Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Routes to Sound Chemical Management
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
2015 is an important year for those working at an international level to improve chemical safety. -
Guest Column: Senator David Vitter on TSCA Reform
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Far too often the federal government meddles in our everyday lives, accomplishing little beyond the burden and inconvenience it puts on us. But there’s one area where updating regulation has been ignored for more than a generation, and ignored to our real detriment. -
NGO Platform: Shifting to Safer Chemicals
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Tony Iallonardo, Communications director, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
When it comes to moving our economy away from unsafe chemicals, perhaps no one has more power than major retailers to push suppliers and manufacturers, and ultimately the chemical industry, toward more responsible practices. -
California Makes Changes to Rulemaking on Prop 65 Website
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has made changes to its proposed regulation on setting up a website to provide the public with supplemental information on their potential exposure to Proposition 65 listed chemicals. -
Green Chemistry: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner
We have a long way to go to mainstream green chemistry. Now in its 10th year, the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), a network of some 70 companies across sectors and supply chains, has undertaken a number of projects, aimed at supporting dialogue and model collaborations that advance research, development and adoption of green chemistry solutions. -
Calls for Expanded Pipeline Oversight Trail Santa Barbara Oil Spill
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Debra Kahn and Anne C. Mulkern
California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called yesterday for stricter oversight of oil pipelines in the wake of a crude oil spill in Santa Barbara. -
Effort to Cut 'Red Tape' Triggers Lobbying Battle in Senate
May 22, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
A Senate subcommittee has become a K Street hot spot with its two top senators leading an effort to target troublesome regulations. -
Coal Plant Shutdowns Predicted to Double Under EPA Climate Rule
May 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Shutdowns of coal-fired power plants would more than double under the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule, a federal analysis found. -
Obama to Issue Flurry of Energy Regulations This Summer
May 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
This summer will be busy for the Obama administration’s energy and environmental regulators, with numerous high-profile rule releases planned. -
Coal Retirements to More Than Double Under Clean Power Plan -- EIA
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden, Nick Juliano and Manuel Quiñones
A new analysis from the federal government's energy statisticians finds the Obama administration's plan to reduce the power sector's heat-trapping carbon emissions would raise electricity prices 4.9 percent above their current trajectory by 2020. -
ClimateWire's Holden Talks Power Plan Compliance Options, EIA Analysis of Costs
May 22, 2015 | E&E TV
As states weigh their options on how to comply with EPA's Clean Power Plan, a new tool released this week seeks to simplify the wide range of choices facing stakeholders. -
Coal Retirements to More Than Double Under Clean Power Plan -- EIA
May 22, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Nick Juliano and Manuel Quiñones
A new analysis from the federal government's energy statisticians finds that the Obama administration's plan to reduce the power sector's heat-trapping carbon emissions would raise electricity prices 4.9 percent above their current trajectory by 2020. -
State Air Group Lists 'Menu' Of Compliance Options For EPA Climate ESPS
May 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
A new report from a group representing state air officials outlines more than two dozen possible strategies to comply with EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, offering a planning resource for states as well as new ammunition for rule supporters to argue states have wide flexibility to meet their emission reduction targets. -
Republicans Reintroduce Bill to Speed EPA Construction Permitting
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Dylan Brown
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) yesterday reintroduced legislation aimed at accelerating U.S. EPA's permitting process for new sources of air pollution, which industry blames for hamstringing development. -
FracFocus Organizers Plan to Play Defense as Data Goes Public
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
The nonprofit that runs the national database of hydraulic fracturing chemicals is preparing to defend the states that use the system, as the information becomes more widely accessible. -
White House Lays Out Regulatory Game Plan
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
The Obama administration sharpened its focus on regulatory deadlines with the release yesterday of its Spring Unified Agenda. -
N.Y. Officials Will Roll Back Oil-by-Rail Approval
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
New York officials are reconsidering support for a project that would bring oil sands crude through the Hudson River Valley, following a year and a half of intense public scrutiny and pressure from environmentalists. -
Shell Loses Appeal of Environmental Review for Wash. Crude-by-Rail Plan
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A Washington state judge has denied an appeal by Royal Dutch Shell PLC for a ruling that its proposed oil-by-rail project in the area is subject to a full environmental review.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Routes to Sound Chemical Management
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
2015 is an important year for those working at an international level to improve chemical safety. Earlier this month, the triple conference of parties (triple COPs) of the UN’s most advanced, legally-binding chemicals conventions – the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (BRS) – met in Geneva. In September, the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), which oversees the voluntary Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), will convene, also in Geneva.
It is important both meetings agree on specific actions: not only to meet their own objectives, but also to deliver progress that can be fed into the UN’s “post-2015 development agenda” and the sustainable development goals (SDGs).
During opening remarks at the BRS triple COPs, Rolph Payet, executive director of the three conventions said: “We cannot keep postponing issues, which are of national and global importance.” He was joined by Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, who said: “Unsound management of chemicals is incurring multi-billion dollar costs worldwide – most of which are not borne by manufacturers or others along the supply chain, but instead by social welfare systems or individuals, with a significant impact on the economy and development as well.”
Mr Steiner noted the “vast body of science” that has been accumulated on chemicals and waste management – on issues such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), electronics-waste and mercury. He said this knowledge should help countries to tackle these issues.
But just how effective are the BRS Conventions? And how do they sit along-side and interact with Saicm?
Speaking to Chemical Watch, David Azoulay, environmental health programme director for the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) described international sound chemicals management efforts in three words: “Not yet there.”
He added: “The pace of international law is slow, the procedures are complex and consensus has to be achieved between many countries that are looking to protect their sovereignty. But there is a general sense that things are moving forward.”
Part of the problem, he added, is that the chemicals and hazardous waste cluster has been a low priority for global society, leaders and the UN, yet it is still politically sensitive. In addition, the workload is high and funding is low.
Positives, he said, are the inclusion of chemicals and wastes in a number of the SDGs proposed for adoption this year, and the BRS synergies process – which aims to improve implementation.
Mr Azoulay contends that there has been an element of ensuring that international treaties “don’t hurt”. As an example, he noted that the initial dozen POPs were for the most part not used any more. He would like to see more consideration given to health and environmental costs, and for a long-term view to be taken.
Greg Skelton, senior director for regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said: “Global conventions bring governments together to negotiate action and responses to substances of global concern ... tackling the most hazardous substances that are difficult to manage, and have characteristics, such as trans-boundary movement, that require action at the global as well as national level. There are a limited number of such substances, which must meet the scientific criteria in the Stockholm Convention. It is onerous, and that is the way it should be.”
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is an active observer of the BRS Conventions; and all associations joining ICCA have to commit to supporting the conventions.
Michelle Orfei, director of global affairs at the ACC, said: “We support the conventions, but we have some concerns about the Stockholm Convention in particular, which we think has moved away from scientific arguments and become politicised.” Specifically, she said ICCA is concerned about the alternatives assessments done for both perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which was added to Annex B in 2009, and endosulfan, which was added to Annex A in 2011.
Ms Orfei said that the process has overwhelmingly focused on the exploration of potential POPs candidates, rather than on an effort to identify genuine alternatives to listed substances.
Industry agrees that any alternative should not be a POP, but the process should not exclusively focus on whether potential alternatives exhibit POP or POP-like characteristics. It wants there to be a collection of a full range of relevant information, otherwise, the alternatives assessment process becomes “a back channel” for listing substances. “We want to see the integrity of process remembered. If we do, we will have a good result for everyone that is reliable. This is a key issue for us,” she said.
Another contention for ICCA is the weight-of-evidence approach that is required to determine risk.
Mr Skelton noted that some governments have also voiced concern about the lack of scientific rigour behind more recent POP Review Committee recommendations.
Legally-binding vs voluntary
Contrasting the legally-binding approaches to that of the voluntary Saicm, Mr Skelton said: “[Saicm] has helped to develop cooperation between stakeholders, this has helped [everyone] to understand the issues and ... encourage the sound management of chemicals.”
Saicm, which was adopted in 2006, aims to minimise the impact of hazardous chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020. When ICCM4 meets in September, it will consider an Overall Orientation and Guidance (Oog) document that describes activities to be taken before the 2020 deadline.
Mr Skelton said: “The Oog can be a vehicle for improving efficiency and prioritising scarce resources. If you look at resources, for example, by 2020 we can make the most progress by helping countries that lack basic capacity to manage chemicals safely to put the right apparatus in place.” He added that industry’s Global Product Strategy and Responsible Care Global Charter align with this idea and ICCA is working with the UN Environment Programme and other stakeholders to achieve this.
Mr Azoulay said: “Under Saicm it is easier to raise issues and the stakes are lower. We can raise an issue, not get consensus, but you can get traction and you can use that to get a dynamic. Also, the scope of Saicm is large. Under the Stockholm Convention, you have to fulfil strict legal criteria to raise an issue and there is a higher risk of public failure if your issue is not adopted.”
Matthias Kern, senior programme officer in the Technical Assistance Branch of the Secretariat of the BRS Conventions, said: “It is likely that voluntary multi-stakeholder approaches like Saicm would potentially produce faster results in cases where there is no disagreement.”
“In unclear or controversial cases, the stakeholders would have to agree on criteria for banning the chemicals, with a similarly structured, transparent and time-consuming process, to reach mutual agreement on the outcome if they do not want to risk, that in the end, only a small group of countries and/or stakeholders feel bound to the recommendation and implement the banning of the chemical.,” he added.
Looking to the future and how global issues, for example those relating to specific EDCs and nanomaterials, should be tackled – either via legally-binding or voluntary approaches – needs further thought, says Joe DiGangi, senior science and technical adviser of the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen): “Especially after the experience of negotiating the mercury treaty, which illustrated the twin difficulties of low political will and financial limitations.”
Ipen strongly advocated having a clause in the Minamata Convention on Mercury that would allow the addition of substances, based on some agreed upon criteria. These efforts were not successful and a single-substance treaty resulted.
One advantage of mandatory conventions is that they get higher political priority, he said. It is also important to recognise that global chemicals agreements often play different roles in developed and developing countries, he said. Developed countries have the resources and infrastructure to establish comprehensive regulatory policies on chemicals, and the drivers for doing so are often internal to the country. In contrast, he added, global policies on chemicals are much more significant to establishing national policies and authorities in developing and transition countries, that lack adequate infrastructure and resources.
He noted that Saicm was always intended to trigger national regulatory approaches – and both classes of substances – EDCs and nano – should be regulated.
The difficulty comes with infrastructure and resource problems in developing and transition countries. The conventions cannot cover it all, it is clear that Saicm, which promotes intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder cooperation on chemical safety, is needed too, said Mr DiGangi. But he said, as yet, the potential of Saicm has not been fully realised, “but this needs to happen both in terms of funding and political priority”.
Some additional aspects, he said, need to be addressed for both EDCs and nano globally. First, based on peer-reviewed literature, the Unep/WHO State of the Science report, and the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) evaluations, it is clear that all currently listed 26 substances in the Stockholm Convention are also EDCs. This means at least some EDCs are being addressed globally – most with the goal of elimination. This obviously does not cover all EDCs and many harmful, currently used substances need to be addressed, he added. “However, governments need some experience to begin addressing these substances.”
For nanomaterials, there are some aspects that could be appropriate to address globally, said Mr DiGangi. For example, he said, adapting GHS criteria to the specificities of nanomaterials and establishing a global inventory of nanomaterials on the market.
ACC’s Mr Skelton noted that “we are a long way away from a global treaty [on EDCs or nanomaterials]. The US Environmental Protection Agency is the only authority in the world that is currently screening substances for endocrine disrupting properties. We are a long way from fully understanding the science. That is what Saicm is doing, sharing information and providing a mechanism for all governments and stakeholders to understand the issues.”
2015 to 2020 and beyond
Mr Azoulay said: “2020 is coming soon and important decisions [about the future] will have to be made. We need to start thinking about it.” He sees 2016/2017 as the right time to consider the post 2020 agenda, otherwise: “The big questions might derail what can be delivered this year and in the next four.”
The convergence towards 2020 could lead to an interesting discussion, “Could we come up with something ambitious and different for the following 25 years?” he asked. He noted that the early 1990s was a good time for international law, but these last few years it has not been so positive. “Hopefully we are at the end of this period, and we can become more ambitious as we understand the impact of chemicals and their mismanagement,” he said.
“Science brings us impetus to be ambitious, and we are also trying to push the use of new and different approaches, for example, the human rights-based approach. This has been useful in the climate change debate. It is still early days for the chemicals and wastes cluster, but we think it can have real influence in the future on how things are dealt with.”
Mr Skelton added that there appears to be a “ground swell” of support to extend Saicm beyond 2020. There is also a lot of support for the synergies process, which aims to improve the efficiency and effect of BRS, and which is assessing the benefits of embracing Saicm and the Minamata Convention.
Ms Orfei added: “We see synergies continuing to develop and that is a good thing so long as the legal texts are respected.”
Mr Azoulay said the synergies process provides a better logic for implementation, but it can be used to slow progress. For example, he said there has been a huge discussion on acceptance of observers as different conventions have different rules. “We have seen an attempt to use the most restrictive rules,” he added.
Mr DiGangi said: “The real test of the benefits of the BRS synergies process, is how it impacts national implementation of the conventions. To my knowledge, there has not been a study of this question.”
He added: “The BRS Conventions are essential components of chemical safety policy and extremely important for establishing political priority and infrastructure in developing and transition countries. Do we want more action? Of course. Reporting has been woefully underwhelming and many countries have expressed the need for help in making reports. Ultimately, the conventions need be measured against their objectives – and this is why effectiveness evaluation is so critical for all of them.
BOX: Listing on Stockholm
Matthias Kern, senior programme officer in the Technical Assistance Branch of the Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, described the process:
There is a strict process to be followed to list a chemical under the Stockholm Convention which is quite time consuming. Article 8 of the convention covers the reviewing process of new chemicals and the Annexes D, E and F specify the information required for the review. The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) is the subsidiary body to the Convention that was established for reviewing chemicals proposed for listing. The five-step process is as follows:any Party may submit a proposal to the secretariat for listing a chemical in any of the Annexes to the Convention. The secretariat verifies that the proposal contains information specified in Annex D and forwards it to the POPRC for consideration;the POPRC examines the proposal and applies the screening criteria specified in Annex D;if the committee is satisfied that the criteria are fulfilled, it invites parties and observers to submit information specified in Annex E, and develops a risk profile. Based on the risk profile, the POPRC makes a decision on whether the chemical is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects that warrant global action;if the POPRC decides to proceed with a listing proposal, it invites parties and observers to submit socio-economic information specified in Annex F, and develops a risk management evaluation. On the basis of the risk profile and risk management evaluation, the POPRC recommends whether the chemical should be considered by the Conference of the Parties for listing in Annexes A to ban, B to restrict and/or C for unintentional sources; andthe Conference of the Parties, taking POPRC’s recommendations into account, finally decides whether to list the chemical, and specify its related control measures. The COP should take a precautionary approach in reaching its decision, taking account of scientific uncertainty.
Considering that the POPRC meets once a year, it takes about four years to go through steps 1-4. Then the proposal to list a chemical is sent to the Conference of the Parties, which meets only every second year. Therefore, it can take five to six years to list a chemical under the Stockholm Convention. When there are delays in getting all the information requested by the procedure, or parties ask for additional information about a chemical, the process can be even longer.
BOX: Why do highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) and environmentally persistent pharmaceutical pollutants (EPPPs) fall under Saicm rather than BRS?
“Not all highly hazardous pesticides are POPs and I doubt that all EPPP fit convention criteria. For this reason, these classes are addressed in Saicm,” said Ipen’s Joe DiGangi. He added that this illustrates the vital importance of having a global chemical safety mechanism that can respond to current and future chemical safety issues. “This is especially important for developing and transition countries that can benefit directly from global approaches.”
Mark Davis, senior programme officer for pesticides management at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), added: “HHPs go beyond what any of the individual conventions addresses. For example, not all World Health Organization Class 1 pesticides are listed on any of the BRS Conventions. Several other pesticides cause health or environmental problems that are not listed in the conventions.”
In addition, he said, a national regulator can recognise a pesticide as an HHP if it causes severe irreversible effects to health or the environment under their conditions of use, which may be unique. Deciding whether a pesticide should be classed as an HHP for regulatory purposes is in the hands of national regulators, who can take advice from any source they trust, and make their own, hopefully well-informed decisions.
Importantly, he noted, for chemicals to be listed in any of the conventions takes years, and the decision is not only technical and scientific, but is also influenced by politics and economics.
The next in this series of articles will look at how the international conventions are implemented and compliance mechanisms.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch Forum
-
Guest Column: Senator David Vitter on TSCA Reform
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Far too often the federal government meddles in our everyday lives, accomplishing little beyond the burden and inconvenience it puts on us. But there’s one area where updating regulation has been ignored for more than a generation, and ignored to our real detriment.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the law that oversees the thousands of chemicals used in products we use every day. It has not been updated in almost 40 years, and we actually need to do that to both ensure the safety of our families and to advance innovation in our economy.
That’s why back in 2012 I began working with the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), who was a lifelong champion of protecting human health and the environment. Frank and I didn’t see eye-to-eye on a whole lot in this area or others. But we both recognised the importance of reforming the severely outdated TSCA law. After months of negotiation and compromise, we were able to introduce the first-ever bipartisan bill to do so.
After Senator Lautenberg’s unfortunate passing, Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) stepped in to help preserve Frank’s legacy and continue working with me to move bipartisan TSCA reform forward. In the long months since, Senator Udall and I have worked tirelessly to ensure the bill substantively addresses the concerns of our fellow Republican and Democrat colleagues, as well as those of leaders from the environmental, public health and business communities.
It’s not often that any legislation has the support of both the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Association of Manufacturers. But that’s exactly who supports the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. In that spirit, Senator Udall and I introduced the bill on 10 March with 18 original cosponsors – nine Democrats and nine Republicans. And the legislation has picked up even more bipartisan support in the weeks since.
First and foremost, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is an honest, balanced approach built on compromise. It will strengthen the safety standard to protect public health, our families and future generations. Just as importantly, it will allow America to remain the unquestioned innovation leader in this industry that’s so essential to improving countless aspects of our daily lives.
The bill will make sure the EPA can ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday use, which, rather surprisingly, it currently does not have the authority to do. The EPA will be responsible for regulating the safety of chemicals based on the latest science in a predictable and transparent federal system that does not override existing state actions. In fact, the bill balances state and federal roles in managing chemical safety.
Importantly, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act will also provide greater regulatory certainty to the chemical manufacturing industry, which will give American producers the ability to continue to lead, innovate and create quality jobs.
For all these reasons, TSCA reform is too important for consumers and job-creators to not follow through on. Just consider the fact that chemicals are used to produce 96% of all manufactured goods consumers rely on every single day. Ninety six per cent. Few things compare in terms of impacts on our health and the economy.
We cannot put it off any longer, or let this golden opportunity pass us by. It’s the only realistic shot we have to both vastly improve how we protect human health and safety and allow us to continue to lead and innovate.
That’s why I hope to move the bill out of the relevant Senate committee in the next few weeks. That’s why I’ll continue working with Senator Udall and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are serious about this bipartisan reform. And ultimately, that’s why I’m confident we’ll get this done.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch Forum
-
NGO Platform: Shifting to Safer Chemicals
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Tony Iallonardo, Communications director, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
When it comes to moving our economy away from unsafe chemicals, perhaps no one has more power than major retailers to push suppliers and manufacturers, and ultimately the chemical industry, toward more responsible practices.
At Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, our coalition of 450 business, labour, environment and public health groups had spent years working to update our outdated and broken federal rules. We were frustrated by a chemical lobby that was intent on blocking real reform. We felt a shared moral urgency to reduce suffering, caused by chronic illnesses and other conditions that are linked to chemical exposure.
That is why we launched our “Mind the Store” campaign and called on the nation’s top ten retailers to develop comprehensive chemicals policies to phase out the worst of the worst chemicals, identifying a list of them as the Hazardous 100+. Since we launched the campaign, our supporters wrote to and petitioned top retailers, held dozens of events at stores, tested retailers’ products for dangerous chemicals and invited them to work with us.
Retailers listen to their customers, and are vulnerable to public outcry, but, of course, they can’t ignore the bottom line. Late last year, a study from the UN confirmed what we were witnessing. It found that companies that do not actively manage their use of chemicals face a tremendous downside risk, including millions in fines, reputational damage, recall costs and loss in customer loyalty.
The report has bolstered the case for the nation’s biggest retailers to work with their suppliers to adopt comprehensive programmes to identify, eliminate, and safely substitute dangerous chemicals.
The market leaders see this, and are leading the industry. Walmart and Target, which essentially started competing with one another in recent years in a race to safer chemicals, have both adopted comprehensive approaches to chemicals management. As they moved ahead, we kept the pressure on other top retailers, particularly Walgreens, the nation’s largest pharmacy chain. After generating over 135,000 emails from our supporters around the nation, just recently the chain let us know it had heard us, and was developing its own Chemical Sustainability Program. We are enthused, and thank them for listening. We are hopeful they will develop a strong chemicals policy that will promote greater disclosure, while avoiding hazardous chemicals in the products they sell.
No cautionary tale in supply chain management this year stands out more than Lumber Liquidators, whose stock price has plunged by more than 60% and is now subject to a Department of Justice criminal investigation, after the CBS programme “60 Minutes” aired a report in March. The report said the flooring giant was selling laminate, sourced from China, that exceeded the California Air Resources Board (CARB) safety standard for formaldehyde, even as the flooring was labelled as compliant with the CARB rule.
And even as we urge comprehensive approaches, there has also been some great recent victories for consumers in wrestling with specific chemicals on our hazardous 100+ list.
Late last year, we began engaging with and surveying major furniture retailers about whether they were ready to commit to phasing out toxic flame retardant chemicals that have been in nearly every piece of upholstered furniture sold for years. One stepped forward – Ashley, the leading retailer and manufacturer in the nation. While the company was planning a phase-out, it would not commit to a public timeframe. In response, we channelled the energy of thousands of concerned families from coast-to-coast, and just a few weeks later Ashley made it official and committed to a public timeframe for eliminating flame retardants in furniture.
Ashley’s leadership put pressure on other retailers to sell safer products, and within days after that, a social media campaign directed at other furniture retailers resulted in Ethan-Allen announcing on Twitter that it was matching the Ashley policy.
Similarly, our partners at the Ecology Center began testing vinyl flooring sold at national home improvement retailers for unsafe phthalates (months before the Lumber Liquidators story broke). Again, one retailer stepped forward ready to lead. The world’s largest home improvement retailer Home Depot expressed an interest in working with us. By early spring, the company was ready to announce it was phasing out phthalates from virgin vinyl flooring by the end of 2015. That, in turn, put pressure on other industry players to follow suit, and just days later, Lowe’s announced it would match Home Depot’s commitment. Lumber Liquidators has also asked suppliers to move to alternatives.
Everyone wins from this important work. Consumers get safer products, and retailers enjoy better customer confidence while reducing risk. Still, there are far too many hazardous chemicals in products on store shelves. We’re making progress, but there’s much more work to do.
-
California Makes Changes to Rulemaking on Prop 65 Website
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has made changes to its proposed regulation on setting up a website to provide the public with supplemental information on their potential exposure to Proposition 65 listed chemicals.
The website would also suggest ways to reduce or eliminate exposure (CW 14 January 2015).
Besides non-substantive changes to the OEHHA's disclaimer on the site, the alterations would limit the scope of the information that the agency may request to matters concerning exposures to listed chemicals for which warnings are provided under the law.
A new subsection has also been added to clarify that “testing is not required for the sole purpose of providing information in response to a request for information.”
In another change, the 15 day notice period required for notification of a business under section (d) has been extended to 30 days. This is to allow businesses more time to provide “additional justification, or initiate legal proceedings to protect the claimed trade secrets.”
Comments are due by 6 June.
-
Green Chemistry: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities
May 22, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner
We have a long way to go to mainstream green chemistry. Now in its 10th year, the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), a network of some 70 companies across sectors and supply chains, has undertaken a number of projects, aimed at supporting dialogue and model collaborations that advance research, development and adoption of green chemistry solutions.
These efforts have helped to: establish approaches to enhance chemical information flow, through supply chains, while protecting confidential business information; support informed decision making through supply chains on alternatives to priority chemicals; educate professionals across firms on the fundamentals and value of green chemistry and adoption models; connect firms across sectors to learn from each other’s challenges, and approaches to overcoming them; and support funding for research and development in green chemistry.
Ten years ago, major barriers that we identified were resistance to change, concerns about lower performance of green chemistry solutions, lack of data to make the business case, lack of good information through supply chains, and uncertainty about what we mean by green chemistry. While some of these have been addressed over the past ten years, several still remain. A survey of GC3 members in 2014 identified a number of practical impediments including the high cost of research and scaling of green chemistry solutions and the lack of technically, and economically, viable options.
To better understand the barriers to, and opportunities for, accelerating green chemistry, and to build its “Agenda for Mainstreaming Green Chemistry”, the GC3 commissioned three reports for its 10th annual innovators Roundtable, held in April at Nike, Inc:
Making the business and economic case for green chemistry (Released on 5 May). Co-sponsored with the American Sustainable Business Council and undertaken by the consultancy Trucost, this explores the business and value of green chemistry through document review, interviews with key experts, and data analysis;
Barriers to green chemistry adoption and means to accelerate growth along the supply chain (to be released in June). This report, researched by chemical industry experts T Fennelly & Associates, identifies, through more than 50 interviews and document analysis, nine key deterrents to growth as well as four accelerators to more effectively drive it; and
Measuring progress towards green chemistry (to be released in June). This white paper, drafted by Environmental & Public Health Consulting, examines the landscape of different types of metrics that can and are being used to measure progress and proposes ways they can enhance this.
These three reports, combined with 10 years of cross-sectoral dialogue in the GC3, note that the opportunities for adoption are promising but activity in this space is sporadic and mostly in reaction to some identified problem, rather than part of a comprehensive innovation strategy. A number of key barriers still exist, including:the lack of robust analyses and data on economic opportunities and risks, specific to adoption on an industry-wide scale;limited, widely used metrics to evaluate progress in research and adoption;supply chain complexity, which creates fragmentation of demand for innovations by application, volume, specification, customer expectation and geography. Complex supply chains also create a barrier to change because they have established infrastructures, strong supplier-customer relationships and mature cost positions; incumbency, where existing industry infrastructure is so efficient that it is hard for new entrants to compete with the established supply chain; price/performance, where existing chemicals have set the standard. In other words they work well and are cost competitive. This becomes a greater barrier when the sustainability heads of brands or retailers ask for new, more sustainable options but the sourcing decision makers in the same organisation want those options at similar or lower cost;concerns about switching risk, where changing to green chemistry alternatives could lead to market failures, such as market loss due to a product’s poor performance, brand tarnishing and other hidden costs, such as changes to process or equipment, material incompatibility, workforce training, or customer education;lack of demand, where there is not enough, real or perceived, to make increased production worth the investment and where stakeholders are cautious to move forward to commit to demand or supply; andmarket confusion, where conflicting information from studies and research, policy uncertainties and lobbying efforts lead to the value and risks of a green chemistry investment being unclear.
While the challenges are real, these research efforts and dialogue have identified a number of enablers, many of which are related to addressing supply chain misalignment, including:increasing consumer awareness, particularly that of large institutional consumers and retailers – has been a significant driver of demand for safer chemistries. In the future, these large consumers need to have a greater understanding of the options available or on the horizon as well as realistic expectations of the process of developing and gaining required approvals and certifications for new chemicals;developing smart policies. If these are well-designed, both supportive and restrictive, they can provide important incentives for green chemistry development, adoption and scale. For example, the proposed Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act would establish an advisory committee and action agenda for incentives, technical and information support, collaborations, demonstration, and education;increasing collaboration and partnership across the value chain, including give and take (compromise). Addressing supply chain misalignment will require improved communication and joint working, at the earliest stages possible. This can help address issues such as cost and risk sharing, performance expectations, and demonstrating demand. Business to business collaboration needs to be supplemented with enhanced academic-business partnerships and mechanisms to link those with green chemistry challenges with those who might provide solutions;using market forces effectively to drive innovation. Recent efforts in the health care, building and retail sectors demonstrate the important leverage that large purchasers have. For example, the GC3 has convened a group of seven major retailers (the Retailer Leadership Council) to engage in dialogue with large chemical manufacturers to accelerate development of green chemistry solutions for priority chemical functions. Brands, for example, in the footwear and apparel sector, can also collaborate in a pre-competitive space to drive innovative solutions;understanding and informing the marketplace. Research is needed to better understand market forces and where they may be leveraged to the benefit of green chemistry, through knowledge of costs, barriers, policy and trends in demand, and workforce needs. Additionally, getting the right kind of information – on green chemistry solutions, incentives, success stories, etc - to the people who need it, such as supply chain actors and policy makers can help spur informed actions; developing better data and narratives and a more consistent metric: there is a clear need for data to make a strong business case. This includes quantifiable economic and health-related data, but also case examples that provide both transferable models and compelling evidence of successes. A more effective set of metrics can help better characterise momentum towards mainstreaming green chemistry; andeducating the next generation of leaders and champions in green chemistry. Building a cultural and institutional change will require significant changes in education – both within firms (and supply chains) and university training for scientists (as well as other disciplines) so that they can understand and evaluate how chemical design affects health and environment and are able to work in multi-disciplinary teams to solve product and material challenges, applying green chemistry techniques.
Recent research, and ten years of collaborative projects through the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council, have demonstrated that there is increasing energy and commitment toward mainstreaming green chemistry. The challenge is now in channelling that energy towards a strategic and integrated vision.
While green chemistry may not yet be mainstream, the tools and approaches to getting there are evolving: cross-sectoral, value chain collaboration is growing; innovative new chemistries and materials are being developed; and education and awareness are progressing. The challenge for the coming years will be to move from niche to scale.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
To comment on this article, click here: Chemical Watch Forum
-
Calls for Expanded Pipeline Oversight Trail Santa Barbara Oil Spill
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Debra Kahn and Anne C. Mulkern
California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called yesterday for stricter oversight of oil pipelines in the wake of a crude oil spill in Santa Barbara.
Newsom, who is exploring a run for governor in 2018 as Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) term ends, said he would work to hold Plains All American Pipeline Co. responsible for Tuesday's spill. The release of oil from an on-land pipeline has sent 105,000 barrels of crude onto Refugio State Beach, with about 21,000 gallons of that making its way to the Pacific Ocean.
"This company will be held to account to the extent that they're responsible," Newsom said of the pipeline owner. "First and foremost, it's about cleanup and mitigation, and then addressing the longer-term risks and assessing our other pipes throughout the state."
As lieutenant governor, Newsom leads the State Lands Commission, which has jurisdiction over the shoreline and the first 3 miles of seabed off the coast. He said the incident underscored the need to review existing leases and pipelines.
"Everyone talks a good game about how safe they are. They get spokespeople up talking to you all the time saying, 'We haven't had a serious incident in years,'" Newsom said at the opening of an energy-efficient building on the campus of drug developer Genentech Inc. "And of course we've already uncovered all kinds of incidences and violations related to this company.
"It begs the question from a regulatory perspective, where are all of us?" Newsom added. "And I take some account, as well, and I think State Lands in particular is going to have to look and review all these existing leases and contracts and make sure that those safety standards are elevated even further."
Advertisement
The operator of the ruptured pipeline, Plains Pipeline, has had 175 prior oil spills and other incidents nationwide since 2006, with 11 in California, according to the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) database. The site shows $23.8 million combined damage from those incidents.
Since 2006, there were 21 federal enforcement actions against Plains Pipeline, a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline. The federal agency mostly issued warning letters but in two cases fined the company, collecting a total of $115,600. A third case with a proposed fine of $104,400 is still open. That involves a terminal in Cushing, Okla., where PHMSA says the company failed to inspect 30 breakout tanks at the required intervals, lacked adequate firefighting equipment on-site and violated other rules.
Patrick Hodgins, senior director of safety and security at Plains All American Pipeline, said in an email that "safety and environmental responsibility are core values to Plains."
The company has more than doubled safety and training staff since 2008, he said.
"We have implemented several programs that are above and beyond those required by federal regulation," he said. "We have an integrated integrity management program that assesses risks and threats to our pipelines and uses a number of tools to assess their integrity."
Interval surveys have been conducted on Plains' pipelines, Hodgins said, with an inspector walking every inch. In-line inspection tools have been run "on substantially all Plains' pipelines to inspect for internal and external corrosion, dents and/or cracks."
"We are part of the Santa Barbara community and we deeply regret that this release has happened," Hodgins said. "On behalf of the Plains family -- the 350 employees located here in the state of California and the more than 5,000 employees located across the country -- we will do everything in our power to make this right."Improving oversight
Brown, who appeared at Genentech with Newsom, spoke briefly on the spill and focused on the cleanup. He signed an executive order Wednesday to speed up that process (EnergyWire, May 21).
"It's going to take a while, but I'm confident they'll get it done. We've got good people, and I just signed an executive order to cut any red tape for the Coastal Commission or the California Environmental Quality Act, or any other kind of things that might stop this very rapid response to get the job done," the governor said.
Newsom said penalties for the spill are "to be determined."
Beyond local enforcement, he said, "I imagine the [attorney general's] office will look at this from a statewide perspective and then the regulatory agencies from the Coastal Commission, the state parks and, of course, State Lands will take a look and collaborate on any kind of assessment."
While Newsom's commission does not have jurisdiction over the pipeline break itself, a spokesman said the agency would examine the incident with an eye toward improving its own inspections.
"While the rupture occurred on lands on which no part falls under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission, the lieutenant governor is concerned to understand more about how the pipeline broke so that the State Lands Commission can improve its own aggressive inspection regime on land within its jurisdiction," spokesman Rhys Williams said.
"In response, the State Lands Commission will work with state and federal agencies on the lessons they've learned, and consider how those lessons can be built into the State Lands Commission's robust safety regulations to make sure we're not missing any patterns and taking advantage of available technology."
The State Lands inspection program includes monthly function testing of all detection, control and automatic shutdown devices installed on offshore facilities, he said.
"The goal of these inspections is to ensure the reliability of the safety systems installed on the facilities to prevent injuries and pollution, and to verify that the equipment needed to respond to incidents is in place and in satisfactory operating condition. Its inspection program is regarded as the most rigorous in the nation," Williams said.
The commission has postponed a public meeting on one oil company's drilling plans -- previously slated for next week -- in order "to avoid any distraction from the efforts to address the recent oil spill response near Refugio Beach."
Venoco Inc. has applied to the commission to convert six existing offshore wells in state waters to slanted wells, which would enable them to reach farther into the Santa Barbara Channel from the existing platform 2.4 miles offshore. Venoco's pipeline connects to Plains' system.
Environmentalists oppose Venoco's plans. "Hopefully after this week that is a non-starter," said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center.Resource impacts
Some green groups, meanwhile, are urging a tougher look at oil drilling given the spill.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Plains Pipeline's record illustrates the risks posed by fossil fuels.
"This company's disturbing record highlights oil production's toxic threat to California's coast," said Miyoko Sakashita, the group's oceans program director. "Oil pipelines and offshore fracking and drilling endanger our fragile marine ecosystems. Every new oil project increases the risk of fouled beaches and oil-soaked sea life."
The area where the spill occurred is located between two marine-protected areas, Kashtayit and Naples. Those were designated for special safeguards because they have a variety of habitat and are important places for fish to grow, said Phyllis Grifman, associate director of the University of Southern California Sea Grant Program.
"That whole coastline is really special," Grifman said. "It's pristine. It's undeveloped except for this one small pipeline."
While it's "not a huge spill," she added, "it is an indication, I would say, that coastal ecosystems are vulnerable where there is development like this in them."
Grifman said that oil could damage reefs, and that affects species that live on those reefs.
"It can taint what they eat," Grifman said.
In addition, prior to the oil spill, the area has seen seals and sea lions attempting to come ashore, because they can't find food and are unable to keep swimming. It's believed to be related to warmer waters, she said. The oil could affect those marine mammals.
"Any animals trying to get to the shore is going to be oiled," Grifman said.
"If the shoreline is dirty," she added, "then they're pretty doomed."
-
Effort to Cut 'Red Tape' Triggers Lobbying Battle in Senate
May 22, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
A Senate subcommittee has become a K Street hot spot with its two top senators leading an effort to target troublesome regulations.
Earlier this year, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), chairman of the Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management Subcommittee, and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), the subpanel's ranking member, launched the #CutRedTape Initiative. The lawmakers lamented how there was no central hub for complaints about federal rules -- many of which they said were flowing into their offices from constituents who were bewildered by government bureaucracy.
In response, the senators set up a Web page to collect those grievances (Greenwire, March 26). They, along with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.), also wrote to dozens of organizations asking them for input on where the regulatory process had gone off the rails (E&E Daily, March 19).
Since then, business groups from a variety of industry sectors have sent the senators lists of their most hated regulations, as well as ways to streamline the rulemaking process.
Liz Gasster, vice president for the Business Roundtable -- a trade association that represents the chief executives of the biggest U.S. companies -- said the senators were asking the right questions of the regulatory system.
"I think it's great that they reached out and asked the questions that they're asking," Gasster said. "The questions that they asked are smart and are on the money."
Advertisement
Last month, the Business Roundtable sent in its own letter to the subcommittee, noting that "pending regulations of greatest concern include" U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, its forthcoming ozone standard, net neutrality, as well as rules stemming from the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank law. The business group also advocated for broader reforms to the federal rulemaking process, such as using cost-benefit analysis and reviewing past regulations.
Gasster said her group was not against all regulations but rather for more effective rules.
"We are interested in the process reforms that can lead to smarter regulation," said the Business Roundtable executive. "What are the kind of incremental changes of how we regulate in this country that can lead to better results for everyone?"
The roundtable is one of many business groups that have written into the subcommittee in response to its #CutRedTape Initiative.
The National Association of Manufacturers sent a letter earlier this month to Lankford, Heitkamp and other senators on the full Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The group cited several rules as challenging, from EPA's boiler MACT regulation to the hydraulic fracturing standards fashioned by the agency and the Bureau of Land Management.
"Manufacturers look forward to a day when our regulatory system is a competitive advantage for our country, instead of unnecessarily costly, inefficient, adversarial and a barrier to business formation," said Jay Timmons, NAM's president and CEO, in the letter.
Other groups have written to the senators about regulations, as well.
The American Forest & Paper Association discussed how government treats biomass and formaldehyde, as well as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' "Waters of the U.S." rule in a letter dated May 1.
The American Gas Association also took aim at the WOTUS proposal and at various permitting rules and guidance offered by the White House Council on Environmental Quality on the National Environmental Policy Act in its own letter from last month.
The National Mining Association sent a list of regulatory concerns to the subcommittee, expressing worries over many of the same EPA rules (E&E Daily, May 8).
The #CutRedTape online portal has also attracted some attention. D.J. Jordan, a spokesman for Lankford, said so far the portal has received 98 submissions that touch on several different agencies.
"The portal offers a uniquely direct channel by which to tell Senators Lankford and Heitkamp and the Committee about regulations that are problematic to small businesses, and the response so far has been promising," Jordan said in an email.
In a statement to Greenwire, Heitkamp said "federal regulations keep our water safe, protect consumers, and support our economy, but it's no surprise to anyone that there are also some regulations that have become burdensome."
"That's where our #CutRedTape Initiative comes in. Sen. Lankford and I have heard from many individuals, businesses, and workers so far about their ideas to make federal regulations more effective and efficient, and we hope to hear from even more people. The more stories we get about how federal regulations are directly impacting real people, the more we can do to improve the regulatory process and make it work better," Heitkamp said.'We wanted to make sure that they heard the other side'
Yet Lankford and Heitkamp haven't just heard from industry lobbyists on K Street. Public interest activists and unions also shared letters with the lawmakers in response to their initiative.
"We hope the subcommittee does have good intentions and they do want to get a complete picture of regulations' impact on citizens," said Celia Wexler, senior Washington representative for the Scientific Integrity Initiative at the Union for Concerned Scientists.
Wexler's group sent in its own letter to the senators to highlight "why protective rules, implemented by federal agencies in a timely fashion, have real-world impacts both on our members and the larger American public."
"We wanted to make sure that they heard the other side and not just from business groups who complain about regulations," Wexler said.
Other groups or individuals who want to defend federal rules have been in touch with the subcommittee, as well.
In one letter, the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, noted how life-saving regulations have been delayed while the predicted costs to business from rules have been overstated at times.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, the Center for Effective Government and theCenter for Progressive Reform all made similar points in their own letters to the senators: Regulations, many of which have been stalled by the government, can protect the environment and public health.
Ronald White, director of regulatory policy for the Center for Effective Government, said it was "important" that public interest groups weigh in with the subcommittee.
"It was important to weigh in so the conversation about 'regulatory reform' wouldn't be one-sided and dominated by industry," White said.
Gasster with the Business Roundtable said she saw the flow of letters into the subcommittee not as lobbying but rather as "information-gathering" by the senators.
"I think of it as more of information-gathering," she said. "We're solicited to opine."
Lankford has sought to make regulatory reform one of his pet causes in the Senate.
He has made the case in public several times that the process needs to change, including in remarks to the Heritage Foundation this week, and even in an interview broadcast on the Periscope and Meerkat apps (E&E Daily, May 7). Lankford has also written to certain agencies asking them to review their own rules as part of the effort (E&E Daily, May 15).
Some from government watchdog groups are wary of the initiative. White said he sees business groups' pushing for reforms to the regulatory process as a move to stop agencies from issuing new rules.
"I think they are trying to game the system to tilt the process toward their favor," White said. "They now have allies in both the House and the Senate, who are in the majority, and they see this as their opportunity to further their agenda and stop agencies from implementing regulations."
-
Coal Plant Shutdowns Predicted to Double Under EPA Climate Rule
May 22, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Shutdowns of coal-fired power plants would more than double under the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule, a federal analysis found.
The rule is also projected to increase electricity prices 4.9 percent above what they would be without it.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon limits for power plants are projected to cause 90 gigawatts of coal plant capacity to retire by 2040 so that states can comply, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected Friday.
That is more than double the 40 gigawatts that the EIA, the independent data arm of the Energy Department, predicted would be shut down in that time period if it weren’t for the climate rule. The United States currently has 1,212 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 329.8 gigawatts.
The report could provide new evidence for opponents of the rule such as Republicans and fossil fuel interests. They have argued that the Obama administration would significantly raise electricity costs, close numerous power plants and kill the jobs of the people working there and in related fields.
Nearly all of the plant shutdowns would happen by 2020, the year of the first set of standards in the EPA’s rule. Another standard takes effect in 2030.
“Switching from coal-fired generation to natural gas-fired generation is the predominant compliance strategy as implementation begins, with renewables playing a growing role in the mid-2020s and beyond,” the EIA said in its analysis.
Complying with the rule would require a “significant investment in electric transmission system infrastructure to integrate renewables from remote areas,” the agency said.
Those investments, among other costs, would increase electricity prices 4.9 percent in 2020, 4 percent in 2030 and 2.6 percent in 2040, all in comparison to a situation without the rule.
The EIA also warned of potential reliability problems from moving more toward renewable energy sources, which are mostly intermittent in nature.
It's the first comprehensive report on the EPA rule from a government entity other than the EPA.
An industry-commissioned report from Nera Economic Consulting found last year that the rule could cost at least $366 billion over 15 years, and could cost businesses and consumers $41 billion annually.
The Nera study said the rule would shutter at least 45 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. concluded that the rule could harm grid reliability.The Friday report, however, also found a number of positive benefits from the regulation. It predicted that carbon emissions from the power sector in 2030 would be 29 percent to 36 percent below 2005 levels, in line with the EPA’s coal of a 30 percent cut. Although electric prices would be higher, the bills that consumers and businesses pay in 2040 will be “slightly below” what they would be without the plan, due to factors like energy efficiency and reducing demand. The plan would also spur a great deal of renewable energy installation. Renewable energy capacity under the rule would grow 160 percent above what it would otherwise be by 2040, at 174 gigawatts. “Wind power plays an important role in Clean Power Plan compliance, with wind electricity generation capacity more than tripling over 2013 levels by 2040 in the Base Policy case,” it said. Solar power is projected to have 136 gigawatts, versus 76 without the plan. The EIA’s report does not analyze potential health and climate benefits of the rule.
-
Obama to Issue Flurry of Energy Regulations This Summer
May 22, 2015 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
This summer will be busy for the Obama administration’s energy and environmental regulators, with numerous high-profile rule releases planned.
Between June and August, regulators hope to fill out the Obama administration’s agenda with major rules on greenhouse gases, the oil and natural gas sectors, coal production, and other policy priorities, according to a rule-making schedule released by the White House late Thursday.
The administration’s main climate change rule from the Environmental Protection Agency, which would slash greenhouse gases in the power sector by 30 percent, is due out in August.
That aligns with the timeline EPA officials, including Administrator Gina McCarthy, have been giving since January, saying the final version of the rule will come out in “mid-summer.” States will have about a year after that to submit plans to comply.
A complementary rule limiting emissions from newly built coal- and gas-fired power plants will also be unveiled in August, the White House said.
Accompanying those rules will be a proposed regulation from the EPA explaining how it would impose compliance plans for states that refuse to write their own strategies to cut power plant emissions.
The EPA will take other actions earlier in the summer to cut greenhouse gases.
June will see a proposed rule to further cut carbon from large trucks and buses, a rule that the administration hopes to make final in January 2017 — the last month President Obama is in office.
Also in June, the EPA will decide whether to pursue rules on greenhouse gases from aircraft, fulfilling a court settlement it made last year with environmental groups.
The EPA’s controversial rule to redefine its jurisdiction over waterways is due out in the coming days.
This summer, the EPA will also propose rules setting ethanol blending mandates for 2014 through 2016, and standards for reducing methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sectors.
The Interior Department is hoping this month to wrap up an early look at how it might reform the way it calculates federal royalties for oil and natural gas leases on federally owned land.
In June, the Interior Department will start to gather input on coal royalties on federal land. It will also finalize a rule to protect streams in Appalachia from mountaintop removal coal mining.
The department's piece of the Obama administration’s strategy to reduce methane emissions will come out in July under the White House’s schedule.
That proposal will seek to reduce methane output from oil and natural gas wells on federal land.
The agency is also under a September deadline to finish reviewing a slew of animal species to determine whether they deserve protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Thanks to a 2011 settlement, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a part of the Interior Department, must complete reviews by September for species like the Washington ground squirrel and the Florida bonneted bat.
The Energy Department, meanwhile, will move forward this summer on a number of standards for energy efficiency affecting equipment like small electric motors, pool heaters and fluorescent lamp ballasts.
-
Coal Retirements to More Than Double Under Clean Power Plan -- EIA
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden, Nick Juliano and Manuel Quiñones
A new analysis from the federal government's energy statisticians finds the Obama administration's plan to reduce the power sector's heat-trapping carbon emissions would raise electricity prices 4.9 percent above their current trajectory by 2020.
The Energy Information Administration will release projections today that the draft rule would spur a quick wave of coal plant retirements -- 90 gigawatts, rather than 40 GW, between 2014 and 2040. Most of the power plant retirements would happen by 2020, when the first requirements for emissions reductions begin.
EIA says the proposed rule would require "significant investment" to handle rapidly growing supplies of wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy, including for transmission lines and other electric grid infrastructure.
Those investments, as well as the increased use of natural gas, would raise costs. Natural gas prices would go up as a result of increased consumption, but over the long term, renewables would develop, so reliance on natural gas would go back down, and so would electricity prices.
By 2030, electricity prices under the Clean Power Plan would be 4 percent higher than the business-as-usual scenario that assumes the power plant emissions limits aren't put in place, and by 2040 they would be 2.6 percent higher.
EIA's report is arguably the most official analysis of the Clean Power Plan's grid impacts yet, although it includes many caveats. It follows other assessments that have shaped political debate on the rule, including from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) and NERA Economic Consulting. NERC said the regulation doesn't leave enough time to develop infrastructure and warned against widespread power outages. NERA projected electricity rates could increase much more -- 12 percent between 2017 and 2031, when compared to NERA's base-line scenario without the regulation.Reliability concerns
The analysis shows the rule would shift generation away from baseload coal, nuclear and hydropower, which are located on-site, and toward natural gas, which requires real-time fuel delivery, and renewables, which are intermittent.
For example, the Mid-Atlantic region's share of on-site power would decline from 71 percent in 2013 to 65 percent in 2020 and 47 percent in 2030, under EIA's main case for examining the Clean Power Plan. Real-time fuel, like natural gas, would increase from 27 percent in 2013 to 46 percent in 2030. Intermittent fuel would increase from 2 percent to 7 percent.
Those shifts are what critics have said might cause electric reliability concerns. But EIA notes that the model the analysis used (the NEMS Electricity Market Module) isn't suitable for conducting a formal reliability analysis for a number of reasons.
"There are several ways to mitigate potential issues that may arise from increased reliance on generation using real-time fuels and intermittent renewable generation," EIA added. "For example, regulators may encourage natural gas-fired generators to secure firm pipeline capacity or to reduce or eliminate situations in which insufficient natural gas is available to meet both heating and generation requirements on the coldest days."
The costs of these changes, however, are not reflected in the report and "would likely be borne by electricity consumers," EIA says.
EIA's report, which comes less than three months before the rule is expected to be finalized, raises concerns that may be addressed in comprehensive energy legislation being crafted in both chambers of Congress.
Bills being assembled in the House and Senate are still taking shape, but key lawmakers in both chambers have emphasized infrastructure needs among the most important aspects of the package. Proposals include setting deadlines on environmental reviews associated with the construction of natural gas pipelines and allowing them to be more easily built across public lands.
Lawmakers also are debating whether to expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority to ease siting of interstate electric transmission lines and how local regulators should evaluate the contributions of distributed generation sources, such as rooftop solar panels in net-metering rate cases.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to have its energy bill to the House floor by the end of July. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee also hopes to have a bill out of committee before the August recess. It remains to be seen when floor action could come to the upper chamber.Coal takes a hit
Coal interests are likely to use the report to bemoan the Clean Power Plan's destructive impacts on the sector.
Without the Clean Power Plan, EIA predicted in April that coal use could see some increases by 2040. It said demand from existing plants could help coal use grow from 925 million short tons in 2013 to 988 million short tons in 2040 (E&ENews PM, April 14).
EIA found in its new analysis that coal production would be 20 percent lower in 2020 and 32 percent lower in 2030 if the Clean Power Plan were implemented.
Higher-cost Appalachian coal production -- which has been in decline for years -- would drop "sharply" after 2019. While Illinois Basin and Western coal mines are also taking a hit, they do better than Appalachia under the Clean Power Plan and make some gains as demand stays level or increases at remaining coal plants. Still, they don't recover to their 2013 production levels.
Coal-fired generation under the Clean Power Plan would be 27 percent lower than the business-as-usual case by 2030. Renewable generation would increase over time and would be 53 percent higher than the base line by 2030, according to EIA.
Natural gas-fired generation would be 24 percent higher than the base line by 2020, but it would drop back down to near the base-line level by 2030 due to growing reliance on renewable power. Those figures are highly dependent on supply conditions, EIA said.Does nuclear see a bump?
EIA didn't examine the Clean Power Plan's projected impacts on each state but instead treated the modeling tool's 22 regions as Clean Power Plan compliance regions.
In addition to the main Clean Power Plan case, the analysis considered three additional scenarios.
One assumed the Clean Power Plan would change to count generation from currently unplanned nuclear capacity toward compliance. In that case, nuclear generation would rise.
In another case, EIA looked at the impacts of extending CO2 reduction targets to cut emissions 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2040 -- rather than 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. In that case, electricity prices would be 6 percent higher than the base line in 2040, rather than 2.6 percent higher.
The last case assumed that biomass is assigned an emissions rate under the rule, rather than being counted as carbon-neutral.
EIA noted the document is "not a cost-benefit analysis" that considers health and environmental benefits. The agency said its model could not account for many factors, and there is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the proposed rule.
Reporter Jenny Mandel contributed.
-
ClimateWire's Holden Talks Power Plan Compliance Options, EIA Analysis of Costs
May 22, 2015 | E&E TV
As states weigh their options on how to comply with EPA's Clean Power Plan, a new tool released this week seeks to simplify the wide range of choices facing stakeholders. On today's The Cutting Edge, ClimateWire reporter Emily Holden, discusses the "menu of options" released by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. She also talks about the Energy Information Administration's new analysis of cost, reliability and infrastructure challenges that could result from power plan implementation.Transcript
The transcript for this video is currently not available. Please check back later.
-
Coal Retirements to More Than Double Under Clean Power Plan -- EIA
May 22, 2015 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden, Nick Juliano and Manuel Quiñones
A new analysis from the federal government's energy statisticians finds that the Obama administration's plan to reduce the power sector's heat-trapping carbon emissions would raise electricity prices 4.9 percent above their current trajectory by 2020.
The Energy Information Administration will release projections today that the draft rule would spur a quick wave of coal plant retirements -- 90 gigawatts, rather than 40 GW, between 2014 and 2040. Most of the power plant retirements would happen by 2020, when the first requirements for emissions reductions begin.
EIA says the proposed rule would require "significant investment" to handle rapidly growing supplies of wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy, including for transmission lines and other electric grid infrastructure.
Those investments, as well as the increased use of natural gas, would raise costs. Natural gas prices would go up as a result of increased consumption, but over the long term, renewables would develop, so reliance on natural gas would go back down, and so would electricity prices.
By 2030, electricity prices under the Clean Power Plan would be 4 percent higher than the business-as-usual scenario that assumes the power plant emissions limits aren't put in place, and by 2040, they would be 2.6 percent higher.
EIA's report is arguably the most official analysis of the Clean Power Plan's grid impacts yet, although it includes many caveats. It follows other assessments that have shaped political debate on the rule, including from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) and NERA Economic Consulting. NERC said the regulation doesn't leave enough time to develop infrastructure and warned against widespread power outages. NERA projected electricity rates could increase much more -- 12 percent between 2017 and 2031, when compared to NERA's base-line scenario without the regulation.Reliability concerns
The analysis shows the rule would shift generation away from baseload coal, nuclear and hydropower, which are located on-site, and toward natural gas, which requires real-time fuel delivery, and renewables, which are intermittent.
For example, the Mid-Atlantic region's share of on-site power would decline from 71 percent in 2013 to 65 percent in 2020 and 47 percent in 2030, under EIA's main case for examining the Clean Power Plan. Real-time fuel, like natural gas, would increase from 27 percent in 2013 to 46 percent in 2030. Intermittent fuel would increase from 2 percent to 7 percent.
Those shifts are what critics have said might cause electric reliability concerns. But EIA notes that the model the analysis used (the NEMS Electricity Market Module) isn't suitable for conducting a formal reliability analysis for a number of reasons.
"There are several ways to mitigate potential issues that may arise from increased reliance on generation using real-time fuels and intermittent renewable generation," EIA added. "For example, regulators may encourage natural gas-fired generators to secure firm pipeline capacity or to reduce or eliminate situations in which insufficient natural gas is available to meet both heating and generation requirements on the coldest days."
The costs of these changes, however, are not reflected in the report and "would likely be borne by electricity consumers," EIA says.
EIA's report, which comes less than three months before the rule is expected to be finalized, raises concerns that may be addressed in comprehensive energy legislation being crafted in both chambers of Congress.
Bills being assembled in the House and Senate are still taking shape, but key lawmakers in both chambers have emphasized infrastructure needs among the most important aspects of the package. Proposals include setting deadlines on environmental reviews associated with the construction of natural gas pipelines and allowing them to be more easily built across public lands.
Lawmakers also are debating whether to expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority to ease siting of interstate electric transmission lines and how local regulators should evaluate the contributions of distributed generation sources, such as rooftop solar panels in net-metering rate cases.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to have its energy bill to the House floor by the end of July. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee also hopes to have a bill out of committee before the August recess. It remains to be seen when floor action could come to the upper chamber.Coal takes a hit
Coal interests are likely to use the report to bemoan the Clean Power Plan's destructive impacts on the sector.
Without the Clean Power Plan, EIA predicted in April that coal use could see some increases by 2040. It said demand from existing plants could help coal use grow from 925 million short tons in 2013 to 988 million short tons in 2040 (E&ENews PM, April 14).
EIA found in its new analysis that coal production would be 20 percent lower in 2020 and 32 percent lower in 2030 if the Clean Power Plan were implemented.
Higher-cost Appalachian coal production -- which has been in decline for years -- would drop "sharply" after 2019. While Illinois Basin and Western coal mines are also taking a hit, they do better than Appalachia under the Clean Power Plan and make some gains as demand stays level or increases at remaining coal plants. Still, they don't recover to their 2013 production levels.
Coal-fired generation under the Clean Power Plan would be 27 percent lower than the business-as-usual case by 2030. Renewable generation would increase over time and would be 53 percent higher than the base line by 2030, according to EIA.
Natural gas-fired generation would be 24 percent higher than the base line by 2020, but it would drop back down to near the base-line level by 2030 due to growing reliance on renewable power. Those figures are highly dependent on supply conditions, EIA said.Does nuclear see a bump?
EIA didn't examine the Clean Power Plan's projected impacts on each state but instead treated the modeling tool's 22 regions as Clean Power Plan compliance regions.
In addition to the main Clean Power Plan case, the analysis considered three additional scenarios.
One assumed the Clean Power Plan would change to count generation from currently unplanned nuclear capacity toward compliance. In that case, nuclear generation would rise.
In another case, EIA looked at the impacts of extending CO2 reduction targets to cut emissions 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2040 -- rather than 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. In that case, electricity prices would be 6 percent higher than the base line in 2040, rather than 2.6 percent higher.
The last case assumed that biomass is assigned an emissions rate under the rule, rather than being counted as carbon-neutral.
EIA noted that the document is "not a cost-benefit analysis" that considers health and environmental benefits. The agency said its model could not account for many factors, and there is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the proposed rule.
Reporter Jenny Mandel contributed.
-
State Air Group Lists 'Menu' Of Compliance Options For EPA Climate ESPS
May 22, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Doug Obey
A new report from a group representing state air officials outlines more than two dozen possible strategies to comply with EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants, offering a planning resource for states as well as new ammunition for rule supporters to argue states have wide flexibility to meet their emission reduction targets.
The report, which offers a “menu of options” for regulators to use when complying with EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), comes as many states are scrambling to develop compliance strategies despite likely legal challenges from industry and states and calls in Congress to block the rule.
But the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) -- which represents 41 state air agencies and 116 local air departments -- says its May 21 report offers options that regulators can pursue regardless of the ultimate fate of the ESPS in Congress or the courts.
“The greenhouse gas reduction strategies described in our menu were viable before the Clean Power Plan was proposed and they will continue to be viable no matter what happens to the Clean Power Plan in the future,” NACAA Executive Director Bill Becker said during a conference call with reporters.
Becker touted the report, developed with the help of the Regulatory Assistance Project, as an “encyclopedic” look at technologies, programs and polices available to reduce power sector GHGs. Becker added that the report would be the “single most important resource” air regulators will turn to when crafting ESPS compliance plans, and said a one-year deadline for issuing initial plans drove the group to release the report before EPA finalizes the rule this summer.
The report is another recent example of groups offering states constructive advice on compliance in the face of resistance from GOP lawmakers and some industry groups. For example, state regulators and others recently urged EPA to overhaul its proposed system for states to use trading to comply with the rule, offering approaches that could bypass critics' threats that multi-state plans require congressional approval.
Additionally, NACAA is developing a model plan to be published soon after EPA's final rule that will include several “regulatory pathways” states could use to implement the ESPS, Becker said. The document will include rate- and mass-based solutions, single- and multi-state model plans and options for specific “programmatic strategies” both within and outside EPA's building blocks, he said.
The pending model rule will also include template regulatory language and explanatory preamble language states could use to develop their plans.
NACAA 'Menu'
The recent “menu” includes 26 chapters outlining both proven and evolving options for GHG cuts -- including established techniques such as improving coal plant efficiency, fuel switching and energy efficiency, to more novel efforts such as altering capacity market rules. It also includes market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes.
It does not explicitly rank one policy over another, but it does discuss both the promise and challenges of individual policies, incorporating discussions on both GHG cuts and pollution “co benefits.”
For example, the report devotes significant positive attention to energy efficiency, noting that state energy efficiency resources standards (EERS) are a low-cost strategy for curbing both GHG and conventional emissions.
“Energy efficiency is a low-cost, low-risk resource that compares favorably to all supply-side alternatives,” the report says. “It is also a proven and effective means of reducing air emissions, increasingly recognized and encouraged by the EPA and state air regulators.”
The reports final chapter cites emerging technologies that could help reduce power sector GHGs -- including energy storage, electric vehicles, and the “Internet of Things.” The chapter also incorporates dueling reviews on potential reliability impacts of the ESPS while generally downplaying the most pessimistic assumptions by groups such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
“NERC expressed concern that variable energy resources significantly impact reliability, require build-out of transmission, and require additional ancillary services,” the report says in part. “However, the EPA’s targets for 2020 are based on levels of renewable energy deployment that many states are already expecting and planning to accommodate.”
'Building Blocks'
Becker during the May 21 call said several of the policy options fit into the “building block” strategies EPA used to construct state GHG targets in the ESPS, including a chapter on optimizing power plant operations, chapters on boosting low-emission generation as well as two chapters on combined heat and power resources.
EPA's ESPS relied on four building blocks -- heat rate improvements at utilities, boosting dispatch of existing gas plants, increasing reliance on low-carbon resources, and energy efficiency to establish goals for state reductions in GHGs.
But many of the options in the new report fall outside the building blocks, including chapters on reducing power losses in transmission and distribution lines, revising capacity markets and improving coal “quality.” NACAA cites the breadth of the options to underscore the flexibility states have in complying with the rule, echoing an argument EPA makes against those who call the ESPS complicated and burdensome.
“It is important to note . . . states will not be limited in selecting compliance options to reduce emissions only from [EPA] building blocks. Rather, a state can choose any combination of measures in the building blocks, as well as other options that reduce CO2 emissions, to achieve compliance with the emissions rate standards,” the report says.
However, the wide ranging scope of the report could provide additional fodder for EPA critics who argue that the regulation amounts to de facto regulation of the energy sector as a whole, not just emissions under the traditional purview of the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, NACAA acknowledges that some of the strategies are beyond the traditional focus of environmental regulators, arguing that entities such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state utility commissions would be crucial to implementing those options.
For example, even though the report says possible revisions to power capacity markets to favor zero- or low-emitting resources are an option, it notes that this “has not been done or even proposed in any market to date, so it remains to be seen what such rules might look like.”
Numerous Strategies
Numerous strategies show significant promise, according to the NACAA report. For example, the chapter on optimizing power plant operations -- similar to EPA's building block 1 -- offers techniques to improve thermal efficiency by up to 4 to 7 percent, a range that is similar to EPA's assumption that the coal fleet can achieve a 6 percent efficiency gain.
Also, the report says state implementation of renewable energy standards is “arguably the most successful legal and regulatory policy mechanism for spurring growth in clean energy technology deployment.” It also downplays their power cost impacts -- noting small increases in electricity rates “in most cases” of less than 2 percent in states that have adopted the standards.
The option of cap-and-trade programs also gets significant attention as a potential low-cost GHG strategy, citing background on EPA's longstanding acid rain program, and programs in California and Northeastern states to curb GHGs. It adds that such a mechanism can manage concerns over power reliability impacts from curbing GHGs.
“Market-based approaches to electric sector carbon management should not be disruptive of electric system reliability because they open the door to a broad range of flexible compliance options,” the report says. “These approaches allow states to consider various emissions reduction options and can drive compliance from actions taken within the power plant fence-line, including improvements in heat rate, fuel switching, and other operational efficiencies, as well as actions taken beyond the fence such as energy efficiency, renewable resources, and changes in dispatch.”
The report also touts the potential for carbon capture technology to prevent millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil plants, but says fully realizing that potential will depend on overcoming “technical and economic hurdles that confront this technology,” and it flags concerns such as increased water use.
Further, NACAA points to state efficiency standards for appliances as a potential compliance strategy, but also warns that legislative action in many states would be required, creating a challenge in the short term.
The group also discusses increasing distributed generation as a GHG reduction strategy, while acknowledging concerns that its impact on electricity sales and conventional utilities could lead to increased rates for some power customers not relying on distributed power. Even so, the report notes that the technology could reduce the need for power grid investments and lower costs for those same customers.
-
Republicans Reintroduce Bill to Speed EPA Construction Permitting
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Dylan Brown
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) yesterday reintroduced legislation aimed at accelerating U.S. EPA's permitting process for new sources of air pollution, which industry blames for hamstringing development.
The "Promoting New Manufacturing Act" is the latest iteration of an effort to expedite the Clean Air Act's New Source Review Program. A similar bill passed the House last year but was never taken up in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate (Greenwire, Nov. 20, 2014).
Calling the system "broken," Scalise advocated for cutting "the red tape that is currently choking millions of dollars in manufacturing investments."
In a press release, Scalise pointed to the American Chemistry Council, which said there are 231 announced manufacturing projects nationwide that could contribute $142 billion to the U.S. economy. The industry lobbying group noted more than 50 proposed projects promising 50,000 new jobs in the Louisiana congressman's home state alone.
"Instead of arbitrary rules that will force jobs overseas and increase carbon emissions around the globe, this bill provides the American manufacturers with a roadmap to attain the highest standards through the use of the best commercially available science and technology," Scalise said.
The renewed effort in both chambers would force EPA to issue implementing regulations and guidance whenever it sets a new national ambient air quality standard under the Clean Air Act.
Advertisement
The bill would require EPA to supply guidance on how to comply with new rules to operators of power plants and other pollution sources, along with the state regulators handling the bulk of permitting responsibilities. Both groups frequently complain about difficulties figuring out how to conduct analysis of air quality impacts when new standards are announced (Greenwire, May 14).
The bill would also require EPA to create a "dashboard" on its website to track a range of preconstruction permitting data back to 2008. Included on the dashboard would be the number of permits issued during a fiscal year, the percentage issued within one year of filing a completed application and how long the agency's Environmental Appeals Board takes to rule on permit application decision appeals.
A Greenwire review found that the only semblance of a national database -- EPA's online clearinghouse known as RBLC -- collects limited and frequently inaccurate data on a voluntarily basis (Greenwire, May 14). Many state air regulators update the database sparingly.
EPA said the clearinghouse is meant as a "helpful tool" for comparing air pollution control strategies, but is largely unreliable for analyzing permitting times because the data set contains a number of inaccuracies dating back to before refinements to data-entry criteria.
Blasting the current situation, House Republicans persuaded 16 Democrats to back Scalise's bill last session, but many Democrats called the bill a thinly veiled attack on the Clean Air Act.
"New manufacturing facilities aren't being held back by Clean Air Act requirements," Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said on the House floor last year. "Weakening the Clean Air Act won't create new jobs."
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state air regulators, also harshly criticized the legislation.
But Scalise continues to press for more transparency.
"The hard-working taxpayers who have to live with these radical regulations deserve transparency from the EPA," Scalise said. "This agency must be held to a higher standard and should have to prove that its proposals can be realistically achieved without destroying American jobs."
Under the bill, EPA would also have to report annually to Congress on how it was expediting the preconstruction permitting process.
Capito said the bill would create the accountability needed to unleash the full potential of the energy and manufacturing sectors.
"American energy production has the power to propel our economy forward and fuel job growth, especially in the manufacturing industry," she said in a statement. "Sadly, the EPA insists on holding America back with its onerous regulations and deeply flawed permitting process for new and expanding manufacturing facilities."
-
FracFocus Organizers Plan to Play Defense as Data Goes Public
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Lee
The nonprofit that runs the national database of hydraulic fracturing chemicals is preparing to defend the states that use the system, as the information becomes more widely accessible.
FracFocus is a website designed to show records of the chemicals used at every oil and gas well subjected to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which are nonprofits run by state oil and gas regulators, made the information available in machine-readable format earlier this month.
The move is part of a broader program to improve the quality of the data on FracFocus, but it will also make it easier for environmentalists, government agencies and others to study the chemicals used in fracking around the country.
"If one of your individual states get singled out by some group in your state and they pull that data off the Web about FracFocus, and claims are made or studies done -- you all have technical staff that can go right back in and do the same thing," Mike Paque, executive director of the GWPC, said during a meeting here this week. "If you ask us, we will run numbers for your state."
Paque said in an email after the meeting that he didn't know of any environmental groups planning studies based on FracFocus data, but "If that should occur, we’d by willing to look at such a report, or statements, and verify its accuracy."
The GWPC and IOGCC themselves will respond to studies that look at the data nationally, he said.
Advertisement
Fracking -- the process of breaking up oil and gas formations with a mixture of water, sand and chemicals -- has led to complaints about groundwater contamination, spills and other environmental effects.
FracFocus was set up in 2011 to alleviate worries about the chemicals used in fracking. Oil and gas operators report the chemicals used in each "frack job," along with the amount of water used and other information. The system is used by more than 20 states.
Until this month, the only way to get the information was to download a PDF file for each well. There are more than 100,000 wells in the system, though, and it was difficult to get a broad view of the chemicals used across a region.
Critics also said the system was flawed because of poor data entry, because it allowed oil companies to alter the information after it was posted, and because too many chemicals were deemed to be trade secrets and exempt from disclosure (EnergyWire, Feb. 27).
The GWPC is planning technical upgrades to fix some of those issues. When the new system is installed by late summer, users will be able to choose from a drop-down list of chemical names, for instance, rather than manually typing each name.
John Amos, president of the environmental group SkyTruth, said he's relatively unworried about the GWPC's proposal to defend the states.
Amos has criticized FracFocus' data quality in the past but said the GWPC's effort to clean up the information will ultimately be a benefit.
"We applaud all that," he said in an interview. "It's taken them a long time to come around to actually thinking that they need to serve the public with this."
-
White House Lays Out Regulatory Game Plan
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
The Obama administration sharpened its focus on regulatory deadlines with the release yesterday of its Spring Unified Agenda.
The Unified Agenda includes expected dates for final rules for several hot-button issues -- including U.S. EPA's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the administration's proposed redefinition of the federal regulatory reach over wetlands and waterways with the "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule, and an implementation date for a final rule to strengthen crude-by-rail safeguards.
The agenda suggests that WOTUS could be on track to come out next week. For months, administration officials have been saying the rule will come out before summer, although the regulation was technically listed for finalization in April. The rule, which would expand the number of waterways that receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act, has become a political lightning rod, with efforts to kill it barreling forward on Capitol Hill.
The administration has promised key changes in the final rule and has been angling to make it public sooner rather than later.Climate and air pollution
EPA will release its final rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new and modified power plants, as well as its Clean Power Plan targeting emissions from existing power plants, in August, according to the agenda. EPA will also that month release a proposed federal plan for meeting the Clean Power Plan.
Advertisement
The agenda confirms what EPA officials have been saying about the rules for months -- that they will release all three rules "midsummer." The August release, which is only tentative, would come during Congress' monthlong recess.
Earlier this month, EPA sent its final rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to the White House for review (Greenwire, May 8).
In a recent statement, EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said the package of rules slated for midsummer release would "provide important public health benefits and address climate change, while ensuring reliable, affordable and clean power for American businesses and families."
Industry and Republican lawmakers have broadly expressed opposition to the rule package, and groups have said they plan to challenge the rules once they are released.
The agenda also shows EPA remains on track to release its final new national air quality standard for ozone by an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline. EPA has proposed to tighten the national standard from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb, but has run up on strong industry opposition.
While most of the attention has been on EPA's Clean Power Plan and the ozone proposal, the agency's Office of Air and Radiation is planning to issue several other rules in the coming months, according to the new agenda.
The agenda says EPA will issue a final update to its 19-year-old standards for air pollutants stemming from landfills before the end of May. EPA proposed new requirements for landfills to put in place technology by 2023 to capture two-thirds of methane and toxic air pollutants (E&ENews PM, July 1, 2014).
Next month, EPA is under a court order to finalize new standards for refineries to stem toxic emissions. According to the agenda, the agency is aiming for a July release of the final rule. The proposal would require refineries to upgrade emission controls for storage tanks, set new requirements for coking units, and install monitoring and control valves for flares. The rule also would require refineries to monitor concentrations of benzene levels at their property lines (E&ENews PM, May 15, 2014).
Also in July, EPA is poised to finalize a rule that would ensure that air pollution reductions occur within an area that's deemed not in compliance with national ambient air quality standards. It responds to a 2009 court decision that found EPA illegally allowed states to meet air standards through emission reductions that occur outside the borders of nonattainment areas.
Later in the year, EPA plans to finalize its update to 30-year-old air pollution standards for newly constructed and modified grain elevators. In December, the agency also plans to propose revisions to state requirements for showing progress in reducing visibility-impairing air emissions, as well as propose requirements concerning the transport of ozone pollution across state lines.Interior
The Interior Department has a packed schedule of rulemakings addressing oil and gas development on federal lands and water, a competitive leasing program for wind and solar, and the protection of migratory birds and endangered species, among many others.
The Bureau of Land Management this summer is scheduled to issue a proposed rule to limit the venting and flaring of natural gas from wells on federal lands, a proposal that aims to limit the waste of publicly owned minerals that could also reduce emissions or methane, a potent greenhouse gas. BLM kicked off a series of public forums on the rule in March 2014 in Golden, Colo., and the rulemaking is being strongly pushed by conservationists and some Democrats (Greenwire, March 20, 2014).
BLM is also seeking public comment on a rulemaking that would make it easier for the agency to raise royalty rates for oil and gas and hike rental payments, lease sale minimum bids, civil penalty caps and financial assurances. However, the regulatory agenda did not list a prospective date for when BLM will issue a proposed rule (see related story).
BLM by next March is scheduled to issue a final rule governing royalties for oil shale developed on public lands in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. Oil shale development is currently in an experimental stage, but federal reserves in these three states are massive. If companies can find a way to economically produce it, royalty rates could mean a windfall to communities. The administration in March 2013 scrapped a George W. Bush administration royalty rule but did not say what kind of payment regime would replace it (Greenwire, March 22, 2013).
The department has also indicated that it plans by next summer to finalize a high-profile rule governing the reliability and maintenance of blowout preventers, the critical devices used as a last line of defense against an offshore oil spill. A proposed rule from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement was released in April (E&ENews PM, April 13).
A joint rule by BSEE and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to govern Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration is due to be finalized in January, the agenda notes.
Interior also plans to finalize a rule to establish a competitive leasing process for renewable energy projects that it said should spark commercial-scale project development inside more than a dozen solar energy zones across the West (E&ENews PM, Sept. 25, 2014). The rule was proposed last September and projected to be finalized in October 2015.
The department plans to advance a bevy of other regulations, including ones governing oil and gas rights underlying wildlife refuges and national parks and a permitting regime for energy projects that accidentally kill federally protected migratory birds (see related story).Water and agriculture
In addition to WOTUS, the agenda also bumps back another pending water regulation -- revisions to EPA's approach to water quality standards. The core of that program hasn't been updated in more than 30 years, and EPA's water office has been working on a new regulation since 2010. It was previously scheduled for release this month, but it's been bumped to June.
EPA says it's on track to finalize a regulation aimed at curbing toxic wastewater discharges from power plants in September, as required under a court settlement with environmental groups. The deadline for that rule had already been pushed back multiple times when greens agreed last April to one final, lengthy extension. But they also added language to the consent decree at that time to limit the agency's ability to seek future extensions (Greenwire, April 16, 2014).
The agency also pushed its plans to issue a proposed Safe Drinking Water Act rule back to October. Under that law, EPA must establish plans to monitor new contaminants every five years, with the idea of gathering the information necessary to decide whether they warrant regulation. EPA needs to finalize the next list of new contaminants to monitor by 2017. It had originally planned to put a proposed list out in June but has now bumped that back to the fall.
The Agriculture Department has postponed the completion date for two regulations to implement the conservation title of the 2014 farm bill.
Final rules for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) -- which provide landowners with technical and financial assistance to set aside land for environmental purposes -- were expected in July, according to the Fall Unified Agenda. The new agenda states the EQIP rule will come out in September and the ACEP rule in December.
The final rule for the Conservation Stewardship Program, another program to help farmers and ranchers implement conservation practices, is expected in July, consistent with the last Unified Agenda. No date has been set for a final rule for conservation compliance, which would require farmers to protect highly erodible lands and wetlands in order to be eligible for federal crop insurance premium subsidies.
Implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program, one of USDA's oldest conservation initiatives, will be finalized this month, according to the document.
The National Organic Program also set a July 2015 date for proposed rules to set standards for organic pet food and beekeeping products. The NOP will publish a proposal for organic standards for fish and seafood in August. The program proposed a rule last month that would level the playing field for producers in the organic milk industry (E&ENews PM, April 27).
USDA will publish a final rule for a voluntary labeling program for bio-based products in July, which will go into effect one month later. The department will also finalize guidelines for bio-based products for federal procurement for pulp, paper and other forest products in July. The rule will override a previous exclusion of these "mature market" products from federal contracts, a measure that was adopted in the last farm bill.Transportation
It took a little longer than expected, but the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) final rule to strengthen crude-by-rail safeguards came out this month and will take effect in early July. Among other features, the new regulations require tougher design standards for railroad tank cars; under OMB's last six-month regulatory agenda, the final rule -- developed in concert with the Federal Railroad Administration -- had been scheduled for release in March.
Also concerning crude-by-rail, PHMSA is pursuing regulations that could significantly lower the threshold at which railroads must file an oil spill response plan. A notice of proposed rulemaking is scheduled for release in August. PHMSA, which came under fire at a House hearing last month for its pace in implementing requirements of a 2011 law, is also pursuing 16 other rulemakings in such areas as gas transmission and pipeline operator qualifications.
Other branches of the Department of Transportation continue to work through rulemakings mandated by the 2012 highway and transit authorization law known as MAP-21, short for "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act."
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), for example, is set to launch a rulemaking in August to update national bridge inspection standards. More consequentially, it's also continuing to work on proposed performance measures that states will use in meeting national transportation goals laid out in MAP-21.
After releasing a draft proposal in January, FHWA extended the public comment period earlier this month. The new agenda does not give a date for release of a final rule. Together with the Federal Transit Administration, FHWA is also nearing completion of new regulations governing the metropolitan planning process that is key in setting local transportation project priorities. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published last June; the final rule is scheduled for release this September.Oil and gas
According to the rulemaking agenda, the Securities and Exchange Commission is aiming for an April 2016 release of a controversial proposed rule that would require publicly traded oil, gas and mining companies to report payments to governments.
The timeline follows what the SEC told the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in recent court documents in a lawsuit filed by Oxfam America over the long delay in issuing the rule (Greenwire, May 6).
When Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, it compelled the commission to write a rule requiring that extraction companies listed on U.S. exchanges report, on a project-by-project basis, payments to governments, including the U.S. government. The commission was supposed to issue the rule by April 2011.
A federal court struck down the agency's first attempt at the rule in 2013, and the SEC has continually pushed back its time frame for issuing the new proposal.
Anti-poverty groups like Oxfam say that the rule is critical for reducing corruption in resource-rich countries.Chemicals
EPA aims to propose a ban of two chemicals under a rarely used section of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
According to the agenda, EPA will move forward by January 2016 with a notice of proposed rulemaking under Section 6 of the law -- the one the agency used in its unsuccessful attempt to ban asbestos in 1991 -- to restrict the use of trichloroethylene, or TCE; N-Methylpyrrolidone, or NMP; and methylene chloride.
All three chemicals have been identified in agency risk assessments as posing health risks, including cancer and reproductive harm. Under TSCA's Section 6, EPA must establish that the three chemicals pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. EPA has restricted just five chemicals in this manner since TSCA became law in 1976.
Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, previously said voluntary agreements with manufacturers were the preferred route to phasing out the chemicals. However, the agency does not appear to have reached any such agreements.
"We continue to have discussions with manufacturers to voluntarily mitigate the risk but are simultaneously working on a section 6 proposed rule in the event that approach doesn't succeed," EPA said in a statement.
EPA now plans to finalize by June 2016 a rule requiring companies making nanoscale materials to provide EPA on a one-time basis certain information, including production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data, to allow the agency to learn more about the emerging technology, including whether any nanoscale materials pose health and safety risks. The agency issued a proposed rule to that effect earlier this year (Greenwire, March 25). The final rule is "likely to have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest," the agenda said.
The agency also expects to finalize its rule on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products by November, a delay from earlier estimates. The rule is required under the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, a 2010 law that directed EPA to adopt emissions standards in use by California regulators as the federal formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density fiberboard. The plan has faced heavy lobbying from the wood products industry, chemical industry groups and Republicans in Congress (Greenwire, May 4).
According to the agenda, EPA remains on track to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to update its risk management program by September, as it has previously stated. The update is a key part of an executive order President Obama issued in 2013 to increase safety at chemical facilities, though some groups have warned the agency is leaving little room for error if it experiences delays or if a future Congress or the next administration wants to interfere (Greenwire, March 19).
EPA has punted issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking extending its lead painting, renovation and repair requirements to public and commercial buildings, which has been opposed by business groups. Previously, the agency said it planned to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on the standards -- which are already applied to residential structures -- in July, but EPA has now decided to wait until August 2016 to take this step, the agenda said.
Lawmakers have repeatedly introduced bills to curtail the program, including one that was put forward this week by Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) (E&E Daily, May 19).
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission plans to vote on a final rule banning additional phthalates, a plasticizer that has been linked to health problems, in children's products and child care articles in September. The agency's proposal to tighten its restriction of the chemicals has prompted pushback from the chemical industry, which has disputed the agency's use of science to justify the restrictions (Greenwire, April 16).
The Department of Homeland Security now plans to finalize a rule regulating the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer by October. The agency previously said it would complete the rule last month. In 2007, Congress required the agency to implement the security program by the end of 2008, but the agency has repeatedly failed to complete the work. A proposed rule in 2011 said that the requirements would affect ammonium nitrate transactions where at least 25 pounds is exchanged. It would also affect mixtures of ammonium nitrate in which the chemical is present above specified quantities.
Ammonium nitrate -- the chemical that exploded at a West, Texas, storage facility in 2013, killing 15 people -- has been the subject of intense scrutiny by Congress and regulatory officials, though little has been finalized to change manufacturers' legal obligations when storing it.
Agency officials have said tracking ammonium nitrate sales more closely would make it harder for individuals to purchase the chemical, which has been used to make bombs in Afghanistan and other places. However, the changes will impose new costs on users of the chemical.Pesticides
EPA will also finalize the first update to farmworker protection standards in more than 20 years in August, three months later than the agency's set date in the fall agenda. EPA will also publish a separate rule to reduce the harm of pesticide exposure to applicators in July.
The Worker Protection Standards were first passed in 1992. The proposed changes include increasing safety training from once every five years to every year; expanding signage for no-entry zones for the most hazardous pesticides; and establishing the first-ever minimum age requirement for handling pesticides, 16 years old. EPA recently sent the rule to USDA for review (E&ENews PM, May 19).
The agency is seeking to make changes to the labeling of pesticides, with a final rule expected in February of next year -- nine months later than EPA's estimated date of May 2015 from the last Unified Agenda. The agency is under pressure to revise pesticide labels on two fronts: to reduce the incidence of herbicide-resistant weeds and to avoid killing honeybees and other pollinators.
Reporters Sam Pearson, Amanda Peterka, Manuel Quiñones, Sean Reilly, Annie Snider and Phil Taylor contributed.
-
N.Y. Officials Will Roll Back Oil-by-Rail Approval
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
New York officials are reconsidering support for a project that would bring oil sands crude through the Hudson River Valley, following a year and a half of intense public scrutiny and pressure from environmentalists.
The state's Department of Environmental Conservation said it would reverse a key permitting approval for oil firm Global Partners LP, which is seeking to process heavy Canadian crude at an existing terminal in the Port of Albany.
The DEC initially found no reason to block the company's plans, but said in a letteryesterday that circumstances had changed since Global announced the expansion back in 2013.
"Our review of Global's [air permit] application has focused on protecting the health of people living around the facility and the environment," DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said in a statement. "This community has voiced its concerns and raised some serious issues."
Global has 10 days to respond to the DEC, but the wording of the letter suggests the company will most likely need a lengthy environmental impact review before it can move forward with the project.
Global's executive vice president, Edward Faneuil, pointed out that the application "has not been denied but that the DEC has requested additional information in connection with the submission."
"Global is reviewing the notice and will respond in a timely manner," he said, adding that the company is "committed to fully complying with all applicable environmental, health and safety regulations."
Local advocacy organizations welcomed the DEC's announcement yesterday, which followed a monthslong effort to drive public attention to Global's obscure boiler facility.
By the time the comment period ended for the DEC's draft permit approval, the agency had received 19,000 comments.
Global's proposal was also among the first pieces of crude-by-rail infrastructure to come into environmentalists' crosshairs in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster that killed 47 people in July 2013.
The thick Canadian oil sands crude Global would process with its proposed facility is less volatile than the oil that ignited at Lac-Mégantic. However, heavy crude can be more difficult to clean up than lighter types of oil, particularly in water, where it sinks below the reach of booms and skimmers.
"If you look at the different angles from which this project causes problems -- climate change, risk of damage to an overburdened community, risk of damage to the Hudson River and others -- you know why so many people had such great concern about moving tar sands crude through the Port of Albany without an environmental impact statement," said Paul Gallay, president of the New York-based environmentalist group Riverkeeper.
"Hopefully [the DEC decision] will be a turning point that requires health, safety and environmental risk to get their rightful consideration relative to the desire to get petroleum out of the ground," Gallay said.
-
Shell Loses Appeal of Environmental Review for Wash. Crude-by-Rail Plan
May 22, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A Washington state judge has denied an appeal by Royal Dutch Shell PLC for a ruling that its proposed oil-by-rail project in the area is subject to a full environmental review.
Shell had appealed the ruling, which was issued earlier this year by the Skagit County, Wash., Office of Land Use Hearings. An examiner at the agency ruled in February that Shell's proposal to transport 70,000 barrels per day of crude oil to its Anacortes, Wash., refinery required the review.
A Skagit County Superior Court ruled against the oil company's appeal yesterday.
The county's decision was a reversal from 2014, when the county said the project did not qualify for the higher level of review.
Shell had argued that the environmental review should exclude railroad issues that are within the purview of federal regulators (Kristen Hays, Reuters, May 21). -- SP
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested