank car. The Railway Supply Institute, which represents tank car makers, also pushed against the use of those brakes, saying their effectiveness was not proved and would not provide a significant safety advantage.
Transportation officials said the new type of brakes was already in use by some railroads for other types of commodities. Their use would decrease the chances of a catastrophic pileup, reduce the number of punctured cars in an accident, or allow train operators to stop faster if there was an obstacle on the tracks.
Sarah Feinberg, the acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said: “The mission of the F.R.A. is safety and not focusing on what is convenient or inexpensive or provides the most cost savings for the rail industry. When I focus on safety, I land on E.C.P. It’s a very black-and-white issue for me.”
There have been five explosions and spills this year alone, four in the United States and one in Canada. In July 2013, 47 people died in Canada after a runaway train derailed and exploded in the city of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
“I am hopeful the rail industry will accept this rule, and will follow this rule,” Anthony Foxx, the transportation secretary, said at a news conference in Washington. He appeared with Canada’s transport minister, Lisa Raitt, who said Canadian and American regulations would be aligned.
A central question before the administration was to determine what level of protection the new generation of cars should have and how quickly to roll them out.
The new rules create a new standard, “high-hazard flammable trains,” defined as “a continuous block of 20 or more tank cars loaded with flammable liquid or 35 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid dispersed through a train.”
By 2018, the rule would phase out older tank cars, DOT-111s, long known to be ill suited for transporting flammable material. A newer generation of cars, known as CPC-1232, would have to be retired or refitted to meet the new standard, DOT-117, by 2020.
All cars built under the DOT-117 standard after Oct. 1, 2015, will have a thicker nine-sixteenths-inch tank shell, a one-half-inch shield running the full height of the front and back of a tank car, thermal protection and improved pressure-relief valves and bottom outlet valves.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Friday’s announcement gave railroads too much time to remove older cars from service. Mr. Schumer was one of seven senators who unveiled a bill that would seek to impose a fee of $175 per shipment on older cars to speed up their removal from service.
“The good news is that the standards are predictable, but the bad news is that the phaseout time is too lenient,” Mr. Schumer said.
Senator Marie Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, was more forceful, saying that the new regulations also failed to reduce the volatility of Bakken crude, which is more likely to catch fire and explode than other forms of crude.
“It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars,” she said. “It’s more of a status quo rule.”
Oil companies, though, said the mandate to build new tank cars to replace older models starting in 2018 would stretch the industry’s manufacturing ability and lead to shortages.
Placing blame on the railroads, Jack Gerard, the chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, said regulators should focus instead on preventing derailments and enhancing track inspection and maintenance.
The spectacular growth of oil production from the Bakken region, negligible only a few years ago and now exceeding a million barrels a day, has transformed the domestic energy industry. It has placed the United States back on a path to oil self-sufficiency, and profoundly disrupted international energy markets.
-
Prodded By Industry, Senate Panel To Take Up Transportation Board Nomination
May 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
The Surface Transportation Board is a tiny, obscure agency invisible to most Americans. But as the chief rate regulator of the freight rail industry, the board is intensely watched by shippers and the handful of remaining large railroads.
On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will hold a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Daniel Elliott to rejoin the board. The meeting comes barely two weeks after a shippers group urged the panel to take up the nomination, which has now been awaiting action for almost four months (E&E Daily, April 21).
While Elliott may face plenty of questions, he is likely to eventually win Senate confirmation, said Steve Sharp, immediate past president of the group, known as Consumers United for Rail Equity. "I don't think that, from my perspective and my information, there's much controversy about it," Sharp said in a phone interview.
Among the specific issues that senators could ask about are efforts both to improve Amtrak's punctuality record for passenger trains running on freight rail tracks and to ease backlogs in the broader freight rail network, said Karen Torrent, federal legislative director for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, an advocacy group that works on rail policy.
Elliott, a lawyer who has spent much of his career with the United Transportation Union, was originally named to the board by President Obama in 2009. Although Obama belatedly announced plans in November to reappoint him to another term, it's unclear whether the White House ever formally forwarded the nomination to the Senate before Congress adjourned for the year. Elliott, who was the board's chairman, had to step down at the end of December.
In his absence, the board has been functioning even more slowly than usual, Sharp said. The two remaining members, acting Chairwoman Deb Miller and Vice Chairwoman Ann Begeman, appear to be waiting for Elliott to return "before they finalize some decisions," he added. If confirmed, Elliott would reassume the chairman's post, according to the White House's website.
Schedule: The hearing will be Wednesday, May 6, at 10 a.m. in 253 Russell.
Witnesses: Daniel Elliott, for reappointment to the Surface Transportation Board; and Mario Cordero, for reappointment to the Federal Maritime Commission.
-
Mixed Reviews On Hill For Dot Overhaul Of Crude-Shipment Rule
May 1, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly and Blake Sobczak
With reactions ranging from guarded applause to caustic dismissal, key members of Congress offered mixed responses today to the newly unveiled regulations covering shipments of crude oil on trains (Greenwire, May 1).
"We are pleased the Department of Transportation has finally set a stronger federal standard for transporting crude oil by rail," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) in a joint statement that called new requirements for rail tank cars "a sensible approach to address shortcomings in older car designs" and predicted that substantial safety benefits will follow.
The two men are chairmen of panels with lead responsibility for rail programs in their respective chambers: the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
While Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the top Democrat of the T&I Committee, is still reviewing the some 350-page package, "at first glance, [it] will provide certainty to manufacturers, shippers, and railroads and better protect the American public," he said in a separate statement.
Crude-by-rail traffic has skyrocketed in recent years, driven by production from North Dakota's Bakken Shale formation. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) welcomed the regulations' release, but steered clear of taking an immediate position.
"As I continue to review this new rule to see how it impacts our state, I'll work to make sure our oil and ethanol industries can continue moving their products to market while we prioritize keeping North Dakotans -- and all Americans -- safe," Heitkamp said.
Offering a flat thumbs down was Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of S. 859, a bill to end the use of older, puncture-prone tank cars and reduce volatility of gases in crude shipped by train.
The new rule "is just like saying let the oil trains roll," Cantwell said. "It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars.
"It's more of a status quo rule than the real safety changes needed to protect the public and first responders."
Mingled with praise, Thune and Shuster also voiced some concerns, but from the perspective that some requirements -- which they did not explain in detail -- "could create unintended consequences throughout the rail network."
The two said they looked forward to working with Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and other lawmakers to evaluate the impact on "the movement of agriculture commodities, intermodal shipments, automobiles, raw materials and passenger rail service across the country."
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) urged the Department of Transportation to expedite an interagency study assessing the impact of Bakken crude’s chemical properties on rail safety.
"Although I am pleased that new tank car standards have been unveiled, we also need to improve our understanding of the chemicals and flammable materials being transported along our railways," said Manchin, whose constituents in Boomer, W.Va., were temporarily evacuated after an oil train derailed and caught fire there in February.
Tim Butters, acting head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, told reporters today that he and his department "recognize [volatility] is a factor."
"We are engaged right now with the Department of Energy to take a look at how that factors into safety," he said, declining to offer a timeline as to when the work might be finished. "We are going to move vigorously to better understand this, but at the same time, we encourage the industry to do whatever they can -- if there are actions they can take to reduce the risk and hazard of this product, we would certainly welcome that."
-
Energy Pipeline: API To Train First Responders On Crude Rail Safety
May 3, 2015 | The Greeley Tribune
By Linda Kane
The American Petroleum Institute wants to make sure the public knows how much it’s focused on safety. That includes making sure first responders are properly trained in the event a rail car transporting crude oil derails.
In March, API introduced efforts to enhance the work of first responders who respond to derailments.
“A truly comprehensive safety effort also requires industry and regulators to do more to prevent train derailments and effectively respond if an incident occurs,” said Jack Gerard, API president and CEO. “The oil and natural gas industry is committed to safety; it is our core value in everything we do — exploration, production, refining and transportation.”
As the U.S. becomes a world-leading producer of oil and natural gas, shipments of crude by rail have increased, Gerard said. North America’s freight railroads move 99.998 percent of hazardous materials without incident, but the oil and gas industry’s goal for safety is zero incidents, he said.
“This is not a goal that can be reached through any single action or step,” Gerard said. “Eliminating the last elements of risk requires a holistic and science-based approach to better prevent, mitigate and respond to derailments of trains carrying crude oil.”
One element of that work is enhancing tank car safety. Comprehensive efforts already require preventing train derailments and effectively responding should a derailment occur.
In the last year, API, the Association of American Railroads and member companies have worked to develop a crude-by-rail education module for first responders. The course complements existing training efforts and was taught for the first time in March at a firefighters’ conference in Nebraska.
Participants learned about the characteristics of crude oil, rail cars and spill response. After completing the course, participants should be able to:
» Understand the growth of crude oil by rail.
» Identify shipping papers used.
» Recognize the markings used for identifying rail cars transporting crude oil.
» Describe basic spill responses — basic firefighting - containment and confinement.
“Freight railroads are fully committed to the safe movement of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail,” said Association of American Railroads President and CEO Edward Hamberger. “This course is another example of how railroads and their customers work with communities coast-to-coast to help with awareness and preparedness for any type of incident.”
The Crude Oil by Rail Response Safety Course is available on the API web site at www.api.org.
Fire departments and other officials interested in the course should contact their TRANSCAER state coordinator at www.transcaer.com/state.aspx. TRANSCAER is a voluntary national outreach group that helps communities prepare for and respond to transportation incidents involving hazardous materials.
No taxpayer money was used to create this program, Gerard said. It was fully funded by the oil and rail industries.
API represents all segments of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Its more than 625 members produce, process and distribute most of the nation’s energy. The industry also supports 9.8 million U.S. jobs and eight percent of the U.S. economy.
-
May 1, 2015 | Progressive Railroading
Alstom has completed the modernization of 106 trains along the London Underground's Northern line. The work involved replacing nearly 7 miles of linoleum in the fleet, polishing 15,688 windows to remove graffiti and changing 27,500 seat backs, Alstom officials said in a press release. In total, the company replaced 3.7 million items on the fleet, or about 35,000 components per train, Alstom said.
CIT reported first-quarter net income of $104 million, up $13 million from the same period last year. Earnings remained flat at 59 cents per diluted share. Net revenue for the quarter was $423.8 million, up $30.9 million from first-quarter 2014. CIT's Chief Executive Officer John Thain said in a press release the results reflected lower profitability in the company's North American commercial finance business, in addition to lower utilization rates in its transportation division.
Scott Commo will succeed Ron Hobbs as president of Industry-Railway Suppliers Inc. Commo has worked various jobs with large contractors, manufacturers and large contractors in his more than 15 years in the railroad industry. His background includes roles in management, sales and marketing.
Christopher Papazoglou has been named senior supervising engineer in the New York City office of Parsons Brinckerhoff. In his new role, Papazoglou will have technical and managerial responsibilities on rail design projects in the New York region. He's currently working in support of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's East Side Access project. A member of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Papazoglou worked as a senior railroad engineer at another New York engineering firm, and oversaw projects involving new track alignment, structural design and traction power.
Kelso Technologies hired Brian Emshwiller as regional sales manager. He'll focus on developing a portion of the company's Western U.S. and other strategic accounts, Kelso officials said. Emshwiller has 18 years of industrial valve sales experience working for various manufacturers and distributors throughout the United States.
OPW's Midland Manufacturing earned a National Achievement Award at the 2015 Chlorine Institute Annual Meeting and Technology Symposium. The company received the award for ongoing support of institute's TRANSCAER (Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response) program, which is a voluntary national outreach effort to help communities prepare for potential accidents involving hazardous materials, Midland Manufacturing officials said in a statement.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested