Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Applaud EPA's Proposed Regulation Of TDI In Articles
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are praising EPA's proposal to place a significant new use rule (SNUR) on new uses of toluene diisocyanates (TDI), including those uses that occur in products, and are even seeking expansions of the proposed rule while industry groups are calling for EPA to narrow its regulatory approach to TDI. -
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Rescue’ States From Bad Federal Laws
May 20, 2015 | The Federalist
By Sean Saffron
In charge of a Congress focused on “getting Americans back to work” and pursuing “common sense, bipartisan” legislation to “get our economy going,” Republicans have gone to their friends in Big Business and received their marching orders. -
TSCA Reform Legislation: Consideration of Costs and Other Non-Risk Factors
May 20, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This is the fifth in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Chemical Users Protest EPA's Broadening Inclusion Of Articles In SNURs
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
A coalition of large companies that use chemicals to make their products are raising concerns about what they see as EPA's broad use of a provision to regulate products that are normally exempt from agency regulation, and are questioning the new criteria EPA has introduced for using the provision as well as the agency's economic analysis of the exemption's costs. -
40 Years and 1,000 Untested Chemicals Later, the Safety of Consumer Products May Actually Improve
May 20, 2015 | One Green Planet
Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law. Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.” -
Hospitals Purchasing, Using Safer Chemicals
May 20, 2015 | Environmental Leader
More hospitals are reducing patient and staff exposure to toxins by purchasing and using safer chemicals, according to the 2014 Milestone Report, released by the Healthier Hospitals Initiative(HHI). -
US EPA Issues Tolerance Exemption for Fragrance Components
May 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a final rule, eliminating the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of various fragrance component substances, when used as inert ingredients in antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on... -
Air Emissions of BPA May Affect Aquatic Exposures -- Study
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Industrial emissions of bisphenol-A, or BPA, through the air can increase BPA levels in nearby aquatic environments, according to a new study. -
Interior Slams Bicameral Push to Fast-Track Pipelines Through Parks
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
An Interior Department official today sharply criticized a bicameral effort that would scrap Congress' ability to oversee the construction of natural gas pipelines through national parks and some of the nation's most iconic landscapes. -
Lawmakers Look to Take Congress Out of Pipeline Approval Process
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers want to give the Department of Interior the power to approve new natural gas pipelines on National Park Service (NPS) land, but an Interior official told a House committee Wednesday that the department doesn’t want it. Under current law, Congress needs to pass a bill allowing natural gas pipelines to pass through NPS lands, even though the Interior Department can approve other infrastructure projects on its own. A House Natural Resources Committee panel held a hearing on a bill Wednesday that would take Congress out of that process, giving the department the power to approve natural gas pipelines on its own and requiring it to establish 10 new corridors for natural gas delivery within two years. Lawmakers could try to integrate the bill into a broader energy reform measure this session. Bill sponsor Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) said it would create jobs and help the American energy sector. “It’s environmentally sensitive,” he said. “It’s natural gas only, it’s planned, intentional and it’s a cohesive approach. It ends this willy-nilly, haphazard approach of approving one pipeline at a time through an act of Congress.” But the Interior Department doesn’t want that authority. In testimony to the committee, Timothy Spisak, a Bureau of Land Management energy, minerals and realty management senior advisor, said that the Interior Department has concerns about the infrastructure associated with building too many pipelines on NPS lands and the environmental risks that come with transporting the gas. At the same time, he said, the department has endorsed a handful of pipeline projects that have come before Congress for approval. “We have supported legislation authorizing rights of way for oil and gas pipelines on a park-by-park basis when it has been appropriate to do so,” Spisak told the Natural Resources Committee’s energy and mineral resources subcommittee. “The Department has a proven record of responsible siting of oil and gas pipelines.” Congress has had to approve NPS pipelines since about the 1980s, when an Interior Department analysis found that it didn’t have specific authority to approve natural gas projects on its own. Since then, Congress has approved five such pipelines. MacArthur and committee Republicans said the measure would speed up the approval process of pipelines at a time of growing natural gas production in the United States. They said it would help provide more natural gas to consumers — who would in turn see lower energy costs — and provide more certainty for energy companies looking to move their product. Jim Moore, the vice president of commercial development at Texas-based Williams Gas Pipelines, said his company recently needed to deliver more natural gas to New York City, but the only way to do so was to run a pipeline through the Gateway National Recreation Area, which is managed by the Park Service. The company began working with members of Congress on legislation to approve the pipeline in 2009. Lawmakers approved the project in 2012. “It’s difficult to say with certainty exactly how much time the requirement for congressional approval of the agreement added to the project but the project ultimately took six years to complete, at leas two years more than planned,” he said. Along with BLM, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), the panel’s ranking Democrat, said he opposed the bill, but not the push to speed up the pipeline approval process. He suggested tweaking the bill to incorporate Obama administration energy infrastructure proposals, such as a “permitting improvement center” to coordinate faster permitting between agencies. “We’re on the same page, supporting natural gas pipelines,” he said. “The question is, what’s the best way to move forward?” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, plans to insert the pipeline bill into a broader energy reform package that members hope to push this year. In a statement, he said the bill “will address a critical infrastructure gap on federal lands and ensure natural gas production is capable of reaching communities that are currently underserved. “These bipartisan bills have a path forward, and we will work with the Obama Administration and members of the House and Senate to see that they are signed into law,” he said. -
Administration's Decision Not to Consult Small Businesses on Rule Troubles Key Senate Dem
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Daily
By Annie Snider
The top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is expressing concern that the Obama administration erred by not sending its controversial water rule through the small business review process. -
Western States Wary of Enforcement Role in BLM Fracking Rules
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
A second legal and bureaucratic struggle is underway over the Bureau of Land Management's plan to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public land, as states decide whether they'll help enforce the plan. -
California Pipeline Ruptures, Leaks Oil Into Pacific Ocean
May 20, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tamara Audi, Alison Sider, and Alejandro Lazo
Oil from a ruptured pipeline in southern California leaked into the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, spreading into a four-mile-long slick and fouling a Santa Barbara County beach. -
Pipeline Rupture Causes Oil Spill on Calif Coast
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Workers near Santa Barbara, Calif., began a cleanup operation Wednesday, after 21,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Pacific Ocean and onto beaches. -
Senators Show Bipartisan Support for ARPA-E in New COMPETES Bill
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
The leaders of the Senate energy appropriations and authorization committees along with a bipartisan group of senators today unveiled legislation that strongly supports the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy in marked contrast to a bill set to be considered by the House this afternoon. -
Why Is The New York Times Providing A Platform For Industry Groups To Baselessly Attack The EPA?
May 20, 2015 | Media Matters for America
By Andrew Seifter
The New York Times devoted a front page article on May 19 to advancing baseless industry allegations that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illegally lobbied on behalf of clean water protections. -
Senate GOP: EPA Driven by Politics, Not Science
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans charged Wednesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies too heavily on politics in its regulations and not enough on science. -
Obama: Climate Deniers Endangering National Security
May 20, 2015 | The Hill
By Jordan Fabian
President Obama in a speech on Wednesday cast climate change as a growing national security threat, accusing Republican skeptics of harming military readiness by denying its effects. -
White House Argues Trade Will Help Environment
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Vicki Needham
The White House on Wednesday released a report detailing its efforts to protect the global environment through trade agreements as President Obama tries to build support on Capitol Hill for his ambitious agenda. -
Residents Evacuate After Train Carrying Chemicals Derails in La.
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Four rail cars carrying chemicals derailed in Louisiana yesterday, prompting an evacuation of two subdivisions, though officials said there was no immediate danger.
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) Environmentalists Applaud EPA's Proposed Regulation Of TDI In Articles
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are praising EPA's proposal to place a significant new use rule (SNUR) on new uses of toluene diisocyanates (TDI), including those uses that occur in products, and are even seeking expansions of the proposed rule while industry groups are calling for EPA to narrow its regulatory approach to TDI.
EPA proposed the TDI SNUR Jan. 8, and removed the articles exemption that is usually automatically included in such Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules because of the agency's concern that TDI and related compounds are volatile and could migrate from products. TDIs are used to make flexible foam, coatings and adhesives; the chemicals are considered existing chemicals under TSCA -- those that were in commerce before TSCA was enacted in 1976, and which EPA has less ability to regulate as a result.
These chemicals have ongoing uses, and so EPA must prepare a list of specific uses of the chemicals it believes are no longer in practice and for which it intends to issue a SNUR. Once subject to a SNUR, manufacturers or importers must inform EPA 90 days before commencing a new use of the chemical.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) writes in April 30 comments that it "strongly supports" the TDI SNUR, and outlines an extensive list of human health concerns forming the basis for the group's concern about the chemicals' ongoing uses. "Diisocyanates . . . are dermal and lung sensitizers that can cause contact dermatitis, skin and respiratory tract irritation, and asthma. . . . As noted in the proposed SNUR, diisocyanate exposure is the leading attributable cause of work-related asthma, and several cases of fatalities in diisocyanate-sensitized workers have been reported."
EDF notes that children "may be at higher risk from TDI and related compounds than adults," due to physiological and behavioral differences that can increase children's exposure and sensitivity to chemicals beyond adult's. EDF also quotes EPA's TDI Action Plan, which it says "notes that children with asthma may be especially vulnerable to TDI exposure, given their greater susceptibility to inflammatory narrowing of the airways."
EDF also suggests that there is "strong evidence that TDI may be a carcinogen," pointing to two evaluations of the chemicals performed by various governmental agencies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization (WHO) and California's Proposition 65 list.
In contrast, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) argues in its April 30 comments that EPA has overstated the human health risks of TDI in its publications related to the SNUR. ACC argues that EPA should "include the usual exemption for SNUR chemicals in articles, but it should not include a recordkeeping requirement in the final SNUR. Finally, EPA should revise its preamble discussion of the health effects of TDI as indicated in ... these comments."
ACC argues that EPA's conclusion that there is strong evidence that TDI is a carcinogen "lacks foundation," and similarly, that EPA relies on outdated studies to reach its conclusion that TDI is the leading cause of workplace asthma reactions. And, ACC argues, EPA's concerns about special children's health risks to TDI exposure are similarly not supported; "following exposure it is becoming increasingly clear that the underlying cellular and biochemical processes that mediate an asthmatic response are less active in children," the comments say. "This dichotomy in pathophysiology indicates that children are likely to be less susceptible to any given dose of diisocyanate-induced asthma than adults."
Article Exemption
Beyond its human health concerns, EDF also supports EPA's generally unusual effort to address products containing TDI in the marketplace. EDF explains its rationale: "the article exemption is based on the assumption that people and the environment are not exposed to chemicals through articles. However, as evidence mounts that humans and the environment can be exposed to certain chemicals via their presence in articles, and that such exposures may well be a major or even the primary source of exposure to certain chemicals, it is essential that EPA use all of its existing authorities to regulate these sources of exposure directly where warranted."
EDF urges EPA to expand its articles exemptions to also import certifications, per TSCA Section 13, and also to industrial workplaces. EDF argues that these import certifications would allow EPA to learn which incoming shipments contain TDI and also assist industry in determining which products contain TDI.
"Absent a requirement for import certification, EPA will remain in the dark about which imported articles contain TDI and related compounds as part of an ongoing use, and hence will have no knowledge of the extent to which exposures from imported articles may be occurring. Requiring import certification of articles containing these substances would provide EPA with this information and allow it to determine if such activity presents risk or potential risks to humans or the environment, and take any further regulatory steps necessary to protect against them."
EDF also proposes expanding EPA's actions on TDI to the workplace sector, arguing that the scale of occupational exposures and the concerns about the chemical triggering asthma and skin and eye sensitization on the job justify this request.
Industry groups, by contrast, are seeking to narrow the scope of EPA's proposed rule, with several groups, including ACC, urging EPA to drop the articles language. ACC argues that few products containing TDI would meet TSCA's definition of an article. ACC also presses EPA to exclude from its definition of consumer use those uses of TDI which are applied by professional applicators.
"The only kind of article that might be subject to the SNUR, given a waiver of the article exemption, would be an article that intentionally incorporates unreacted TDI or related compounds. [EPA's] preamble and the TDI Action Plan mention adhesives and sealants as intentionally incorporating unreacted TDI or related compounds, but, prior to application, adhesives and sealants are not articles. Their end use does not depend on their shape, thus they are not articles," ACC writes.
Further, ACC writes that "[i]t is unclear just what kind of article (a manufactured item having a specific shape whose end use is dependent on that shape) would have intentionally-added unreacted TDI or related compounds. The only purpose of intentionally adding unreacted TDI or related compounds in an object is to further react that object. If the object is intended to be reacted further, it is unlikely that the object is an article, since its end use is unlikely to depend on the shape of the object while it contained unreacted TDI or related compounds."
Industry's Concerns
Other groups also urge EPA to abandon or limit the articles exemption. IBM, for instance, urges EPA to exclude from the SNUR articles provision servers and other types of electronic equipment that the general public does not access in institutional settings, such as schools and businesses.
"IBM requests that for the purposes of the Rule, EPA exclude from the definition of 'consumer products' those products found in data centers or industrial-level computing centers located in, on or around schools or educational institutions," the company's April 30 comments say.
"However, by defining the Rule's scope as 'use in a consumer product,' the Rule is overly-broad and creates some ambiguity. Consumer products, as defined by federal regulations, may include some products or articles that are not, in fact, accessed by consumers. For example, all articles that contain TDI 'in or around a school' may fall under the consumer product definition but are housed in on-campus data centers, which are industrial in form and function. Neither students nor teachers -- nor any members of the general public -- have access to such data centers."
The American Coatings Association and others urge EPA to set a specific level under which TDI in products is not considered a concern, but rather an impurity not to be regulated. "EPA should clarify that the 0.1 percent limit for TDI content does not apply to TDI that is present as an impurity" and consequently, the residual diisocyanate should be exempt from Significant New Use Notice requirements under TSCA "regardless of its concentration, since the definition of impurity is based on intent," the group's April 30 comments say.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Shouldn’t ‘Rescue’ States From Bad Federal Laws
May 20, 2015 | The Federalist
By Sean Saffron
In charge of a Congress focused on “getting Americans back to work” and pursuing “common sense, bipartisan” legislation to “get our economy going,” Republicans have gone to their friends in Big Business and received their marching orders.
What is holding our economy back? Too much federalism, apparently.
It may seem hypocritical from the party that venerates the Constitution’s balance of powers and sings paeans to devolution, but the bills moving through the Republican-led Congress indicate a desire to quash the “laboratories of democracy” model when it offends the sensibilities of Big Business.Let Liberals Run Nanny States
What is the federalism Republicans seek to quash? The kind that has (mostly liberal) states implementing more and more burdens on businesses in the pursuit of questionable benefits and at the behest of narrowly-targeted special interests.
For instance, if you want to deliver goods by sea to a port in California, your freight ship must be able to eradicate all life from the ocean water it brings onboard as ballast. California’s ballast water discharge laws are unreasonable and demand technologies that did not exist when they passed the law in 2006, do not exist now, and may never be available, according to the California State Lands Commission’s own report.These laws remain limited to the states themselves, and, in the spirit of competitive federalism, people and corporations are allowed to vote with their feet.
Across the country, a number of states have implemented chemical safety laws that limit the make-up of products from children’s toys to household cleaners. Some of these state laws have pushed entire industries to adopt new manufacturing to avoid controversial ingredients. Some of these laws are based on bad science and fear-mongering by advocacy groups, needlessly driving up the price of necessities for poor families.
In Vermont, a law signed last year to require labeling of “genetically modified organisms” in the grocery store will finally be put into place this month. Now, your local grocery store is required to actively advertise against the safety of its products—products made with all the benefits of modern food science and in compliance with federal safety standards. Expect the poor to be hardest hit.
There are many more areas where overactive state governments trample their citizens’ economic freedom, but these laws remain limited to the states themselves, and, in the spirit of competitive federalism, people and corporations are allowed to vote with their feet. But that is not good enough for the business-friendly Republican-led Congress.Don’t Listen to the Business Lobby
The well-organized interests hurt most by these misguided state regulations are the national and multinational corporations stuck complying with them. Businesses being market players, they do what they know, and seek a market solution. In this case, they go shopping for a better regulator more friendly to their arguments.
Republicans’ solution is to “pre-empt” these bad state laws by imposing federal laws over top of them and banning further state action. In each of the above instances, a federal law has been proposed to supersede state-level regulations:In response to Vermont’s labeling law and similar (thankfully failed) referenda throughout the nation, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) haswritten the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” to “guard against a[n]… inefficient state-by-state food labeling system.” Monsanto and their allies have championed this bill in letters to Congress.On chemical safety, the Senate recently approved a new bill, sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana), which would grandfather in current state-level restrictions while ensuring the Environmental Protection Agency has final say on chemical ingredient regulations going forward. The American Chemistry Council, featuring large chemical suppliers like DuPont, has had a large role in writing the legislation.And on ballast water, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California), who head the relevant congressional committees, have introduced the “Vessel Incidental Discharge Act” to enact “a uniform set” of national rules for ballast water. The American Waterways Organization, which is made up of shippers and tugboat companies throughout the United States, is leading the push for this legislation.
In each of these situations (and numerous others), Republicans pre-empt the constitutional balance of powers between state and federal governments by opting for one-size-fits-all regulations from Washington. This is precisely what they rhetorically rail against when it comes toObamacare or liberal policies in general, but are eager to enact when it serves their (and their donors’) interests.True Federalism and Hard Work
Instead of using Progressive tactics of circumventing the Constitution to achieve their desired ends, Republican should stand on principle and fight these bad regulations at the source: state legislatures and regulatory agencies.Despite the disastrous nature of these regulations, at least they are confined to the state in question, and duly enacted by that state’s political bodies.
States should not be able to enact onerous regulations on what inputs businesses must use, how grocers label their products, or what shippers must install on their vessels. Strict and timely tort laws would protect states from being victims of bad actors while nurturing innovation and a welcoming climate for entrepreneurs. Maximizing economic liberty will do more to keep people healthy and protected than government bureaucrats ever could.
Despite the disastrous nature of these regulations, at least they are confined to the state in question, and duly enacted by that state’s political bodies. Republicans should stand by their rhetoric and support the Constitution’s structure of federalism, not expand the bad ideas of Vermont, California, et al., to the entire nation.
And they should certainly not do so at the behest of large corporations seeking a handout through the regulatory regime. It does nothing but prove they are a party willing to accommodate Big Business at all costs.
-
TSCA Reform Legislation: Consideration of Costs and Other Non-Risk Factors
May 20, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
[NOTES: (1) This post reflects the latest versions of TSCA reform legislation:the revised version of the Lautenberg Act passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 28, 2015; andthe revised version of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 passed by the House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy on May 14, 2015.
(2) All of the earlier posts in this series have been updated to reflect these latest versions.]
This is the fifth in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This post deals with how costs and other non-risk considerations factor into safety and regulatory risk management decisions.
The safety standard
Under current TSCA, EPA’s determination of whether or not a chemical presents an “unreasonable risk” requires the agency to formally balance consideration of costs and other non-risk factors against the potential danger to human health or the environment.
The Lautenberg Act retains the term “unreasonable risk” as its safety standard but, in defining the standard, explicitly precludes EPA from considering costs and other non-risk factors in making safety determinations. This same exclusion of costs and other non-risk factors is made in each relevant provision throughout TSCA where the term “unreasonable risk” is used, to make clear that EPA’s decisions as to the safety of chemicals are based solely on considerations of risks to human health and the environment.
The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 also retains the term “unreasonable risk” as its safety standard, but does not define the safety standard. The new draft clarifies that “[t]he Administrator shall not consider costs or other non-risk factors when deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking under subsection (a).” The draft does not explicitly state, however, whether the determination of “unreasonable risk” is to be based solely on risks to human health or the environment.
The new House draft, like the earlier draft, includes the requirement that EPA show a chemical “may present an unreasonable risk” in order to initiate a risk evaluation of the chemical. While the new draft has been modified to indicate the finding can be made “because of potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the intended conditions of use,” the language still requires EPA to make a risk finding in advance of and as a condition for initiating a risk evaluation, a potential Catch-22.
Regulatory requirements
Under current TSCA, EPA is required to conduct a formal analysis of costs and benefits of any proposed restriction of a chemical, and to show that the benefits of the restriction outweigh its costs. It also must demonstrate that any restrictions it chooses to impose are the “least burdensome” among those able to address the identified risks, a showing that in practice has proven excessively onerous. These requirements have proven to be fatal flaws in TSCA, imposing evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA so severe that it could not meet them even for the deadly human carcinogen asbestos.
The Lautenberg Act strikes the “least burdensome” language and clarifies that a balancing test for costs and benefits is not required. It goes further to make clear that cost considerations cannot override the requirement that restrictions be sufficient to ensure chemical safety: Where a chemical does not meet the safety standard, EPA “shall promulgate a rule establishing restrictions necessary to ensure that the chemical substance meets the safety standard.”
In deciding what restrictions to impose on a chemical found not to meet the safety standard, EPA is to consider “to the extent practicable based on reasonably available information, quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory action and of the 1 or more primary alternative regulatory actions considered by the Administrator.” EPA is also to review alternatives to the chemical it deems relevant and technically and economically feasible.
In the case of a ban or phase-out, in deciding whether any exemptions should be allowed EPA must also consider “to the extent practicable based on reasonably available information, the quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits of the 1 or more technically and economically feasible alternatives to the chemical substance most likely to be used in place of the chemical substance under the conditions of use if the rule is promulgated.”
The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 also strikes the “least burdensome” language of current TSCA. Where EPA determines a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, it is to impose requirements “to the extent necessary to protect adequately against such risk.” In deciding what restrictions to impose, EPA must consider the “reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, including the likely effect of the rule on the national economy, small business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health.” This broad language would place substantial evidentiary and analytic burdens on the EPA in order to regulate a chemical.
The House draft also adds to these two mandatory cost-related evidentiary and analytic requirements not in current TSCA:EPA must show that any requirements it imposes on a chemical are “cost-effective, except where the Administrator determines that it is not practicable to protect against the identified risk using cost-effective requirements.”In deciding whether to impose a ban or effective ban on specific uses of a chemical, and in setting compliance dates, EPA must “determine whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment, compared to the use so proposed to be prohibited or restricted, will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or restriction takes effect.”
While the latter of these two requirements does not expressly preclude EPA from banning a use of chemical if a safer, viable alternative is not available, it comes close, raising concerns similar to those I raised about a House discussion draft introduced in the last Congress.
Collectively, these requirements that must be met for EPA to regulate a chemical would appear to place burdens on EPA comparable to the requirement under current TSCA (struck in the draft) that EPA demonstrate its regulation imposes the “least burdensome requirements.”
Relationship to other Federal laws
Under current TSCA (Section 9), EPA must consider whether any risks it identifies could be addressed either by another federal agency or by EPA acting under another statute. Various procedures must be followed where EPA so determines.
The Lautenberg Act retains these requirements of current TSCA.
The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 retains these requirements but adds a new cost-related requirement that EPA would have to meet before taking any regulatory action under TSCA instead of another law EPA administers: “[T]he Administrator shall compare the relative risks, estimated costs, and efficiencies of the action to be taken under this title and an action to be taken under such other law to protect against such risk.”
This new set of analytic and evidentiary requirements is in addition to TSCA’s existing requirement that EPA show that acting under TSCA is “in the public interest” (which currently is determined at the Administrator’s discretion).
-
Chemical Users Protest EPA's Broadening Inclusion Of Articles In SNURs
May 20, 2015 | InsideEPA
A coalition of large companies that use chemicals to make their products are raising concerns about what they see as EPA's broad use of a provision to regulate products that are normally exempt from agency regulation, and are questioning the new criteria EPA has introduced for using the provision as well as the agency's economic analysis of the exemption's costs.
The Chemical Users Coalition (CUC) raises these issues in recent comments on EPA's proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) on toluene diisocyanates (TDI), one of several SNURs EPA has proposed in the past year that remove the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) usual regulatory exemption for chemicals in articles, or products. The CUC argues that the proposed TDI rule "raises important precedential issues for the TSCA program."
CUC argues that EPA, in its response to CUC's and other stakeholders' comments regarding its similar decision to add articles to its proposed SNUR on benzidene dyes, lays out new criteria for when it will remove the usual articles exemption, and when it won't, that are extraordinarily broad.
"EPA has essentially made up, in 2015, a set of criteria to interpret a regulatory exemption established over 30 years ago," the CUC comments say. "Second, this articulated test is essentially a standard-less standard that provides no tangible limits on when EPA may make the exemption inapplicable."
CUC quotes the new criteria from EPA's benzidene dyes response to comments as "reason to anticipate that such use would raise important new questions related to the substance's potential to threaten health and the environment, and that EPA should have an opportunity to consider those questions before such use could occur."
CUC describes the criteria as reflecting "a clear misreading of the Agency's authority . . ." and adds that the "most fundamental flaw in EPA's analysis, however, is the suggestion that the Agency can decouple its decision to include articles in a SNUR from its obligations to meet the statutory standard in TSCA Section 5(a)(2) when applying a SNUR to a chemical substance in an article."
The comments argue that EPA must show that a chemical's use in an article is significant and new before it can regulate it, just like it would have to make that finding in any other use of the chemical.
"The point of our comments is that the statutory standard is the same and has to be met whether we're talking about a substance in a chemical mixture or in an article," an industry source says.
TSCA Rules
SNURs are one of the few methods EPA has under TSCA to restrict the manufacture or sale of existing chemicals -- those on the market before TSCA took effect in 1976. Once in place, the SNUR requires anyone intending to manufacture, import or process "these chemicals for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the" SNUR to alert EPA 90 days before doing so, allowing the agency to review the intended practice before commencement.
SNURs usually have an exemption for "articles," or manufactured products containing the chemicals restricted by a SNUR. But recently, EPA has issued several rule proposals without this articles exemption. Sources have suggested that EPA's restriction of the articles exemption is expanding because more products are imported, while fewer are manufactured in the United States, where they might fall under other regulatory scrutiny, such as by the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
CUC argues that the original exemption for articles is a sensible one, because "there is a significant difference in exposure potential when a chemical substance or mixture, per se, is in a liquid, gaseous or solid form to which direct exposure is possible and when a chemical is incorporated into an article." Therefore, CUC argues that "consideration of exposure potential based on intended or foreseeable use should be a core component of any EPA decision to apply a SNUR to an article."
CUC also urges EPA to reconsider its decisions to expand SNURs with articles included in consumer products generally, because EPA's definition of consumer product "could be extremely expansive," CUC writes. CUC says that EPA's consumer product definition includes anything made for a private individual to use at home, in a school or recreationally. The group urges EPA to work with industry to determine chemicals' uses so that it can tailor narrower articles rules.
The industry source argues that it would be very unlikely that any chemical would have so many uses as to warrant a broad "consumer product" articles rule. "Any use is a kind of a default, it's not really explained. For those responsible, it's a very broad range of chemicals to consider," the source says. "At some point, everybody knows that's overboard -- no chemical is everywhere."
CUC explains that with "the potential breadth of EPA's 'consumer product' definition, it is very unlikely that a chemical substance present in some products within the definition would be present in all, or even most products . . . Simply from a technological and economic perspective, a chemical substance would have to possess rare and highly valuable properties to qualify as a material of choice for use in such a broad category of products."
CUC points to EPA's proposed SNUR with the articles exemption on TDI as an example. CUC quotes EPA's proposal indicating 90 percent of the uses of TDI are in flexible foam, with the remaining uses in coatings, sealants, binders and related products. "This documentation, however, does not indicate that TDI is used for the wide variety of products that fall within the Agency's definition of 'consumer products,'" CUC argues.
CUC calls EPA's decision to propose such a broad articles exemption for TDI and other SNURs, such as that for benzidene dyes, "a profound and troubling approach. It is, at its core, a burden-shifting exercise." CUC writes, "it appears to be EPA policy to issue SNURs that purposely extend beyond the range of uses that account for the Agency's risk concerns, as a means of addressing unforeseeable events."
Economic Analysis
CUC also questions EPA's economic analysis of excluding the articles exemption from SNUR rules, arguing that it underestimates the cost and time to perform various functions industry undertakes to conform with a SNUR with the articles exemption. The industry source explains that the most recent of these analyses is dated November 2014, and was released along with documents supporting EPA's proposed SNUR on long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate chemicals.
"CUC appreciates that EPA has attempted to analyze the cost impact of making the article exemption in a SNUR inapplicable," the comments state, before questioning a number of the assumptions that EPA's economists make when drafting the analysis. CUC criticizes EPA's assumption that there will not be trade secrecy issues in information sharing between chemical manufacturers and chemical users and the many entities that may exist between them in the supply chain. CUC, however, calls this "a major obstacle to obtaining information."
CUC notes that EPA's analysis also assumes that downstream manufacturers have some type of system for tracking all the chemicals in their supply chain. Not so, CUC says. "[C]ompanies typically must develop their own supply chain chemical screening and tracking programs that reflect their unique business environment," the comments say. "The resources needed to develop, deploy and manage such systems are significant."
EPA, however, acknowledges in the analysis that these systems are in their infancy, and that companies may need to set up their own management systems to comply with such rules. It calls its calculations "a best estimate of the range of costs that may be incurred by importers and processors complying with SNUR requirements for imported articles, given the current lack of information and a standardized data collection system." The estimates range from $10 for record keeping to up to $1550 to "[i]dentify the type of imported articles that potentially contain the restricted substances.”
-
40 Years and 1,000 Untested Chemicals Later, the Safety of Consumer Products May Actually Improve
May 20, 2015 | One Green Planet
Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law. Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.”
Their testimony made the problem clear: Thousands of chemicals are in use in everyday household products and nobody knows if they are safe. Even dangerous chemicals remain unregulated.
News stories predicted that action was “already underway” to reform the law, also known as TSCA.
The year was 1994. And Congress couldn’t get its act together to fix America’s main chemical law. Nothing would change.
The law that governs most chemicals in commerce was originally passed in 1976. It wasn’t very strong to begin with and for each year that passed, it became increasingly out of date.
It’s now so badly broken that only a small fraction of the chemicals in cleaning products, clothing, furniture and most other products have ever been reviewed for safety.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is virtually powerless to restrict even known dangers such as lead and formaldehyde.10,000 New Chemicals Since 1994
Indeed, since the last time Congress tried to fix this law in 1994, things have gotten bad. More than 10,000 additional chemicals have gone on the market with little review of their safety, and only a handful of chemicals already in use have been examined.
States have tried to step in, but since TSCA passed they have only managed to restrict limited uses of about 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals.
The fatal blow for sufficient regulation came in 1991, when EPA’s decade-long attempt to ban asbestos was thrown out by a federal court. Since then, EPA has never tried again to use TSCA to regulate a chemical.
It took more than a decade for legislation to be introduced again. There were bills in 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011, but none even made it to the House or Senate floor. They just didn’t have the bi-partisan support necessary to pass.Millions of Babies Were Exposed
Unfortunately, this failure to act has real, human consequences.
Chemicals in common use are increasingly being linked to diseases such as certain childhood cancers, asthma and diabetes that are on the rise in the American population. Research shows that environmental factors, including chemical exposures, explain a significant part of these trends.
Since 1994, 80 million babies have been born, many or all of whom have come into the world carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies.
This sad history may be about to change.
A strong, bipartisan bill introduced in March that already has 22 cosponsors split evenly among the parties is moving forward after a key Senate committee overwhelmingly approved the legislation this week. The next step is consideration by the full Senate.New, Bipartisan Bill Brings Hope
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act requires all new and existing chemicals be reviewed for safety, establishes new funding for EPA through user fees, and gives EPA new authority to require testing.
Most importantly, it sets us on a course toward a system that demands safety as a condition for market access, ending the laissez-faire approach we’ve had for 40 years.
There is a real cost to inaction. A baby girl born during those 1994 hearings would be old enough to have her own child today.
Every year Congress fails to fix our broken chemical law is another year when millions of Americans are unnecessarily exposed to toxic or untested chemicals.
-
Hospitals Purchasing, Using Safer Chemicals
May 20, 2015 | Environmental Leader
More hospitals are reducing patient and staff exposure to toxins by purchasing and using safer chemicals, according to the 2014 Milestone Report, released by the Healthier Hospitals Initiative(HHI).
The report summarizes three years of progress among hospitals across the country that submitted data to quantify their sustainability efforts.
Hospitals participating in HHI worked throughout the past year to transition to PVC- and DEHP-free devices, to purchase more “green” certified cleaning products and to purchase at least 25 percent of furnishings without halogenated flame retardants, formaldehyde, perfluorinated compounds and PVC.
According tot he report:172 hospitals reported making at least one product line DEHP- and PVC-free in 2014.There was an 11.2 percent increase in spend on certified cleaning chemicals compared to total spend from 2013 to 2014.In 2014, 18 hospitals reported that an average of 59.8 percent of furnishings purchased that year were free of the targeted chemicals of concern.Fourteen hospitals met the goal of purchasing more than 25 percent of healthy furnishings.
The report also found that reductions in energy use and waste continue to drive cost savings. US hospitals emit 8 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and create 28.4 pounds of waste per hospital bed per day. Reducing the energy use in hospitals and increasing recycling and reuse are paramount to improving the sector’s environmental footprint.
Report highlights include:In 2014, HHI’s Leaner Energy Challenge resulted in reduced energy use equivalent to avoiding 73,600 metric tons of CO2e of greenhouse gas emissions.In aggregate, the 395 reporting hospitals in 2014 recycled 122,000 tons of waste, and 68.4 percent of the reporting hospitals met or surpassed the 15 percent goal of recycling as a percentage of all waste, with an average recycling rate of 26.3 percent.
In its first year, HHI kept more than 100 million pounds of waste out of landfills.
Launched in April 2012, HHI was designed as a three-year national campaign to promote a more sustainable business model for health care, while reducing the negative health and environmental impacts of the industry. HHI will now continue as a free program of Practice Greenhealth, providing participating hospital systems with tools and resources to drive positive change.
-
US EPA Issues Tolerance Exemption for Fragrance Components
May 20, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a final rule, eliminating the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of various fragrance component substances, when used as inert ingredients in antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on: food contact surfaces in public eating places; dairy-processing equipment; and food-processing equipment and utensils.
The tolerance exemption rule does not, however, apply to acetaldehyde.
The regulation is effective from 20 May.
-
Air Emissions of BPA May Affect Aquatic Exposures -- Study
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Industrial emissions of bisphenol-A, or BPA, through the air can increase BPA levels in nearby aquatic environments, according to a new study.
The study, which was published this week in the journal Science of the Total Environmentby researchers at the University of Missouri and the U.S. Geological Survey, tracked water levels of BPA, a common plasticizer, near industrial sites where the chemical is released into the air.
The researchers found that water concentrations of BPA were up to 10 times higher in areas near sites where it was released into the atmosphere, providing new clues as to how to manage the chemical.
The findings "provide evidence that these atmospheric discharges can dramatically elevate BPA in nearby environments," lead researcher Christopher Kassotis, a doctoral candidate in the Division of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri, said in a statement.
Previously, the study said, atmospheric releases of BPA "have not been considered important sources to the environment."
Kassotis and other researchers took water samples from areas near Superfund sites or locations identified through U.S. EPA's Toxics Release Inventory as airborne sources of BPA. In addition, the scientists tested current or historical wastewater treatment plant sites and a control group of neutral areas.
Advertisement
More than 1 million pounds per year of BPA is released into the environment, accordingto EPA, and the chemical has been linked to hormonal disruptions in fish that may be passed down to future generations, among other things (E&ENews PM, March 24).
The study noted that more work was needed to confirm the relationship between airborne and water levels of BPA, such as by conducting additional samples and varying the distances from industrial sites that samples are collected from. Future research could also seek to rule out alternative explanations for the levels of BPA found at the water sampling sites, such as whether contaminated groundwater was responsible.
-
Interior Slams Bicameral Push to Fast-Track Pipelines Through Parks
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
An Interior Department official today sharply criticized a bicameral effort that would scrap Congress' ability to oversee the construction of natural gas pipelines through national parks and some of the nation's most iconic landscapes.
A senior Interior adviser on energy, minerals and realty management told members of a House Natural Resources subcommittee that a bipartisan House bill that mirrors a Republican effort in the Senate threatens to undermine the very purpose for which the National Park Service was created.
"[The bill] would overturn long-standing and necessary protection of park system resources and values, visitor experience, and human health and safety," said Timothy Spisak of the Bureau of Land Management.
The dispute could portend challenges for the measure, which lawmakers hope will be included in a larger energy package.
At issue is legislation in both chambers that would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the secretary of the Interior to approve gas pipelines through national parks without Congress' approval. Developers have received congressional blessing to build only five gas pipelines through national parks since the 1990s, a process that at times took more than a year.
The industry-backed language has taken the form of a bipartisan measure in the lower chamber, H.R. 2295, the "National Energy Security Corridors Act," from Reps. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) and Cedric Richmond (D-La.). Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introduced a similar bill (S. 1196) in the Senate (Greenwire, May 7).
Advertisement
The bills' authors have argued that natural gas pipelines were not common when Congress passed mineral laws in the early 1900s, and that pipelines were not intentionally excluded from the rights-of-way process. Interior until the 1980s included natural gas pipelines in the rights-of-way process on the assumption that it was consistent with the spirit of the law.
Republican proponents today, alongside supportive union leaders and pipeline developers, said the language is needed to ensure pipelines carrying growing sources of shale gas can reach states facing high electricity prices.
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) pointed to high energy prices in states like Massachusetts and New York, as well as Pennsylvania, home of the Marcellus Shale play. "It should not take an act of Congress to get this done," Lamborn said. "The long-standing position to 'just say no' or 'go ask Congress' has never been a workable solution."
But the bill is facing opposition from a host of environmental groups, concerns that were reflected in comments from Greg Buppert, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. Buppert said states like Virginia need an energy plan but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- the agency responsible for permitting pipelines -- is only considering individual projects in isolation and firms are heavily invested even before the public can weigh in.
Buppert said the legislation as proposed continues to leave out meaningful public input on massive projects that cover multiple states and environmentally sensitive areas. "The deck is already stacked against the public when it comes to pipeline siting," he said. "Short-circuiting that process will only lead to more conflicts and place greater burdens on private property and local communities."'You have to be open-minded'
Republicans keen on seeing gas infrastructure spread as the country's coal fleet is squeezed under new environmental regulations probed witnesses about the delays developers are facing.
Jim Moore, the vice president of commercial operations for eastern interstate pipelines at Williams Cos., told the subcommittee that it took his company six years to obtain congressional and federal approval for the Rockaway natural gas pipeline that crosses through the Gateway National Recreation Area -- a 26,607-acre national recreation area in the Port of New York and New Jersey. The normal process, he said, takes about four years.
Moore said his company is facing a similar situation with future projects that will cross the Appalachian Trail, which spans from Georgia to Maine.
Even so, subcommittee ranking member Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) said that while he supports the creation of corridors where new infrastructure can be concentrated, the legislation missed the mark because it would overturn the need for congressional approval. Congress, he added, specifically required such a provision to ensure parks are cared for.
"I believe Congress should retain that responsibility," he said, adding that the legislation leaves out critical public input.
But Lowenthal also asked Spisak and Buppert whether they would support recommendations in the Energy Department's Quadrennial Energy Review that called for inter-agency coordination to foster faster permitting for gas pipelines.
Buppert said he wasn't in a position to support any proposal but said DOE's recommendation was a step in the right direction. Spisak said BLM supports interagency cooperation building off past efforts.
MacArthur, who authored the House bill, said during an interview after the hearing that he's open to changes in the legislation should they quell concerns.
"I certainly will consider anything that improves the bill and gets support," he said. "You have to be open-minded, it's a process, and I want to get something done."
-
Lawmakers Look to Take Congress Out of Pipeline Approval Process
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers want to give the Department of Interior the power to approve new natural gas pipelines on National Park Service (NPS) land, but an Interior official told a House committee Wednesday that the department doesn’t want it.
Under current law, Congress needs to pass a bill allowing natural gas pipelines to pass through NPS lands, even though the Interior Department can approve other infrastructure projects on its own.
A House Natural Resources Committee panel held a hearing on a bill Wednesday that would take Congress out of that process, giving the department the power to approve natural gas pipelines on its own and requiring it to establish 10 new corridors for natural gas delivery within two years. Lawmakers could try to integrate the bill into a broader energy reform measure this session.
Bill sponsor Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) said it would create jobs and help the American energy sector.
“It’s environmentally sensitive,” he said. “It’s natural gas only, it’s planned, intentional and it’s a cohesive approach. It ends this willy-nilly, haphazard approach of approving one pipeline at a time through an act of Congress.”
But the Interior Department doesn’t want that authority. In testimony to the committee, Timothy Spisak, a Bureau of Land Management energy, minerals and realty management senior advisor, said that the Interior Department has concerns about the infrastructure associated with building too many pipelines on NPS lands and the environmental risks that come with transporting the gas.
At the same time, he said, the department has endorsed a handful of pipeline projects that have come before Congress for approval.
“We have supported legislation authorizing rights of way for oil and gas pipelines on a park-by-park basis when it has been appropriate to do so,” Spisak told the Natural Resources Committee’s energy and mineral resources subcommittee. “The Department has a proven record of responsible siting of oil and gas pipelines.”
Congress has had to approve NPS pipelines since about the 1980s, when an Interior Department analysis found that it didn’t have specific authority to approve natural gas projects on its own. Since then, Congress has approved five such pipelines.
MacArthur and committee Republicans said the measure would speed up the approval process of pipelines at a time of growing natural gas production in the United States. They said it would help provide more natural gas to consumers — who would in turn see lower energy costs — and provide more certainty for energy companies looking to move their product.
Jim Moore, the vice president of commercial development at Texas-based Williams Gas Pipelines, said his company recently needed to deliver more natural gas to New York City, but the only way to do so was to run a pipeline through the Gateway National Recreation Area, which is managed by the Park Service.
The company began working with members of Congress on legislation to approve the pipeline in 2009. Lawmakers approved the project in 2012.
“It’s difficult to say with certainty exactly how much time the requirement for congressional approval of the agreement added to the project but the project ultimately took six years to complete, at leas two years more than planned,” he said.
Along with BLM, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), the panel’s ranking Democrat, said he opposed the bill, but not the push to speed up the pipeline approval process. He suggested tweaking the bill to incorporate Obama administration energy infrastructure proposals, such as a “permitting improvement center” to coordinate faster permitting between agencies.
“We’re on the same page, supporting natural gas pipelines,” he said. “The question is, what’s the best way to move forward?”
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, plans to insert the pipeline bill into a broader energy reform package that members hope to push this year.
In a statement, he said the bill “will address a critical infrastructure gap on federal lands and ensure natural gas production is capable of reaching communities that are currently underserved.
“These bipartisan bills have a path forward, and we will work with the Obama Administration and members of the House and Senate to see that they are signed into law,” he said.
-
Administration's Decision Not to Consult Small Businesses on Rule Troubles Key Senate Dem
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Daily
By Annie Snider
The top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is expressing concern that the Obama administration erred by not sending its controversial water rule through the small business review process.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) has previously supported the administration's "Waters of the United States" rulemaking, voting in 2013 against a Republican amendment that would have killed the process before a proposed rule had been issued and again last March against a Senate budget resolution amendment that was widely seen as a test vote on legislation to kill the regulation.
But during a hearing yesterday on the regulation's impacts on small businesses, Shaheen listened carefully to critics' concerns about lengthy and pricey permitting processes and about skipped steps in the rulemaking process.
"I appreciate the concerns that have been raised, and I share some of those," she told the panel.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a federal agency must conduct Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) panels on rules that would have a significant economic impact on small business entities. Those panels are intended to give small business representatives a chance to understand the proposed rule and help the agency contemplate its impact on small businesses and weigh alternatives.
In the case of the WOTUS rule, the Obama administration has said that the regulation will not have a significant impact on small entities and thus did not conduct SBREFA panels.
Advertisement
But organizations representing small businesses -- including the National Federation of Independent Business and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy -- strongly disagree with that conclusion.
The SBA Advocacy Office, which operates independently of its parent agency and of the administration, has called for the current Obama rule to be withdrawn and for the agencies to go back and do a small business review panel (E&ENews PM, Oct. 1, 2014).
Testifying before the Senate committee today, Charles Maresca, director of interagency affairs at the advocacy office, said that U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers used the wrong baseline to justify their declaration that the water rule would not have a significant impact on small businesses.
The regulation is aimed at clearing up more than a decade's worth of confusion about which streams and wetlands should be protected under the federal Clean Water Act.
Prior to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, EPA and the Army Corps claimed broad jurisdiction, including over streams that flow only during some times of year, and over wetlands and ponds that are disconnected from the tributary system.
But that 2001 court decision raised questions about the agencies' rationale for jurisdiction over some of those waters, and a 2006 court decision by the high court created further confusion about where the line of federal power should be drawn. Since then, the federal agencies have relied on laborious case-by-case analyses of whether an individual stream or wetland has a "significant nexus" to larger downstream rivers in order to determine jurisdiction.
Maresca said that the federal agencies' estimate about the proposed rule's impact on small businesses was based on a comparison with the scope of federal jurisdiction before the 2001 court case. But he said that the agency should have compared the impacts of a proposed rule with the scope of jurisdiction under agency guidance issued in 2008, in the wake of the court cases.
Federal law "tells them to use the world as it is; the way the world as it is right now with Waters of the United States is the EPA guidance from 2008," he said. "The rule as proposed would expand jurisdiction as compared with that guidance."
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who chairs the Small Business Committee, said he plans to introduce a sense of the Senate resolution condemning the fact that a small business review panel was not conducted on the rule and will hold a committee vote on it.
"I think this is flat-out outrageous that the administration would pretend that the proposal would not have a substantial and a direct impact on small businesses," he said. "It's so outrageous that I'll soon introduce a sense of the Senate resolution condemning the administration's circumvention of this important process."
Such a move could put pressure on Shaheen, who narrowly won re-election last fall, as opponents of the current water rule seek to move legislation that would scrap it.
"I do have a concern about the process. As we heard from the [SBA] advocate's office, there was the opportunity to appoint a panel, and the decision was made not to do that," Shaheen said in a brief interview with E&E Daily after the hearing. "I think in retrospect it's something that should have been examined more carefully."
But she said that she has not looked at S. 1140, legislation from Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) that would require the Obama administration to go back to the drawing board with the current rule and propose a new one that meets a variety of criteria.
That legislation is half of a two-pronged attack on the water rule. Critics would prefer to kill the rule through the authorization process, but Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) is also preparing to offer an amendment to the appropriations bill that funds the Army Corps of Engineers tomorrow that would block its implementation (E&ENews PM, May 19).
Supporters of the rule are hoping that the final version -- which could be released as soon as this week -- will alleviate the concerns of a number of stakeholders.Times article roils debate
Yesterday's Senate activity on the water rule -- which included not just the small business committee hearing, but also an Environment and Public Works subcommittee hearing on S. 1140 (Greenwire, May 19) -- was set against the backdrop of a front page New York Times article raising questions about the legality of EPA's public outreach on the water rule.
Republican lawmakers in both the House and the Senate promoted the story in emails to reporters and on social media throughout the day.
But EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia defended the agency's activities in a blog post.
At issue is the agency's social media campaign promoting the water rule, which has included tweets, videos and a "thunder clap" urging people to show their support.
Opponents of the rule argue that these activities may run afoul of federal law that bars agencies from lobbying Congress -- an argument initially raised by 24 Republicans in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Army Secretary John McHugh last fall outlining an array of concerns with the rulemaking (Greenwire, Oct. 24, 2014).
But Purchia wrote that the agency was simply using social media to inform people of its work, "like almost every government, business or nonprofit organization these days."
She argued that the agency encouraged "folks from all perspectives" to weigh in and said that the agency sought input from citizens across the country.
"The input helped us understand the genuine concerns and interests of a wide range of stakeholders and think through options to address them," she wrote. "As outlined in a recent blog by Administrator McCarthy, the key changes made to the proposed rule were actually driven in large part by outreach to agriculture, local government, states, and utilities."
The left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America also weighed in with a blog post yesterday afternoon, arguing that the Times story advanced "baseless industry allegations" and drew a "false equivalence" between the Obama administration's communication with environmentalists and that between the Bush administration and the energy industry.
-
Western States Wary of Enforcement Role in BLM Fracking Rules
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
A second legal and bureaucratic struggle is underway over the Bureau of Land Management's plan to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public land, as states decide whether they'll help enforce the plan.
BLM has asked at least three oil-producing states to sign memoranda of understanding (MOUs) that would allow the states to enforce the federal rules on federal land.
Wyoming and Utah have balked and North Dakota is wavering, in part because BLM would require state regulations to match or exceed the federal regulations as part of an MOU. The state officials, meeting here for a conference of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission say their existing regulations are adequate, and many of them are frustrated with BLM over other issues.
"I don't understand what the benefit to a state is to signing an MOU," said Mark Watson, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
If the states don't agree to the MOUs, it could hamper enforcement of the rules, since BLM doesn't have the staff to do frequent inspections at its sprawling landholdings. And it also could undermine a secondary purpose of the BLM proposal -- the idea that having a strong federal rule in place would encourage states to tighten their own rules.
Wyoming has already sued BLM over the hydraulic fracturing rule. North Dakota and Colorado have said they'll join the suit (EnergyWire, May 19).
Advertisement
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves breaking up rocks with a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals. Most oil-producing states already have changed parts of their regulations since the start of the fracking-driven oil and gas boom.
The BLM rule will apply only to wells drilled on federal land; it imposes tougher requirements for well construction, chemical disclosure and waste disposal, among other requirements.
However, BLM controls the mineral rights on about 700 million acres, mostly in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states. About two-thirds of the gas in Wyoming is produced on federal land, for instance. And in North Dakota, BLM has an interest in about a third of the drilling units because it inherited the mineral rights when farmers defaulted on federal mortgages in the Great Depression, state Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said.
Currently, a company that wants to drill on federal land applies for a state permit and a BLM permit. The BLM permit can take months because the agency is required to post permits for public comment and conduct environmental reviews, Steven Wells, division chief of fluid minerals for BLM, said in an interview.
Once the fracking regulations are finalized, companies will typically have to submit documentation showing they've met the requirements at the same time they apply for the BLM drilling permit, Wells said. The new regulations won't necessarily add to the time it takes to get a BLM permit, he said.States bemoan BLM's struggles
State regulators said yesterday they were frustrated with BLM in general because the agency frequently is understaffed and has trouble sharing information with the states and with producers. BLM has been perennially strapped for cash, and an audit in 2014 found that it failed to inspect 40 percent of its highest-priority oil and gas wells between 2009 and 2012 (EnergyWire, July 17, 2014).
The states -- prodded by oil producers and trade groups -- argue that it would make more sense for BLM to delegate control of the fracking regulations to them. The states would benefit because they'd be able to issue permits faster, providing a boost to their economies.
Oil and gas agencies in the big producing states already administer federal regulations on underground injection wells, and state environmental regulators are typically in charge of carrying out federal air and water quality regulations.
"Let's have BLM do what it's charged to do, which is manage multiple roles on its land," said John Baza, director of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, during a panel discussion.
"If they decide to lease -- turn it over to us," he said.
Wells said BLM can't do that, because of federal laws and because of its dual role. The agency regulates oil and gas on federal land and acts as the landowner, negotiating leases and collecting payment.
It's unclear how big the effect will be if states decide not to sign MOUs.
In Utah, state inspectors spend about half their time on federal land because of the overlapping ownership. The state and federal inspectors informally notify each other if they spot violations of each other's rules, Baza said.
"Where the fields are located, it's hard not to pass by a federal well," he said. Even without an MOU, "We'll keep doing what we're doing."
-
California Pipeline Ruptures, Leaks Oil Into Pacific Ocean
May 20, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tamara Audi, Alison Sider, and Alejandro Lazo
Oil from a ruptured pipeline in southern California leaked into the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, spreading into a four-mile-long slick and fouling a Santa Barbara County beach.
The cause of the release and the exact amount spilled were still unknown Tuesday evening.
An initial report from the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services estimated that more than 500 barrels, or 21,000 gallons, were released. But the true volume of oil spilled is still being measured, said Capt. Jennifer Williams, the federal on-scene coordinator with the U.S. Coast Guard.ENLARGE
The Coast Guard is monitoring winds in the area and projects that overnight the spill may move two to four miles south of Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County.
At first light, the Coast Guard will fly over by helicopter to assess the oil sheen in the water and impact to beaches, Capt. Williams said, adding that this spill appeared to be “medium”-size.ENLARGEAn oil slick washes up on shore Tuesday near Goleta, Calif. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
The oil spilled from a large pipeline that runs under U.S. Highway 101, according to the pipeline’s owner, Plains All American Pipeline L.P. The pipeline, which can carry up to 150,000 barrels of oil a day, transports crude from an inland facility inland owned by Exxon Mobil Corp.
“The spill has impacted ocean water and the shoreline,” the company said in a statement released late Tuesday. “Plains deeply regrets this release has occurred and is making every effort to limit its environmental impact.”
Exxon Mobil offered to assist with clean-up efforts on Tuesday but was told its aid was not yet needed, a company spokesman told the Wall Street Journal.ENLARGELocal residents stand on oil covered rocks and sand at Refugio State Beach in Goleta, Calif., on Tuesday. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Plains shut down the pipeline to stop the flow of oil and the culvert where the leak was discovered has been blocked so no additional crude can reach the water, the company said.
Officials from the Santa Barbara Fire Department evacuated people from Refugio State Beach after the spill was reported around 1 p.m. local time. Refugio State Beach is situated on a cove teeming with wildlife about 140 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
No injuries to humans have been reported, Plains said. So far, there have been no reports of injured or oiled birds or other wildlife, said Santos Cabral of the California Fish and Game Department.
Clean-up efforts started Tuesday, with 1,500 feet of boom—a kind of floating curtain—deployed on the water to trap oil floating at the surface. So far, only 20 barrels of oil have been skimmed off the water, according to the Coast Guard.
“I want to manage your expectations. This could take some time,” Capt. Williams said, adding that the unified joint command responding to the spill does not intend to use chemical dispersants to dissolve the oil in the water.
The spill was discovered after people noticed a strong petroleum odor. Oil was found on the beach and in the water, with early reports of a sheen about a quarter-mile long, according to the report from the governor’s office. By late afternoon, the sheen had grown to nearly four miles, according to Coast Guard officials who flew over the site.
“This is going to be a major cleanup effort,” said Santa Barbara County Fire Department Capt. Dave Zaniboni.
The beach is one of the first stretches of undeveloped shoreline heading north out of Los Angeles. The protected cove is prized by surfers, kayakers, campers and fishing enthusiasts—as well as seals, sea lions and birds.
“It’s our workplace, and our playground and our passion,” said Grant Cunningham, general manager for Santa Barbara Adventure Company, which runs kayaking trips and hikes in the area. “To see it covered in covered in oil is devastating.”
Santa Barbara was the site of a January 1969 oil spill that helped spark the modern environmental movement. In that accident, a Union Oil Co. well at an offshore platform suffered a blowout and oil began leaking into the Santa Barbara channel. Within a week, the oil washed ashore, fouling beaches and wildlife.
A little more than a year after the Santa Barbara spill the first Earth Day was held in the U.S. By the end of 1970. Then-President Richard Nixon halted any further growth in the oil industry’s offshore activity in the state, imposing a ban on drilling off the coast of California that is still in effect today.
“Big Oil comes with big risks—from drilling to delivery. Santa Barbara learned that hard lesson over 40 years ago when offshore drilling led to disaster,” said Bob Deans, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s time to invest in clean energy. We need real solutions that don’t spill, explode or cause climate chaos.”
This isn’t the first Plains pipeline leak in the state. Before Tuesday’s leak there had been four oil spills of 100 barrels or more from the company’s California pipelines since 2010, according to the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Last year about 330 barrels, or 14,000 gallons, leaked from a Plains pipe in an industrial area of Los Angeles. That spill was caused by a malfunctioning valve. Firefighters responding to the incident were confronted with a 20-to-50-foot stream of oil that sprayed against the side of a strip club.
-
Pipeline Rupture Causes Oil Spill on Calif Coast
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Workers near Santa Barbara, Calif., began a cleanup operation Wednesday, after 21,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Pacific Ocean and onto beaches.
An 11-mile underground oil pipeline ruptured sometime Tuesday, sending crude oil into a culvert that emptied into the ocean, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The pipeline was turned off quickly after officials discovered the leak Tuesday afternoon, but it spilled for hours, creating a 4-milelong sheen that extended 50 yards into the ocean and threatened to move farther south along the coast.
Federal, state and local authorities are working together on the response and cleanup, after oil washed ashore onto miles of beaches in the tourist-heavy area, including in Goleta, the Times said. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) had also been briefed.
A nearby state beach has been closed, as have fisheries in the area, and another beach has posted warnings about potential oil.
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), the area’s representative in the House and a longtime foe of the oil industry, said she was “deeply saddened” to see the aftermath of the spill.
“This incident is yet another stark reminder of the serious risks to our environment and economy that come from drilling for oil,” she said in a statement.
-
Senators Show Bipartisan Support for ARPA-E in New COMPETES Bill
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Katherine Ling
The leaders of the Senate energy appropriations and authorization committees along with a bipartisan group of senators today unveiled legislation that strongly supports the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy in marked contrast to a bill set to be considered by the House this afternoon.
The Energy Department's basic research and ARPA-E would receive a 4 percent bump in funding for the next five years under the bill sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, and co-sponsored by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It would also fund competitive grant programs while eliminating and consolidating roughly a dozen programs, including those focused on graduate fellowships and early career support.
The legislation would authorize basic science funding at $5.3 billion for fiscal 2016, rising to $6.2 billion by fiscal 2020, and would provide ARPA-E with an authorized budget of $291 million in fiscal 2016, increasing to $341 million over five years.
The bill provides part of the energy section of a comprehensive reauthorization bill for science and energy research programs, known as COMPETES. The last two bills to reauthorize the nation's science and energy research programs in 2007 and 2010 passed with broad bipartisan support, but the two parties have disagreed about funding levels and policies since the reauthorization expired in 2013.
The partisan divide will be apparent in the floor debate on the comprehensive COMPETES bill (H.R. 1806) the House is scheduled to vote on today (E&E Daily, May 18).
It would authorize the programs for the next two years at flat funding levels, with basic science staying at $5.3 billion -- a 5 percent increase from current levels of spending -- and ARPA-E at $140 million, half of its current level of funding. Democrats have severely criticized the House bill for its funding levels and program prioritization, and the White House has threatened to veto it (E&E Daily, May 19).
Advertisement
Alexander told Greenwire yesterday that he had not yet read the House bill, so he had no comment on it.
"If we want to maintain our brainpower advantage and create an abundance of clean, cheap, reliable energy to compete in our 21st-century economy, we need to fuel innovation in our free enterprise system. Governing is about setting priorities, and this legislation will put us on a path to double basic energy research -- one of the best ways to keep good-paying jobs from going overseas -- while streamlining basic energy research programs at the U.S. Department of Energy," Alexander said in a statement "As researchers have told me, it's hard to think of an important technological advance since World War II that has not involved at least some government-sponsored research."
Murkowski added: "Reauthorizing the COMPETES Act would ensure that important Department of Energy research programs, like ARPA-E, keep producing real results that advance America's energy technologies. These programs are important to an affordable, abundant, clean, diverse, and secure energy sector that puts Americans to work."
Murkowski and Cantwell's support for the bill is a positive sign for its inclusion in a comprehensive energy bill Murkowski plans to move through her committee as early as next month.
Alexander told reporters yesterday the bill would be included as part of an ENR Committee hearing on June 4 that also includes measures that would require DOE to boost research in supercomputers; create a "smart" manufacturing plan; improve national laboratories' abilities to enter into public-private partnerships and commercialization; create "microlabs" to increase national lab outreach; and streamline DOE oversight of labs.
Other co-sponsors include Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
The original COMPETES bill also included authorization for the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House, including some STEM education and manufacturing programs, which were included in H.R. 1806. Those sections of the bill fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Alexander is still working on those sections of the COMPETES bill, his spokesman said.
-
Why Is The New York Times Providing A Platform For Industry Groups To Baselessly Attack The EPA?
May 20, 2015 | Media Matters for America
By Andrew Seifter
The New York Times devoted a front page article on May 19 to advancing baseless industry allegations that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illegally lobbied on behalf of clean water protections. Buried deep within the article was an acknowledgment that the allegations don't hold up, but The Times ran with the story anyway.
The Times reported that "industry critics said the agency's actions might be violating federal lobbying laws," and that the EPA's efforts to build support for its proposed clean water rule "are now being cited as evidence that the E.P.A. has illegally engaged in so-called grass-roots lobbying."
Yet the very same Times article acknowledged that multiple "experts" -- including an energy industry lobbyist who worked for the EPA under the Bush administration -- "said the agency's actions did not appear to cross a legal line."
Moreover, The Times wrote that "the Justice Department, in a series of legal opinions going back nearly three decades, has told federal agencies that they should not engage in substantial 'grass-roots' lobbying." That led The Times into a discussion of a social media campaign in support of the clean water rule that the EPA conducted "in conjunction with the Sierra Club," while "grass-roots group" Organizing for America "was also pushing the rule." The Times added that "critics said environmental groups had inappropriately influenced the campaign," citing officials from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who claimed that "[t]here is clear collusion between extreme environmental groups and the Obama administration" on new regulations.
It wasn't until 34 paragraphs after the initial mention of the Justice Department thatThe Times included this massive caveat (emphasis added):
In its previous opinions to federal agencies, the Justice Department has indicated that "grass-roots" efforts are most clearly prohibited if they are related to legislation pending in Congress and are "substantial," which it defined as costing about $100,000 in today's dollars -- a price tag that the E.P.A.'s efforts on the clean water rule almost certainly did not reach if the salaries of the agency staff members involved are not counted.
The EPA, which was quoted in The Times defending its actions, expanded upon its reasoning in a blog post, which noted that the agency uses social media "[l]ike almost every government, business or non-profit organization these days ... to inform people across the country about our work." The EPA added:
A public outreach effort to increase awareness and support of EPA's proposed Clean Water Rule is well within the appropriate bounds of the agency's mission to educate and engage Americans. As noted in a recent Comptroller General opinion, "agency officials have broad authority to educate the public on their policies and views, and this includes the authority to be persuasive in their materials."
[...]
After releasing the proposed Clean Water Rule in March 2014, EPA conducted an unprecedented outreach effort that included holding more than 400 meetings across the country and visiting farms in nine states. The input helped us understand the genuine concerns and interests of a wide range of stakeholders and think through options to address them. As outlined in a recent blog by Administrator McCarthy, the key changes made to the proposed rule were actually driven in large part by outreach to agriculture, local government, states, and utilities.
The Times article also drew a false equivalence between industry groups' allegations against the EPA and environmentalists' concerns "that the energy industry improperly drove policy during the George W. Bush administration." But the "influence" that industry groups are decrying as "inappropriate" consists of environmental groups gathering public comments on EPA rules, which is a far cry from how Big Oil companies secretly shaped the Bush administration's national energy policy to benefit their bottom line.
In the end, we're left with industry attacks against the EPA that don't hold up to The Times' own scrutiny. Which raises the question: Why did The Times run this story?
-
Senate GOP: EPA Driven by Politics, Not Science
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Senate Republicans charged Wednesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies too heavily on politics in its regulations and not enough on science.
The accusation is one of the main reasons that the GOP is backing the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, which would overhaul the membership and operation of the EPA’s main outside boards for scientific advice and for guidance on air pollution rules.
“The EPA is to rely on this advice to assist them in crafting and issuing appropriate environmental regulations,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee subpanel holding the hearing on the bill Wednesday.
“Unfortunately in recent years, EPA regulations have been driven not by science, but by politics.”
“The bottom line is that the EPA, at times, provides for excellent scientific reviews,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who sponsored the bill along with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). “Other times, there are gaps in the process. And sometimes, the review process is entirely bypassed or ignored.”
The House has passed similar legislation multiple times, though it had previously gone nowhere under Democratic control of the Senate.
The bill from Boozman and Manchin would require the EPA’s boards to respond to public comments submitted to them. They would also ahve to include as board members, representatives from various industries and levels of governments. Finally, they would be requried to publicly disclose certain financial information, including tax returns.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the panel’s ranking member, said the legislation would “cripple the scientific process at the EPA” and called it a "solution in search of a problem.”
The financial disclosures would discourage participation in the board, while the comment responses would allow foes of the EPA’s rules to indefinitely hold up the process by submitting questions, Markey said.
“We might not agree on the regulations that EPA proposes, but we should all be able to agree that the scientists should be free to provide advice without onerous requirements and restrictions,” he said.
The Obama administration has threatened to veto the House’s legislation.
It has repeatedly said that the reforms are not necessary and would hamper the board’s important work.
-
Obama: Climate Deniers Endangering National Security
May 20, 2015 | The Hill
By Jordan Fabian
President Obama in a speech on Wednesday cast climate change as a growing national security threat, accusing Republican skeptics of harming military readiness by denying its effects.
Obama argued in his address to graduates at the United States Coast Guard Academy that rising sea levels and higher global temperatures endanger military bases and could force personnel to respond to conflicts around the world that are fueled by their effects.
“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told new Coast Guard officers at the academy’s New London, Conn., campus. “And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”
Obama has highlighted security implications of climate change in recent months to drum up more support for his efforts to invest in climate adaptation and reduce greenhouse gases, including a landmark regulation to limit carbon emissions from power plants.
Republicans in Congress, however, have stymied legislative action on climate change. The president took aim at GOP critics, saying that temperatures are rising even though “some folks back in Washington” refuse to admit it.
“Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces,” Obama added.
He also questioned how Republicans could claim to support the military while downplaying the effects of global warming.
“Politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care about this as well," he said.
Obama claimed the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria and the civil war in Syria were both fueled by instability caused by severe drought and crop losses connected to rising temperatures.
In addition to the international problems that global warming can cause, Obama argued the effects threaten military facilities and readiness.
He pointed to street flooding in Miami and Charleston, S.C. as evidence that American infrastructure in coastal areas, such as roads and power plants, are vulnerable. The same is true for military bases in places like Norfolk, Va., where flooding has also occurred, he added.
"It’s estimated that a further increase in sea level of one foot by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion,” Obama said.
The president touted his efforts to reduce carbon emissions, through more-stringent vehicle fuel standards, new EPA regulations, and his pursuit of an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases.
Refusing to act would be a “dereliction of duty,” Obama said.
“It will not be easy, it will require sacrifice and the politics will be tough, but there is no other way," he said. “This will be tough, but so often is the case, our men and women in uniform will show us the way."
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) blasted Obama for calling climate change a national security threat, saying it shows the president lacks a coherent strategy to deal with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the Syrian civil war and North Korea.
“It’s no wonder that our military personnel's trust in their commander-in-chief is at an all time low,” the senator said in a statement. “The president’s speech at the Coast Guard Academy stating his belief that climate change poses the greatest threat to future generations is a severe disconnect from reality.”
Inhofe famously threw a snowball on the Senate floor in February to protest the administration’s climate agenda.
-
White House Argues Trade Will Help Environment
May 20, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Vicki Needham
The White House on Wednesday released a report detailing its efforts to protect the global environment through trade agreements as President Obama tries to build support on Capitol Hill for his ambitious agenda.
The 64-page report is the latest in a series of attempts by the Obama administration to describe how far-reaching trade agreements can improve the enforcement of global rules, a major concern of congressional lawmakers wary of signing off on the trade agenda.
Specifically, it argues that trade pacts can combat a broad range of global environmental concerns including wildlife trafficking and illegal logging and fishing.
The Obama administration argues that once implemented, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “will help protect one of the most ecologically and economically significant regions of the world — from the deserts and plains of Australia, to the Mekong River Delta of Vietnam, to the Andes mountains of Peru."
The White House says it is “leading the charge to shape an international response to the global environmental challenges we face” and the TPP would accomplish those objectives.
The administration argues that TPP would “provide unprecedented leverage to press for improved environmental standards.”
The report cites environmental groups (the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane Society, International Fund for Animal Welfare and The Nature Conservancy) who say that trade agreements can result in “real change on the ground.”
Other groups, such as the Sierra Club, argue that the TPP could sabotage the ability of the United States to respond to the climate crisis.
“Multinational corporations, including some of the planet's biggest polluters, could use the TPP to sue governments in private trade tribunals, over laws and policies that they claimed would reduce their profits,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune wrote in a recent blog post.
Brune said other trade deals have allowed corporations to challenge rules aimed at protecting the environment, including a pollution cleanup in Peru, which is part of the 12-nation TPP.
The U.S. Trade Representative acknowledged that more work needs to be done in Peru — an oft-cited country by groups and lawmakers concerned about TPP's standards.
“We are working with Peru to understand the impacts of the reforms on the environment, including through active engagement with the stakeholder communities in both countries,” the report said.
-
Residents Evacuate After Train Carrying Chemicals Derails in La.
May 20, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Four rail cars carrying chemicals derailed in Louisiana yesterday, prompting an evacuation of two subdivisions, though officials said there was no immediate danger.
The cars derailed in Addis, La., around 1:30 p.m.
Union Pacific Railroad spokesman Jeff DeGraff said the cars left the track as the train was switching to a different track while leaving a rail yard. No injuries or leaks were reported, DeGraff said.
DeGraff said two of the cars were carrying propylene oxide and dichloropropane, which are hazardous flammable liquids used to make plastics. Another car was carrying a sodium hydroxide solution, and the fourth was carrying a nonhazardous glycol residue.
About 175 to 200 homes were evacuated, and residents were expected to return this morning, West Baton Rouge Parish spokeswoman Lynn Cline said (Associated Press, May 19). -- SP
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