Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Panel Unanimously Approves TSCA Reform Bill
May 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy voted 21-0 on 14 May to send a revised draft of a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 13 May 2015) for full committee consideration. -
States Seek Further Changes to Senate TSCA Measure
May 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
States are seeking changes to a Senate update to the Toxic Substances Control Act to guarantee more of state-level control of dangerous chemicals while EPA decides whether to act. -
House Of Representatives Panel Launches Bipartisan Effort To Reform U.S. Chemical Law
May 15, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Lawmakers in the House of Representatives are hoping to quickly advance bipartisan legislation to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. law that governs commercial chemicals. -
Gazette Opinion: Rare Momentum Can Pass Senate Chemical Safety Bill
May 15, 2015 | Billings Gazette
Asbestos is widely recognized as a harmful, potentially deadly substance. But it’s not even covered by the nation’s Toxic Substances Control Act. In fact, thousands of toxic substances that were already on the market in 1976 when the control act took effect are not subject to this inadequate, outdated law. -
State House to Vote on Flame-Retardant Ban
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
St. Paul, Minn., firefighter Chris Parsons is being credited with helping to craft what could be the most restrictive flame-retardant regulation in the country. -
Quest to Eliminate Chemical Flame Retardants from Californian Homes is Far From Over, Experts Say
May 15, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
A California regulation effectively eliminated the need for chemical flame retardants in furniture in November 2013. -
House Oversight Leaders Press White House for WOTUS Documents
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
The chairmen of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and one of its subcommittees are threatening to use a "compulsory process" to get documents related to the Obama administration's controversial water rule. -
Boosting Energy Efficiency Can Combat Climate Change and Protect Our Health
May 15, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Ellie Joo
Cutting carbon emissions from U.S. power plants will help combat climate change, but it can also substantially reduce illnesses and deaths from other types of air pollution. -
Attempting to Rein in the EPA
May 15, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Daren Bakst and Nicolas Loris
Dare to reform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and you are sure to be attacked. It's as certain as death, taxes or EPA regulatory overreach. -
The Greens’ Back Door at the EPA
May 15, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley A. Strassel
When Tom Collier thinks about his ongoing battle with the EPA, he recalls Rita Lavelle. Ms. Lavelle was an assistant administrator there in the early 1980s when she was accused of improperly coordinating with businesses her agency regulated. -
Greens Sue for Stronger Oil Train Rules
May 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental groups are suing the Obama administration, saying regulators’ new standards for crude oil transportation by rail are not nearly strong enough. -
Enviros Say Crude-by-Rail Rule Fails to Avert 'Catastrophic Accidents'
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists were quick on the heels of industry this week in challenging the Obama administration's new rules for oil-by-rail safety. -
Amtrak Derailment Happened Near Oil-Filled Tank Cars
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The front end of the Amtrak train that derailed Tuesday in Philadelphia sailed off the tracks and into a rail yard often occupied by tank cars filled with liquids such as crude oil, ethanol and other explosive types.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Panel Unanimously Approves TSCA Reform Bill
May 15, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy voted 21-0 on 14 May to send a revised draft of a bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (CW 13 May 2015) for full committee consideration.
This marks another significant milestone in congressional efforts to modernise the decades-old law.
All Democrats present at the markup of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 backed the bill, even though they noted it needed some more fixes before the full Energy and Commerce Committee takes it up for consideration. Several of them applauded subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Illinois), the bill's author, for collaborating with the Democrats and considering their input in revising the original draft.
In addition to the changes made to the draft, Mr Shimkus said Section 8 of TSCA needs revising. Many stakeholders want to fix “implementation issues or what appears to be paper work and reporting requirements that the stakeholders consider unneeded, duplicative or expensive,” he said. They are, he added, legitimate concerns that members should work to address “in a bipartisan manner as we move to full committee”.
“There are a number of important features of this draft that make it a significant improvement over current law and as compared to the bill under consideration in the Senate,” said subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-New York). Though not perfect, it is a good bill, he added. “It would replace an ineffective law with one that offers real health protections.”
The new draft includes significant improvements sought by committee Democrats, and responds to concerns raised by stakeholders, said full committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey).
Industry groups welcomed the revised draft. Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, said it “addresses the fundamental elements of effective reform” of TSCA, while Phil Klein, executive vice president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, said it would “establish a science-based chemicals management programme, assuring consumers that chemicals in household products have been evaluated and found to meet a risk-based safety standard.”
The American Cleaning Institute said that “along with the progress on bipartisan legislation in the Senate, action in the House sets us further on the path to passing a more effective law to govern chemicals in commerce.”
Some environmental groups were cautiously supportive. The Environmental Defense Fund said the revised draft was "another sign that chemical safety reform is set to move this Congress", while Andy Igrejas of the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalition said it was "a significant step toward a version of TSCA reform that can enjoy broad support", but that it was not there yet. The group is hopeful that the remaining issues "can be addressed as the Energy and Commerce Committee moves forward.”
However, the Environmental Working Group said the proposal "still falls short of what’s necessary to ensure that chemicals are safe". In particular, it said, it has an "untested and ambiguous safety standard that fails to definitively exclude consideration of cost from decisions whether to regulate dangerous chemicals", and fails to set tough deadlines for final regulatory action "or provide the resources to quickly review the most dangerous chemicals".
The Senate took the lead in moving its own TSCA bill late last month, with the Environment and Public Works Committee sending a measure to the Senate floor also with bipartisan support (CW 29 April 2015).
-
States Seek Further Changes to Senate TSCA Measure
May 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
States are seeking changes to a Senate update to the Toxic Substances Control Act to guarantee more of state-level control of dangerous chemicals while EPA decides whether to act.
While praising concessions made so far, the National Conference of State Legislators and the Environmental Council of the States want senators “to go further, as preemption language with potentially harmful consequences still remains in the bill,” NCSL Executive Director William Pound and ECOS Executive Director Alexandra Dapolito Dunn wroteEnvironment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe and ranking member Barbara Boxer today.
They are seeking “language that allows states to regulate a particular chemical in the absence of an EPA final determination.” That’s essentially what a pending bipartisan House bill approved unanimously Thursday by the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee would allow.
The Senate bill — approved by the EPW Committee — would preempt new state action on high-priority chemicals for up to five years while EPA makes a safety determination. Existing state actions would be grandfathered in through August of this year. States are also allowed to seek waivers from the federal preemption.
“However, the waiver language remains complicated and creates uncertainty,” Pound and Dunn wrote. “States are willing to offer specific suggestions for streamlining.”
They are also seeking assurance there will be adequate resources for EPA, including “an actual appropriation so that EPA has enough financial resources available to test high-priority chemicals before taking that ability away from states.” And they want Congress to fund competitive grants to states. -
House Of Representatives Panel Launches Bipartisan Effort To Reform U.S. Chemical Law
May 15, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Lawmakers in the House of Representatives are hoping to quickly advance bipartisan legislation to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the U.S. law that governs commercial chemicals. A draft version of the bill, which hasn’t yet been formally introduced, garnered unanimous bipartisan backing from a House Energy & Commerce subcommittee on May 14.
Unveiled on May 12 by Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the draft TSCA Modernization Act would give EPA the authority to require manufacturers to provide new information about chemicals already on the market. The draft bill would set deadlines for EPA to evaluate the risks of substances that the agency classifies as “priority chemicals.” The draft legislation would allow EPA to collect fees from manufacturers to cover the cost of those evaluations.
The measure also would mandate that EPA’s risk decisions be based on health and environmental considerations and not on costs. Chemical manufacturers strongly support the draft bill, but some environmental groups say it falls short of ensuring that substances used in everyday products are safe.
-
Gazette Opinion: Rare Momentum Can Pass Senate Chemical Safety Bill
May 15, 2015 | Billings Gazette
Asbestos is widely recognized as a harmful, potentially deadly substance. But it’s not even covered by the nation’s Toxic Substances Control Act. In fact, thousands of toxic substances that were already on the market in 1976 when the control act took effect are not subject to this inadequate, outdated law.
After decades of failed attempts to reform the nation’s chemical safety law, a surprisingly strong bipartisan bill (S.697) has 36 sponsors, including 14 who signed on this month. Led by Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, and Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, each party is well represented on the co-sponsor list. As of this week, co-sponsors include Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming; Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; and all four senators from the Dakotas (three Republicans and a Democrat).
Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Steve Daines should join this bipartisan effort to protect Americans’ health and worker safety. Tester has supported previous efforts at chemical safety law reform and we hope he will see the merits of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. The bill is named in honor of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, who fought for chemical safety reform for many years.
But no bill passed because safety advocates and the chemical industry were at odds – until now. Vitter and Udall have managed to write a bill that has been endorsed by chemical manufacturers as well as unions representing workers who handle hazardous chemicals and the Environmental Defense Fund.
The main opposition now comes from some environmental groups and some senators who fear that the nationwide standards proposed by the bill will negate higher standards already in law in California.
State pre-emption concern
Last week, the bill was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 15-5 after it was amended to address states’ rights concerns. Vitter and Udall announced changes that “make it clear that states may act to regulate a chemical if EPA misses required deadlines. The agreement also ensures that states will get waivers to act on chemicals while EPA is evaluating them for safety. And it makes clear that states may co-enforce the law, with the condition that penalties may not be collected from both the state and the federal government for the same violation.”
Montana is among the majority of states that have no chemical safety standards other than what is in the outdated federal law.
The bill will ensure special protection for Americans most vulnerable to hazardous substances: pregnant women, infants, elderly folks and chemical workers. It will require the EPA to consider only the health and safety impacts of a chemical when assessing safety. The cost to manufacturers of maintaining safety will no longer be a factor in the evaluation. The bill will set fees so chemical companies will pay a larger share of the cost for safety testing and regulation.
The proposed new law would provide clarity and certainty to chemical manufacturers and boost U.S. consumer confidence in their products.
The Environmental Defense Fund sums up the case for reform this way:
“Only a small fraction of the chemicals in cleaning products, clothing, furniture, and most other products have ever been reviewed for safety. Our government lacks the ability to regulate even known dangers such as lead and formaldehyde. And the current patchwork of state regulations covers only a small number of chemicals.”
Call for Senate vote
This bipartisan bill has momentum, so now’s the time for the Senate to vote to fix an outdated and broken law. Republican and Democratic sponsors have called for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring the chemical safety act to the floor.
We call on Montana’s senators to add their support to this public safety bill and their voices to the call for a Senate vote.
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/gazette-opinion-rare-momentum-can-pass-senate-chemical-safety-bill/article_6e2364f4-f96a-5a20-bff2-ddf85d4dbe70.html#ixzz3aEHHnrw9 -
State House to Vote on Flame-Retardant Ban
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
St. Paul, Minn., firefighter Chris Parsons is being credited with helping to craft what could be the most restrictive flame-retardant regulation in the country.
The measure, which will be considered tomorrow in the Minnesota House, would ban the manufacture and sale of furniture, clothing and other products treated with the chemicals. It is expected to pass.
Parsons, a fire captain who leads the Minnesota Professional Firefighters group, championed the legislation.
He burned a flame-retardant couch on television to prove the toxic chemicals don't work.
"It won't happen overnight, but we hope this bill will help save the lives of firefighters in the future," he said.
Parsons said he was prompted to act because of the higher rates of cancer found among firefighters, which has been attributed to their exposure to burning flame retardants.
The Senate already has passed a version of the bill. The House bill bans four of the 10 chemicals included in the original version.
But Susan Shaw, an environmental health researcher who has worked on the bill, said no version of the legislation would have a chance without Parsons.
She called him "the top lobbyist for firefighters on this issue in the country" (Ruben Rosario, St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 14). -- AW
-
Quest to Eliminate Chemical Flame Retardants from Californian Homes is Far From Over, Experts Say
May 15, 2015 | The Guardian
By Amy Westervelt
A California regulation effectively eliminated the need for chemical flame retardants in furniture in November 2013. Two years later, though, experts say the quest to eliminate the retardants from the home is far from over.
While flame retardant chemicals have been taken out of furniture, many of the same chemicals are still required in building insulation and other products. Some of these compounds – particularly halogenated and organophosphorous flame retardants, which are commonly used in a variety of consumer and industrial products – have raised a host of health concerns. The US Environmental Protection Agency, among others, has linked them to a variety of health conditions, including endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, and cancer.
“The change to the furniture standard is huge and we’ll all be healthier as a result,” says Arlene Blum, founder of the Green Science Policy Institute and longtime leader of the charge for Technical Bulletin 117, the regulation that removed the flame retardant requirement for furniture in California. “On the other hand, there are still other uses of concern, particularly building insulation and electronics.
“The same materials that make buildings really energy efficient – polystyrene, polyurethane and polyisocyanurate – are treated with flame retardants that are either known to be harmful or appear to be,” Blum says. What’s more, she adds, the increased focus on energy conservation is leading to an increased use of such chemicals. “As our buildings get more and more energy efficient, we’re using twice as much insulation, so twice as much flame retardant chemicals,” she says.
But what of the fire protection that comes from these chemicals? Blum argues there isn’t any real benefit. “Many walls are designed to be thermal barriers, so they can withstand 15 minutes of flashover fire,” she says. “By that time, the flame retardant really makes no difference.”
Changing the standardIn October 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bulletin that required the state fire marshal to look into updating the state building code to enable the safe use of insulation that does not contain chemical flame retardants. Blum says efforts are underway to completely eliminate the use of these chemicals in areas where there’s very little fire risk. “Between the foundation and the soil, for example, there’s zero fire risk, but chemical flame retardants used in insulation there could leech into the ground water and soil,” she says.
It’s not clear whether flame retardant chemicals are really unsafe. The question of whether or not they migrate beyond walled-off enclosures to expose building inhabitants hasn’t yet been studied. But those who advocate for eliminating fire retardant chemicals from building insulation are not only concerned about their toxicity in the home, but also about their overall life cycles – including their manufacture and disposal.
According to the European Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency, insulation is the primary environmental source ofhexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), a flame retardant chemical and persistent organic pollutant. The Green Science Policy Institute estimates that 85% of the global supply of HBCD is used on foam plastic insulation.
Globally, the chemical is being phased out due to research indicating it is toxic to the environment. According to the EPA, HBCD is persistent in the environment and bioaccumulates in living organisms; it is “highly toxic to aquatic organisms” and also presents human health concerns based on animal test results indicating potential reproductive, developmental and neurological effects.
One option is to replace HBCD with a less toxic choice. According to the EPA’s Design for the Environment program, the best candidate is butadiene styrene brominated copolymer. Because it is a polymer, the chemicals are bonded together and kept in place, which means there’s less likelihood of flame retardant chemicals migrating out of the insulation and into dust, air, water or soil.
But while that replacement is preferable, it still isn’t a complete solution to the toxicity problem. The EPA’s brief on the material says: “Its long term behavior in the environment is not currently known.”Industry in the hot seat
The insulation industry is quick to defend its chemicals. “During a fire, every second counts and flame retardants in foam insulation are an important line of defense when it comes to fire safety,” Jared Blum, president of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, wrote in an op-ed around the time AB 127 passed. “In fact, a study conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Materials Flammability Group found that products treated with flame retardants provide extra, valuable time to escape a building compared to foam insulation products not treated with flame retardants.”
But some activists question whether industry resistance to anti-flame retardant legislation is aimed at saving lives – or saving a profitable product line. The total US insulation industry is predicted to hit $10.3bn by 2017. According to Avery Lindeman, deputy director of the Green Science Policy Institute, one reason for the opposition is that, in many cases, the same groups that manufacture foam plastic insulation also manufacture the flame retardant chemicals used in it. “There’s really no incentive there for them to want the codes to change,” she says.
One problem, critics say, is that the circumstances surrounding fire safety regulations have changed. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was legal to leave insulation completely unprotected in the home. Because of that,California changed its code requirements, which remain in place today, forcing builders to place insulation behind a thermal barrier, where it would be protected from fire.
Another issue is testing. As insulation requirements changed, some manufacturers incorrectly claimed that their products were fire-safe – a move that led the Federal Trade Commission to demand improved fire-testing standards. In response, manufacturers adopted the Steiner Tunnel test, which involves mounting a sample of test material in a noncombustible tunnel that is then lit by two gas burners. A ventilation system blows air and combustibles through the tunnel, and flame spread and smoke development are measured.
The trouble is, the Steiner tunnel test is not meant to measure the ignitability of a material, nor is it intended for thermoplastic materials that could melt and drip or for materials with slow flame spread properties. When it became clear that the test couldn’t ensure the safety of uncovered foam insulation, California instituted the thermal barrier requirement in 1979, which requires that insulation be protected by a barrier wall, typically half-inch-thick gypsum wallboard.
Still, Lindeman claims, the insulation industry clings to the Steiner test. “The tunnel test was developed by industry, in collaboration with Underwriters Laboratory and the National Bureau of Standards [now the National Institute of Standards and Technology] to demonstrate that their product was safe,” Lindeman says. “So even though they have agreed in the working group that the test is flawed, the industry is unwilling to publicly admit that this test they’ve been using for the last four decades doesn’t work for foam plastics.”
According to Charles Cottrell, vice president of technical services for the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, the industry does not have an official position regarding the Steiner Tunnel Test. Nonetheless, he has a strong opinion about it. “In my opinion the test can provide very valuable information regarding the fire performance of building materials, but those conducting the tests and interpreting the results of the tests need to be aware of its limitations,” he says. “The test may not provide useful information for materials that melt, drip or delaminate and the persons conducting the testing and evaluating the results should be careful about using just this test for evaluating the fire performance to some types of materials.”Industry sets its own standards
Following the passage of AB 127 and Brown’s call for investigation into updated building codes, the California state fire marshal convened a working group to make recommendations. However, Lindeman says, the first step – a review of the available literature regarding the code – didn’t happen. “[It was] partly because of the really broad spectrum of opinions within the working group and the lack of objective technical expertise,” she says.
The working group consisted of representatives from several of the state’s fire departments, scientists, green chemistry advocates, representatives from standards organizations like Underwriters and industry representatives. It produced a report in December 2014, which the state fire marshal now needs to finalize, adding a cover letter that indicates the next steps that should be taken.
From here, the push for new fire code requirements could go one of two ways. The fire marshal’s office could recommend updates to the code, which would need to be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission by July 2015. Alternately, it could recommend the establishment of a second working group, which would conduct comparison tests and do additional research.
It looks like the second route is more likely. “If the state fire marshal’s finalized report came out this week and included very simple proposed code changes, we could maybe see updated codes in the next couple of years, but it’s looking very unlikely given that the July deadline is looming and we haven’t seen anything yet,” Lindeman says.
-
House Oversight Leaders Press White House for WOTUS Documents
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
The chairmen of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and one of its subcommittees are threatening to use a "compulsory process" to get documents related to the Obama administration's controversial water rule.
In a letter sent this week to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Howard Shelanski, Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Subcommittee on Government Operations Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) reiterated a request made to Shelanski during a March 3 hearing that he turn over documents and communications related to the "Waters of the U.S." rulemaking.
Shelanski said during the hearing that elements of the "deliberative process" do not leave his office but that once the review is complete, OIRA will release a copy of the rule as it arrived at his office and the version of the rule ultimately settled on (E&E Daily, March 4).
Chaffetz and Meadows continued to press for the documents, though, and said that they were provided with a copy of OIRA's disclosure policy in response. They say that Shelanski's refusal runs afoul of the principles laid out in that policy.
"Your repeated refusal to address the Committee's questions about the proposed regulation, while under oath and otherwise, raises serious questions regarding your commitment to these principles," Chaffetz and Meadows wrote. "The proposed regulation is highly controversial and Congress has a right to know how it was developed."
If the documents aren't turned over soon, they threatened to try to force Shelanski's hand.
"The committee will consider the use of compulsory process to obtain these documents if you continue to refuse to produce them voluntarily," they wrote.
The final version of the water rule is being reviewed at Shelanski's office and could be released soon.
The request to Shelanski is just one of multiple document requests that opponents of the rule have submitted to the administration.
In late March, Chaffetz joined House Agriculture Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) and Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in demanding a trove of documents from U.S. EPA. That request, the committee chairmen said, was motivated by a concern that the Army Corps of Engineers and state and local stakeholders have been cut out of the rulemaking process (Greenwire, April 1).
-
Boosting Energy Efficiency Can Combat Climate Change and Protect Our Health
May 15, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Ellie Joo
Cutting carbon emissions from U.S. power plants will help combat climate change, but it can also substantially reduce illnesses and deaths from other types of air pollution. Scientists from Syracuse, Harvard, and Boston universities compared the health impacts of three alternative policies related to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed carbon standards for existing power plants, and they found that increasing energy efficiency would be one of the most effective ways to cut power plant emissions and protect our health.
The study, published on May 4, finds that a stringent but flexible policy that includes energy efficiency measures produces the largest health benefits of the three alternatives (also called scenarios) examined. Energy-saving measures reduce both emissions and costs of energy production, a win-win solution which drives down operating and pollution clean-up costs for utilities, while consumers pay smaller bills and breathe cleaner air. For example, energy utilities can modernize their systems and equipment with more advanced technology. Consumers also can purchase energy-saving LED light bulbs over traditional incandescent ones. The scenarios varied in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and in compliance and emissions trading options. Each option was compared to emissions under all existing air quality policies and planned programs.
In addition to carbon dioxide, power plants produce other air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and fine particulate matter. Besides increasing the risk of premature death, heart attacks, and asthma attacks, these pollutants harm our health in other ways, impair visibility, and damage ecosystems. Nitrogen oxides also contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which particularly impacts children, the elderly, and people with heart or lung disease.Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants can reduce emissions of other pollutants, providing immediate improvements to air quality and public health.
The study compared the carbon dioxide reduction approaches based on the amount of ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter produced and found that the policy option designed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) produced the greatest health benefits. The drop in these two air pollutants under the proposed policy resulted in 3,500 fewer early deaths, 1,000 fewer heart and lung-related hospitalizations, and 220 fewer heart attacks each year by 2020. As highlighted on the map below, states that would benefit the most include Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, and Indiana.
Source: The Center for Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthThis approach would also result in a 35 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, an improvement over EPA’s proposed standards, which are expected to achieve a 30 percent reduction by 2030.
Of the three policy options examined, the NRDC plan most closely resembles EPA’s proposed standards under the agency's so-called "moderate stringency, high flexibility, and energy efficiency” to compliance. Compared to the business-as-usual scenario, this approach would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and decrease carbon dioxide emissions by 24 percent, sulfur dioxide emissions by 27 percent, and nitrogen oxide emissions by 22 percent by 2020. This is largely due to the fact that of the three alternatives, it relied least on fossil fuels and the most on investments in energy efficiency.
In addition, the policy provided the greatest flexibility for maximizing the use of renewable energy sources, averaging and trading plant CO2 emissions across states, and carbon capture and storage from new coal plants as possible methods of complying with national carbon emissions reduction standards.A national emissions reduction policy should curb carbon dioxide and maximize health benefits for all of us.
Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables, investing in energy efficiency, and allowing a wide range of compliance options can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, important air quality improvements, and public health benefits. EPA is expected to issue the finalized carbon dioxide standards this summer, and it can help the most Americans by adopting a national emissions control policy that also maximizes the benefits of reducing other types of air pollution. The public health benefits of reducing ozone air pollution, especially for children, the elderly, and those with lung and heart disease who are most vulnerable to its health impacts, are highlighted in CEG’s just released report, Gasping for Support: Implementation of Tougher Air Quality Standards Will Require New Funds for State Agencies.
-
May 15, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Daren Bakst and Nicolas Loris
Dare to reform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and you are sure to be attacked. It's as certain as death, taxes or EPA regulatory overreach.
Case in point: Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) recently introduced a bill to address egregious EPA waste and abuse. Immediately, he was denounced as trying to "gut" the agency. In reality, Johnson's bill is a modest attempt to keep the EPA from gutting the economy and wasting taxpayer dollars.
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2015 takes on some specific and serious problems. It would prohibit the agency from using funds to issue a new ozone standard. States have just begun implementing the latest standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which was issued in 2008. Now, the EPA wants to make the standard even more stringent.
When nearly 40 percent of the nation's population lives in areas that haven't met the current standard, it's premature to adopt an even more stringent standard. It would be exorbitantly expensive, too. The National Association of Manufacturers argues that if the standard is dropped to 65 ppb, it would be the single costliest regulation in American history.
And the benefits of a tighter standard are far from clear. Much of the alleged benefits the EPA ascribes to a stricter standard have nothing to do with an actual reduction in ozone. Rather, it cites benefits accruing from reductions in fine particulate matter. Moreover, the agency's limited analysis fails to account for the relationship between health and wealth. Lost jobs and less disposable income are not just economic costs; they can lead to significant health problems, particularly among the poor.
Stopping an agency from rushing forward with a historically expensive regulation doesn't gut the agency. Yet some media reports have gone so far as to claim Johnson's bill would stop the agency from regulating ozone. This is wrong. The agency will still be able to regulate ozone, just as it does now under the existing standard.
The legislation would also prohibit funding for numerous greenhouse gas regulations and programs. For example, it would prohibit funds being used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from electric utility generating units.
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it never envisioned that carbon dioxide would be regulated. After all, life wouldn't exist without it. The potential economic implications of carbon dioxide regulation are staggering. It would drive up energy prices, which would in turn ripple throughout the economy. Lower-income families and individuals would be harmed the most, because a greater share of their income goes to meeting energy costs. And, the regulation would yield no measurable environmental benefit.
If the EPA is allowed to push through these jobs-crushing regulations, it will, at best, be able to boast a climate benefit of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius abated warming by the turn of the century. Sound like it's worth it?
Only Congress should be able to make the decision to impose such drastic and harmful regulations; it shouldn't be left to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
Johnson's bill also eliminates wasteful programs. For example, a 2013 report by the EPA Inspector General (IG) noted that the agency leases large amounts of underutilized space. The bill would require the agency to get rid of the space. This simple step — hardly a knife to the throat of the EPA — and could save taxpayers up to $21.6 million annually according to the IG report.
Johnson's bill poses no threat to the EPA continuing to wield too much power. Indeed, it would still leave the agency able to overregulate and diminish the rightful roles of states and individuals in protecting the environment. What is on the table is a narrow legislative vehicle to address serious problems. Instead of letting the EPA run amok, it gets rid of some wasteful programs and uses the power of the purse to regain some control. The legislation may focus on EPA waste, but it is also about Congress getting off the sidelines and reasserting its power.
Bakst is a research fellow concentrating on agricultural and environmental policy for the Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Loris is the Heritage Foundation's Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, specializing in energy and environmental issues.
-
The Greens’ Back Door at the EPA
May 15, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley A. Strassel
When Tom Collier thinks about his ongoing battle with the EPA, he recalls Rita Lavelle. Ms. Lavelle was an assistant administrator there in the early 1980s when she was accused of improperly coordinating with businesses her agency regulated. More than 20 officials ultimately resigned, and Ms. Lavelle went to prison for perjury.
The EPA is now repeating history, this time in aid of the greens—and leaving far more evidence than was ever marshaled back then. Mr. Collier runs the Pebble Partnership, which wants to develop a jobs-rich mine in southwest Alaska. For more than a year, he’s waged a hardball fight to uncover why the EPA blocked his proposal before he could even file a permit. He’s now obtained documents that explain it. The agency acted for ideological reasons, and in coordination with green activists.
In February 2014 the EPA took the unprecedented step of issuing a pre-emptive veto of the Pebble Mine, flouting long-standing law that gives the Army Corps of Engineers first authority over such projects. The EPA claimed it got involved in “response to petitions” in 2010 from Native American tribes. And it claimed it issued a veto because its internal watershed assessment proved the mine would do environmental harm.
The veto hit weeks after Mr. Collier took over Pebble, turning the former Clinton administration official and lawyer into a full-time EPA battler. He’s filed a lawsuit questioning the EPA’s veto authority; another demanding hidden EPA documents; and yet another claiming the EPA flagrantly violated a federal law requiring officials to work with outside players in a public and structured way—not in secret. He’s sending info to the EPA’s inspector general, who is now investigating.
Mr. Collier also sought EPA documents related to the veto by submitting disclosure requests to related agencies. The National Park Service recently came through with a smoking gun: a nine-page “Options Paper” for the Pebble Mine, already in circulation by early May 2010. It shows the agency intended even then to veto the mine—a full year before it began its (sham) watershed assessment. The only question was timing. One reason listed in support of nixing the mine pre-emptively was that this would allow Pebble to “avoid spending tens of millions of dollars on a project EPA program staff believe should be vetoed.”
Meanwhile, emails show that in drafting the options paper EPA staff collaborated with Jeff Parker, an environmental activist and attorney who works with mine opponents. In June 2010, as the paper’s draft was being revised, Mr. Parker emailed EPA biologist Phil North (driving the veto process internally) and EPA lawyer Cara Steiner-Riley. In a message with the subject line “options paper,” he suggested how best to craft a veto. More suggestions followed, some of which made it into the final options paper.
Collaboration went both ways. Remember, the EPA claims it began its Pebble review in “response to petitions” from Native American tribes in May 2010. We now know the options paper was in circulation before that. Moreover, guess who put together the tribes’ petitions? Mr. Parker. Documents show Mr. North working with him to engineer the petitions months before they were filed. They show Mr. North providing Mr. Parker with information cited in the petitions. Mr. Parker sent correspondence to Mr. North’s home email address, not his EPA account.
As Pebble summed it up in a letter to the agency’s inspector general this week: “EPA gave anti-mine activists an opportunity to review, comment, and shape the strategy EPA would pursue to block development of the mine. Then, having decided that it would proceed to block the mine using a [pre-emptive veto], EPA sought to cloak its actions by recruiting the very same anti mine activists to ‘petition’ EPA to initiate those [veto] proceedings.”
In a Thursday interview, EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerrantold me that the events described had “occurred at a very junior level of staff,” whereas the “key decision makers” on the veto spent years “doing science,” in an “open and transparent” process. He said those decision makers had not seen the options document. He dismissed Mr. North’s interactions with Mr. Parker as “field staff” communications, and said Ms. Steiner-Riley had actually told Mr. Parker he needed to talk to EPA counsel, not staff at a “lower level.” When I asked how it made the situation any better that Mr. Parker worked with an EPA lawyer, Mr. McLerran repeated that senior people had not seen the options paper.
A federal judge seems uninterested in this distinction between junior and senior staff. Even before these documents, Pebble had presented enough evidence of coordination to inspire the federal district court in Alaska in November to order the EPA to temporarily stop all veto work. The Federal Advisory Committee Act places rules on officials’ interaction with private actors, requiring an open, inclusive process.
Yet these latest records further show that Pebble was excluded, even as environmentalists worked on government documents. That an EPA lawyer participated in that communication, and moreover that she is now (according to Pebble) among those blocking access to documents proving it, is significant. If the EPA loses this case, its Pebble veto likely gets tossed out.
And not soon enough. If the EPA’s Pebble action becomes a model for the agency, it would become the effective zoner of every piece of land in the country—federal, state, private. It’s a terrifying thought, and why we have rules guaranteeing every petitioner a fair and open hearing. Pebble was bulldozed in a secret, ideologically driven collusion between greens and government. That is a scandal worthy of resignations.
-
Greens Sue for Stronger Oil Train Rules
May 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental groups are suing the Obama administration, saying regulators’ new standards for crude oil transportation by rail are not nearly strong enough.
Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of ForestEthics, Sierra Club, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity and various local Washington state groups Thursday, two weeks after the Department of Transportation unveiled the rules. The environmentalists cited a North Dakota oil train disaster this month.
“The Department of Transportation’s weak oil train standard just blew up in its face on the plains of North Dakota last week,” Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman said in a statement.
“Pleas from the public, reinforced by the National Transportation Safety Board, to stop hauling explosive crude in these tank cars have fallen on deaf ears, leaving people across the country vulnerable to catastrophic accidents,” she said.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx unveiled the rules May 1, calling them a comprehensive set of standards aimed at stopping oil train disasters on various fronts including new tank car standards, braking rules and operational regulations.
Greens specifically objected to the phase-out plan for old tank cars that they say could take 10 years, the lack of public notification requirements for oil train movements, weak retrofit standards and speed limits that don’t go far enough.
“The Department of Transportation got it wrong with its so-called safety regulations for oil tank cars. Rather than accept these wholly inadequate rules, which jeopardize health and safety of communities along rail lines, the administration should have forbidden bomb trains outright,” Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Dirty Fuels campaign, said in the statement.
The rules are now under attack from both sides. The oil industry filed a lawsuit earlier this week, saying some of the standards, including the phaseout timeline, are too strict.
-
Enviros Say Crude-by-Rail Rule Fails to Avert 'Catastrophic Accidents'
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists were quick on the heels of industry this week in challenging the Obama administration's new rules for oil-by-rail safety.
Earthjustice attorneys representing ForestEthics, Sierra Club and several other environmental groups filed suit yesterday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department of Transportation's newly finalized standards for oil-hauling trains keep dangerous tank cars on the tracks for too long and leave nearby communities out of the loop.
"The Department of Transportation's weak oil train standard just blew up in its face on the plains of North Dakota last week," Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman said in a statement, referencing a train derailment that occurred near the Bakken Shale just days after the rule was released. "Pleas from the public, reinforced by the National Transportation Safety Board, to stop hauling explosive crude in these tank cars have fallen on deaf ears, leaving people across the country vulnerable to catastrophic accidents."
The lawsuit comes three days after the oil and gas industry's biggest trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, filed its own lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the rule for allegedly requiring compliance faster than industry can adapt (EnergyWire, May 14).
The rule, in the works since a 2013 crude-by-rail disaster in Quebec killed 47 people, aims to improve the safety of crude oil transportation by requiring upgraded tank cars and enhanced braking systems on some trains. The most problematic type of existing tank car must be off the rails by 2018, and another common model must be retired by 2020 -- to be replaced by an upgraded fleet of tank cars with thicker steel and redesigned outlet valves.
While the oil industry has argued that the timeline for upgrades is too fast, environmentalists argue the opposite. Green groups first sued in December, urging DOT to issue an emergency order taking certain accident-prone rail cars, known as DOT-111 cars, off the tracks immediately. They assailed the rule after its release, and the new lawsuit questions the agency's interpretation of data in crafting the timeline.
Advertisement
"The long phase-out period runs counter to the evidence in the record, the Secretary's findings of imminent hazards and extreme safety risks from the hazardous tank cars, and his statutory mandate to regulate to protect life, property and the environment from hazardous material on the rails," yesterday's petition for review says.
The suit asks the 9th Circuit to send the rule back to the drawing board so DOT can re-evaluate the timeline for tank car improvements, along with speed limits and emergency responder notification requirements.
"We're suing the administration because these rules won't protect the 25 million Americans living in the oil train blast zone," ForestEthics Executive Director Todd Paglia said in a statement yesterday. "Let's start with common sense -- speed limits that are good for some cities are good for all communities, 10 years is too long to wait for improved tank cars, and emergency responders need to know where and when these dangerous trains are running by our homes and schools."
Other plaintiffs in the case are the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Washington Environmental Council, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Spokane Riverkeeper and the Center for Biological Diversity.
-
Amtrak Derailment Happened Near Oil-Filled Tank Cars
May 15, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The front end of the Amtrak train that derailed Tuesday in Philadelphia sailed off the tracks and into a rail yard often occupied by tank cars filled with liquids such as crude oil, ethanol and other explosive types.
While the train didn't crash into any of the tank cars, the close call worried Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who visited the crash scene Wednesday and noted, "That is a cause of additional concern."
Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said he was informed the tank cars were empty.
But concerns have emerged in light of similar occurences in 2013 in Casselton, N.D., where a train carrying soybeans derailed and "fouled" adjacent tracks while another train transporting crude oil traveling the opposite way crashed into a soybean hopper. The fiery explosion forced the 1,400 residents to evacuate.
Fred Millar, a hazardous materials consultant and rail safety advocate, thinks tank cars transporting dangerous cargo require different routes from those that carry passengers.
"We need to ask Amtrak: Do they not have a risk analysis that takes into consideration nearby hazards?" he said (Andrew Maykuth, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 14). -- KS
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested